NZFF

I agree that it is a definate improvement over default FSX, but not what FSX has become to date. The verticle textures look good on the cliffs, Steep hills, it has coastline and good waterclass (no better and probably less variety than R.E.X though) The lighting difference on the planes maybe just the difference between DX9 and DX11 but the landclass tectures look no sharper than the 2meter sampled Linz Data we are already used to flying over and that does'nt say much for a new sim. Addon developers are already pushing FSX's max texture resolution in small area's and the "Flight" landclass does not even come close to that standard. It smells all to much like traditional microsoft flightsim code to me. For the detail in the pics released so far, am average quad core should run it ok but I bet it doesnt. I am not going to buy into it if I have to wait 5 years to have computor to run it. I think most will agree on that.

AndrewJamez wrote:

QUOTE (AndrewJamez @ Jan 18 2011, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that it is a definate improvement over default FSX, but not what FSX has become to date. The verticle textures look good on the cliffs, Steep hills, it has coastline and good waterclass (no better and probably less variety than R.E.X though) The lighting difference on the planes maybe just the difference between DX9 and DX11 but the landclass tectures look no sharper than the 2meter sampled Linz Data we are already used to flying over and that does'nt say much for a new sim. Addon developers are already pushing FSX's max texture resolution in small area's and the "Flight" landclass does not even come close to that standard. It smells all to much like traditional microsoft flightsim code to me. For the detail in the pics released so far, am average quad core should run it ok but I bet it doesnt. I am not going to buy into it if I have to wait 5 years to have computor to run it. I think most will agree on that.

I agree 100%...what I see is FSX with VLC vs. FSX without VLC...I'm more interested in features like a proper ATC/AI, a smooth weather engine and more realistic physics... Putting in another pile of eye-candies won't do it for me....

A handful of screenshots and the doomsayers are in full swing already !! I've been using MS flightsim on my own PC since version 5 in1997 and have owned every version since. Every single release including FSX has been a step forward and an improvement (except maybe FS2000). What I can't understand since the release of FSX four years ago, is why people have taken a more negative stance? Nothing has changed - you have always needede a top end computer to run FS in its full glory, something very few people can afford.

yeh i know but what everyone wants is for Microsoft to come back with a whole new sim engine that embraces modern multiple gpu's and processors, to break away completely from the status quo,not a revamped version of the previous. Microsoft dumped flight sim and now have come back with new people and i hope new ideas. I want to see somthing totaly new, not a blast from the past and so far they have said nothing reasuring to this effect.

AndrewJamez wrote:

QUOTE (AndrewJamez @ Jan 18 2011, 09:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeh i know but what everyone wants...

Not everyone. You'll find countless moans and grizzles on Avsim etc with people saying that they wouldn't buy this if it doesn't include full compatibility with their addons.

It wouldn't make any sense for MS to throw away everything that has been done before, as they no doubt have a huge investment in resources from the last 20 years. However I do think that they learnt a lot from FSX, so they won't make ALL the same mistakes:)

deaneb wrote:

QUOTE (deaneb @ Jan 18 2011, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing has changed - you have always needede a top end computer to run FS in its full glory, something very few people can afford.

Thats the problem with people and PC games now days.
Everyone is so up tight about good graphics. Where that is only a very small part of it in my opinion. Game play matters a hell of a lot more to me than looking good.
Sure it would be nice to be able to run FSX to some people can, but i cant. But that doesnt bother me at all, iv got a smooth running game, that i can enjoy.
I dont get the people that max out their computer so it looks outstanding, but get horrible frames. They throw game play out the window when they do that. Just for it to look good.


I think the best example of this is the game Minecraft. Looks something that should have come out 10 years ago, but its the game play itself that gets to me somehow, and i love it.
I hate it when people refuse to play it because it looks so bad. To be honest, i was a bit reluctant at first, the graphics where a tad off putting, but i got over it, and it turned out to be an awesome game.

deaneb wrote:

QUOTE (deaneb @ Jan 18 2011, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A handful of screenshots and the doomsayers are in full swing already !! I've been using MS flightsim on my own PC since version 5 in1997 and have owned every version since. Every single release including FSX has been a step forward and an improvement (except maybe FS2000). What I can't understand since the release of FSX four years ago, is why people have taken a more negative stance? Nothing has changed - you have always needede a top end computer to run FS in its full glory, something very few people can afford.

You have hit the nail on the head right there.
Not just FSX but a stack of games bought a lot of PC's to it's knees. Heck look at crysis released Nov 2007, 3 and half years later there still is not many machines that can run that at full spec without stuttering somewhere in the game.

I can see the same conversations we see now in 4 years time....... But it be like "OMFG Flight just sucks, My i5950 with GF 1098gtx+++ with 200gig of ram and 12 ssd drives can barely run it....... I have gone back to FSX at least I can get steady XX FPS"

FSX is still maturing, it is the god of sim's with all the talent we have out there. I dont think I will be in a hurry to throw away the thousands I have spent on addons in the near future.

toprob wrote:

QUOTE (toprob @ Jan 18 2011, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

However I do think that they learnt a lot from FSX, so they won't make ALL the same mistakes:)

This is Microsoft we are talking about here isn't it

"FSX is still maturing, it is the god of sim's with all the talent we have out there. I dont think I will be in a hurry to throw away the thousands I have spent on addons in the near future."

Im the same Rotordude.....i get by with my setup.....and for me, VLC has made my flying enjoyment better than ever (inside NZ) Im in no hurry to keep up with the joneses.....

deaneb wrote:

QUOTE (deaneb @ Jan 18 2011, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A handful of screenshots and the doomsayers are in full swing already !!

Me names Larry , Happy as Larry and when FSE comes out , i mean Flight , im in with a grin

I would say that when Microsoft said that FSX was going to be the end, and the Aces Studio team was relieved of their duties, about six months later Microsoft suddenly realised that they had made an awlful mistake. They have now had to make a u-turn, probably on the fact that the FS series has been one of their best sellers over 25 years, and has a bit of a cult following.

I see Flight coming out on PC and probably Xbox, but MS don't want to lose the add-on industry that has grown around the product.

I see MS Live being the medium of multi-playing, much like GameSpy was chosen for FSX.

ZK-DWF wrote:

QUOTE (ZK-DWF @ Jan 19 2011, 12:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

probably on the fact that the FS series has been one of their best sellers over 25 years, and has a bit of a cult following.

Too true - biggest selling MS game/sim title and they spend the least amount of advertising on it. Thats why I could never fathom after all that time, why they would want to drop it? Made absolutely no sense at all.