Microsoft Flight has had a handful of new screenshots up at their Flight webpage. Im happy to post that there are 4 brand new screenshots that are gorgeous and make me believe that this sim may possibly be something worth flying considering eye candy alone.
http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/
Some observations:
The autogen looks much better and seems like its scale may be improved. Maybe it's just sharper/higher res. Not sure.
The autogen foliage is much more widely destributed, meaning that I can now see autogen trees as far as the screenshot spreads to the horizon. Yes, finally we seem to be getting rid of the localized autogen trees just in the area we're flying in.
The sky/atmosphere appears to be much more realistic in tone and ambience.
The ground textures are high res and the color is finally something to be proud of. I HATE FSX's color pallette. Let's hope that the cartoon look of FSX is replaced with more subdued colors like that of the screenshots shown or, why not just hire Orbx ? :-) They know how to nail the colors just right!
Hmmm, doesnt look that much different to me. And the trees still look dreadful. Your right, Orbx is doing it right!
Scott
Well I can't tell much difference either however reading the latest spiel I'm feeling a bit more confident that "MS Flight" will continue the FS experience as we know it but with updated hardware capabilities. We may yet get the FSX we all hoped for??? Hopefully similar to the Vista to Win7 leap?
Ken.
Seriously, you guys dont see the improvements that I listed? I think that may be because you could possibly be so used to flying a pig dressed up for prom-aka, FSX all dressed up with GEX, REX, Orbx, etc. and forgot how dreadful FSX looks out of the box.
Why do I hate FSX? Let's see. The colors are horrible. The autogen having no alpha fade and popping into view visibly as I approach an airport's runway. Autogen trees way too big and horribly placed. A visible area of autogen out a few miles from my current position (again, autogen popping into view). Lack of proper engine start logic that ignors hardware input logic. Oh yeah, performance for anything less than an i7.....on and on and the horse begs for me to lay the whip down as he's tired of being beaten.
From what I see in the latest screenshots, Flight will be a very nice improvment over FSX. If you havent seen it, take a look at the "Flight Vs. FSX" comparison thread over at Avsim. There's also a video on Youtube. It will illustrate some of the changes that have been made as an Avsim member took the time to find the screen shot locations and then recreate the same scenes in FSX, to compare to Flight. No contest here, Flight takes the cake (for me).
I don't mind the colour pallete... mind you I'm partially colour blind heh.
What needs to be done is fix this texture pop-in... I hate having a nice clear approach and the someone flicks a switch and I'm in fog that comes out of nowhere. Why they can't fade it in I have no clue.
Oh and I'm sorry Eric but there is no cake... The cake is a lie! ;)
Any idea what the expected ETA of Flight will be?
Matt
Flight? Or the second or third patch that will make it useful? :)
Remember, at Microsoft Quality is Job 1.4
The later the better ..we have enough on our plate now and I am not eager to start back to square two or three to run the never ending rat race.
My humble opinion as a Flyer first, builder second.
Sorry I'm grumpy...Big Snow storm outside! :P
Doubt it will be released tbh... Remember the world ends in 2012 according to the Mayans. Then again it might mean that we screw up the Olympics in the UK that year heh.
But it's right that Microshaft release stuff way before it is ready most of the time... We are just beta testers that have to pay for the privilege. Windows 98 anyone? W98 Second Edition worked OK. Vista anyone? Windows 7 (Vista Second Edition) works fine.
Problem with MS is if a project is running late they throw more programmers at it... Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Finally got a chance to find the YT video comparing FSX with Flight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0z5ISTyew
That definitely puts a better perspective on it Eric. Thank you for posting this.
Scott
Yeah, thanks Scott. One thing that I thought was interesting is that over at the Avsim forum, someone familiar with the area that the Maule is flying in (one of the last shots with it over the coast in a gentle right bank), made the comment that the new Flight screen shot shows much more what it's really like. The comparison? The fact that the FSX shot shows a town there, but in reality its pretty sparse. I think it's in the same thread that this video was posted in. FSX vs. Flight, at Avsim.com.
Now, since there's some folks that in all fairness dont believe it will be much better than FSX, I say that we should all try to support this project. There's no one forcing us to switch from FSX to this new sim. Heck, I use FS9/2004 to this day and all but hate FSX for so many reasons. However, I have been around the block a time or two on FS releases for a period of over 12 years now and it always seems that, as others have pointed out, every other release is much better than the one before it. Meaning, FS98 was a Gold-Standard sim for its time. Then 2000 was crap, much like FSX as it introduced tons of new things but it just didnt work well. Pig in a dress so to speak. Then FS2002 came out and it improved on the FS2000 and was easier to run. FS9- well to me it is the current gold standard for add-ons and performance although some are now getting great performance. However, the bugs are still there. I believe that Flight will be a massive improvement over FSX. Besides, the fact that Flight is coming has put pressure on XPlane and hopefully Aerosoft will push forward with their sim too, although to be honest I lost interest after not seeing any progress at all at their forum over the last year. This could be a simmer's fantasy come true guys. Think about FS98 and the transition to FS2000. At the same time we had Looking Glass Studio's Flight Unlimited and FI 2, as well as Fly! and although they both eventually went away, it was great to have different sims to push the devs into better products. Did you guys know that Fly! was the platform that PMDG started on? Think about if it had never come along, we may not have those great MSFS PMDG products.
In the end, Im just saying let's do what we can to support Flight. If it is horrible, then keep using what you have now.
Hey Eric,my old friend,im sorry but im going to have to disagree with you on some of this subject,fsx does not really have any problems,but you have to have the machine to run it, atleast a jacked up i7 920, or an i7 965 extreme such as im using,and some good ram,and it will fly beautifully. but you also have to find all the right settings to make it work, but in my opinion,there is no comparsion between fs9 and fsx, fsx is truly the better program,and offers much more then fs9, for instance water that looks real,curvature of the earth at altitude and many other things. im no software designer by any means,but i would have to assume that the more things you incorporate in to a program the more computer resources its going to take to run that program. but im with you on the new ms flight i hope it truly is even better than fsx and maybe they can find a way to make it run without over taxing the computer, who knows i guess we will wait and see.
take care for now,Tom
Hey Tom
No, I agree that over-all FSX brings much more to the table- absolutely. But it's the things that it does WRONG that make me hate it (almost, not quite). Just for clarification, my list of things that make FSX unpalletable are:
1) The Engine Start Logic is hosed when using hardware to start the LJ45 correctly. No problem doing this in FS9
2) The color pallete is way wrong for my part of the country, in fact, all of the South East USA. We DONT have yellow and orange trees, grass, and fields here. Anywhere :-)
3) The alpha fade (or lack of) for Autogen. It drives me crazy to be approaching a runway for landing and see stuff contstanly popping into view between me and a few miles out, with no autogen past that area. The circle effect is what I call it.
4) The way the aircraft slides on the pavement when landing (sideways). For some reason, this doesnt happen in FS9.
But again, I agree that when ran on a great system (which by the way, the MOST impressive FSX rig Ive seen is John Venema's of Orbx).
Bring on Flight! and fix these issues. I really think they have- if the rest of the world has the same nice overhalls as what's being shown in Hawaii (just watch the FSX vs. Flight comparison video above) then I think we finally have a sim that's come of age and I will gladly pay to upgrade for it :-)
Quote from: ETomlin on February 04, 2011, 06:44:49 AM
2) We DONT have yellow and orange trees, grass, and fields here. Anywhere :-)
Florida has Orange trees.....
.....oh wait, you were talking color not flavor :)
Hey Eric, you are no doubt,right about the stock scenery and the auto gen that come with fsx it really does suck no matter how hard you try to make it look good, the auto gen has been the most annoying thing when flying over it. im using the utx and also some photo scenery in certain places it all looks better then what you get stock, but im waiting for the day when one of these super smart guys in the scenery field,can come up with some type of 3D scenery,that looks good all the way to the ground, who knows maybe some day.
talk to ya later,Tom
Texture pop-in has to be the worst thing I have seen in FSX... It's soooooo offputting to say the least... I had that fog thing happen again tonight (where I come into land and it is all clear and then WHAM!... everything is whited out).
Have to say that Flight scenery looks the business in the video. That bit with the plane over the flood plain looks so darned sweet.
One thing though... are they using FSX code as a base or is this coded from scratch?
Thats the big discsussion over at avsim right now but no one knows for sure. All I know is, if they can do too fsx as they did to Vista then this should be a very nice sim. Personally I think they are using enhancements based on the ESP engine and as long as we dont have to spend a fortune on hardware to run it, I believe I will finally make the leap from fs9 because like Eric I like what Im seeing so far.
Here's the way to avoid those pesky autogen popups. :laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/user/EmesiS?feature=mhum (http://www.youtube.com/user/EmesiS?feature=mhum)
Practice your ILS approaches :)
Hehe.. I sacked one of the AI ATC peeps yesterday. Nearly put me into a mid-air incident as a Cessna flew right across the front of my ATR 72.
I think the ATC guy needs to practice his ILS approaches as well... either that or the Cessna pilot does. Considering it was IFR rules he shouldn't have been around anyway.
Well while we're all anguishing over whether MS Flight is going to do the business or not lets keep a close eye on Lockheed's Prepar3d (http://www.prepar3d.com/). Really this has more potential to fulfill the expert simmers environment than MS. Already has multi-channel support out of the box along with continued engineering upgrades. I'll still keep a close eye on Flight but Prepar3d is already supported and already here.
Ken.
Quote from: Kennair on February 06, 2011, 01:21:56 AM
Well while we're all anguishing over whether MS Flight is going to do the business or not lets keep a close eye on Lockheed's Prepar3d (http://www.prepar3d.com/). Really this has more potential to fulfill the expert simmers environment than MS. Already has multi-channel support out of the box along with continued engineering upgrades. I'll still keep a close eye on Flight but Prepar3d is already supported and already here.
Ken.
Links? Price?
Isn't that the product Lockheed bought from Microsoft (the industrial version of MSFS)? Don't think the LMT product is a retail product Bob.......
Bob,
The link is in his post.
http://www.prepar3d.com/ (http://www.prepar3d.com/)
As Emesis mentioned the link is in my post (the word "prepar3d" is the link). Yes it is a re-engineered ESP which was the commercial version of FSX however it is available as a full retail product to any and all users. The price however is aimed at commercial users at $499 USD, however given the cost of other high end sim software like PM and Sim-A this is minuscule.
Let me just clarify that I have no affiliations with Lockheed-Martin or Prepar3d, just an interested sim user constantly on the lookout for better products.
Ken.
Prepar3d looks to be what Total Air War was to F22 ADF. Basically it's FSX expanded to model not just aircraft but the whole world of simming possibilities like ground craft and subs.
Hi Ken, Do you have this program? From a fight simmers standpoint what would be the benefits of having it. it seems as though they have expanded it to be able to use ground vehicles subs ships things like that,but ofcourse none of that has any value for me. for 500 dollars i would hope to get a completely new sim with mind blowing scenery,and other things useful to a simmer,it looks like the scenery is the same as stock fsx, anyway dont know much about the program did watch the video but doesnt seem alot different from fsx as it is now, any more info on this would be appreciated.
Best regards,Tom
Hi Tom, I'm about to get hold of it and do some flight testing specifically looking at the benefits to cockpit builders. Watch this space :)
Yes it is expensive compared to FSX but for the extra price I would be expecting and demanding much more from the developers to satisfy the end users. I also don't think LM would be throwing their weight behind a product that wasn't going to perform for them far less their customer.
Ken.
I would hope the program would allow you to extract the same data you can with FSX. Without that we would need another version of FSUIPC.
Hey Ken,Yes keep everyone posted on your findings i would be real interested to see what they have done to this program,im like you i dont mind spending the money,but there would really have to be some amazing changes made,in order for me to buy it, and John your right also about having the same compatibility as FSX.
take care,Tom
Same here!!
From what I read (http://www.prepar3d.com/) LM has done some nice re-work or additions to this platform. They make no effort to fool potential customers into thinking it's something that it's not. It's MS ESP (which Ive read was quite a bit better than FSX) with quite a bit of re-work BUT is compatible with FSX. I think that Simconnect is the interface they point to for interoperability. One thing to note is that it has been reworked to provide for multiple channels, i.e., easier to setup a multichannel visual system, or at least that's how I interpret that. Bottom line, what does it offer us that we dont have in FSX? Not sure- possibly the fact that it can be used commercially in a legal manner?
Hi Eric, I think we've strayed a little from the specifics of your original topic however this is highly relevant I believe.
I think the big drawcard for me, assuming the same if not better performance than FSX, is that it is highly supported by a respectable, real flight developer, not just a game developer. For me that's a big eye opener. If they use and sell it to military professionals then its going to have to come up to par. The backward compatibility with FSX addons is also a must and thankfully highly supported by LM. Pete Dowson is also active on their forum so I believe FSUIPC is also compatible (another must for our hobby).
Let me clarify on the private/commercial legality of both FSX & Prepar3d. Both are completely legal at no extra cost to use for commercial purposes.
Cheers,
Ken.
One thing about FSX is that it doesn't save details from complex aircraft. If Prepar3d saves all the variables it would be a big improvement imho. Add into it the ability to link ALL the control and annunciator variables to external hardware and take into account all those variables when saving a flight then that would make Prepar3d a much better simulator than FSX imho, even if the visuals are the same as a basic FSX.
That is why commercial flight simulators don't have as good eye candy as MS FSX... they are more interested with flying the plane than going "Ooooh, look at that awesome view!". ;)
So does Prepar3d do those things?
Ken, I agree- it's definately a related item, (Prepar3d) even if only slightly. What I want to point out is exactly what Neo just stated- the pro level sims are not all that interested in Eye candy like we are. Remember, the big sims are creating a training environment, however MOST sim builders take on the project almost as if it were an aircraft. In other words, they want the sim to be an airplane that when used, looks just like the real world. It is the real world to some simmers, and this is why there are thousands of add-ons and some that create passenger loads w/ realistic scenarios and virtual airlines, etc. The point is to make it a realistic simulation almost more of the flying life vs. just a realistic flying aircraft simulator.
So, with that said, I think that what folks often miss (and I am more than guilty of this) is that what we have for a simulator visual engine is nearly insane compared to the majority of visual engines used in real world training devices. Only recently have they started getting the detail even close to where we are now but then introduce Orbx or that Italy project, or UK2000 stuff, etc. It's crazy. We whine and moan about stupid bridges being misplaced and all that stuff (and yes, it does matter- to a point) and yet we have an incredible simulation of the world at our fingertips. It's amazing what taking a week or two off of flying my Learjet 45 sim does for my appreciation of it. Some of you may know that I have started a small business making LJ45 panels, and that takes tons of time each week. When I hit a lull in work, It's often 2 weeks since Ive flown my sim and I tell ya, it's then that I really love my single projector vis system running at 1024x768. Crazy huh? I bet if I flew it all the time like I used to, I'd be back to longing for the wrap around or tripple HDTV setup. Just take a break from your sim, and then to make it even better, invite someone that's never seen it over to fly one day and it will bring you back to that place where you were years ago and you will think to yourself, "Wow...this is simply amazing....and I have this here at home!?! Incredible". At least it works for me :-)
But back on topic, I really like that Lockheed Martin took it on because TO ME it says, "Hey, this is a product/project worth investing in" because as their website touts, this (ESP) is a platform that has been under development for 25 years. They are capitalizing on that investment and research and thank the Lord, someone in the big-league has finally acknowledged that the MSFS series really has some incredible worth to it. Oh, the days that my instructor poo-pooed MSFS as a toy compared to the sim he was using in class. MSFS was years beyond that platform and he would never listen to the facts that MSFS could do all what his PCATD did...ugghh...the frustration goes on. My point: MS is a company that is a business to make money. That's how the world goes round, not to give money away. So yes, they will likely do what they need to do to make a good return on their investment. However, folks eventually quit buying crap and for my money, MSFS is not crap. Do I like FSX? Not really. Do I think Flight will be better? Absolutely. In the end, will it affect my personal sim? No- FS9 is wonderful for me and hardware enables everyone with the right about of money on hand to run FSX fairly well now a days, as proven by the videos made by John Venema of Orbx. It CAN be done, but it's taken years and lots of money, tips, tricks,and tweaks to make it happen.
Hopefully one day Xplane and maybe even the Aerosoft sim will be something that is a real contender, but right now one of those has been neglected by the 3rd party devs and the other one is not available in any format yet that I know of, so to be sure my bottom line is, it's better to support MS Flight than not.
Right on the dot Eric.
Whatever the version, for most of us the surface is just being scratched.
I use FS9 and have a decent Sim but I do not think that one day I will have exhausted all of its possiblities. It is endless. and if it has (like FSX and others) some limitations I can, with everyone else help, find some ways to make things happen outside of the main FS program.
There is always a way to get any component work as it should even if FS does not model it.
Takes time and ingenuity but it can be done. And it is a pleasant challenge.
And this brings me to one conclusion;
Instead of chasing the rainbow end constantly adapting and reinventing with each version, it may be more productive to concentrate on one, and know it inside out, to be able to get the best out of it.
We also tend to rely solely on softwares to makes things happen, and overload our computers with utilities, forgetting that with some wire, a few diodes , double decker rotaries or switches, relays or transistors, incredible things can be done. Just check Ian's site !!
Great hobby, great Crew onboard..
That's the thing about FSX that really confuses me... you have to run a program to trigger off the Master Caution light... if you could just take an FSUIPC offset instead it would take up less computing power... add in all the other bits and bobs of the "complex" aircraft and yes, it shows that at heart MSFS IS a game... it is only when you bolt on the extra software that it stops being a game and becomes a true flight simulator.
Coming back to the Master Caution light, it's the one thing that shows that the designers didn't really take cockpit makers seriously. If there is one thing that is common amongst nearly all aircraft is the "OMGSOMETHINGHASGONEWRONG" indicator... yet there isn't even a dedicated variable for FSUIPC to grab hold of and as FSUIPC has been running for MANY years before FSX came out that is obvious that they didn't care... they just wanted to add new shiny stuff.
Perhaps a new team will bring new ideas and support a real breadth of flying fans, from casual gamer to hardcore cockpit builders.
Well, for me Eric, the eye candy is a huge part of why I enjoy flying, even in a sim. When I was operational with FSX and one projector a couple of years ago, I marvelled at the beauty of the cloud formations. I did that too earlier with FS9 and a 19" monitor. Of course I have many add-ons but for me, the actual flying part and the procedures are only maybe 50% of the reason why I am rebuilding my sim.
Since I can never be up there in the front seat, I get some vicarious joy from being up there in a sim and getting but a glimpse of what airline pilots see every day. That's why I will forever be looking for the perfect visuals. A losing battle maybe, but if I can do it, why not?
Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with FS9 & add-ons and if you are happy with that, more power to you. Or even if you don't care about visuals at all and just like the procedures, that is great too. The beauty of this hobby is that you can tailor it to whatever your interests are.
Maurice
I have to agree with you all, but a word of caution to the wise. I played with ESP a couple of years ago so this is my [only my] opinion of the concept. Firstly let me extol the virtues of M$FS. Develop a basic platform which all users can develop and expand on - for "free". The product becomes more attractive because all of us, you included, can expand the base platform. The tools to do this [The SDKs] are included for us all to play with as we wish and all was fine until FSX, which I hate with a passion but I am stuck with it, so as mentioned above, it is "work around" time. This brings this site into its own league, a fountain of knowledge and I can but thank you all. If ESP is used for FLIGHT then be careful chaps. ESP requires you to buy a commercial developers licence and I see on the LM site that they are proposing a monthly fee. ESP is/are the SDKs for the platform in question so if you want to tweak gauges/panels/scenery etc, you will have to pay for the privilege and a lot of people will then "sell on" their product [quite legally]. I will be looking at FLIGHT very closely to see what I can play with for free, before buying it, because this hobby could get much more expensive than it already is. But we are in a commercial world and the companies need to make a profit..............My opinions only, probably a little outdated, so please digest with a beer and some pretzels. Charlie.
Quote from: maurice on February 10, 2011, 07:08:58 AM
Well, for me Eric, the eye candy is a huge part of why I enjoy flying, even in a sim... The beauty of this hobby is that you can tailor it to whatever your interests are.
Maurice
Absolutely- and I AM one of those that will treat the sim as an "airplane" instead of just a "sim" about 80-90% of the time and I too want the very best visuals I can afford. My point was essentially that we have an incredible product, regardless of all the faults, and sometimes I think we tend to focus so much on the faults that we forget what it is that we really have. That's all. And consider, this is coming from a guy who is on the fence about FSX :-)
Having lived for Eons with a 19"display I am now totally thrilled by my 4X8' image with one only proj, like Eric, all new experience , for me, and 100% enjoyable.
Just to say that we all are all eyecandy oriented to some degree.
My local Flightshool still uses a generic Twin simulator with no visual. None.
Just take off straight ahead , the fun begins when the wheels lift off and ends when they touch ground.
Pure IFR.
Yep, we have a very nice toy with FS!