New 'flight' Screenshots

[toprob]

Like anyone who signed up to receive updates, I got the email announcing the new screenshots on the 'Flight' website, and like last time I'm a bit confused - I just don't see any new screenshots. Maybe this is just a Silverlight bug. Anyway, they'll eventually show up, they always do, but in the meantime, you are welcome to head over to the MS flight site for a look...

EDIT: Maybe my problem is a cache issue with my ISP -- if anyone else has trouble seeing the new images, let me know your ISP.

[Timmo]

They are there now- 4 new images...nothing groundbreaking in them...perhaps some refinement of the terrain shadowing?; there is widespread use of true 3D trees on the terrain which is good to see (i.e. goodbye/riddence to 2 plane autogen!)

There is one ground level shot of an airport but I'm unsure if it's a custom modelled one or made from a set of new library objects; no bump mapping apparent on the roof (?)....
I still think they need to tweak the stream lighting at larger distances- They suffer from the common mip-mapping issue and appear too thick in the distance; it also appears that the streams are lit from the shadowed side of the hill (Image 4)

Nice to see progress though

[toprob]

Cheers, Tim. I couldn't wait for them any longer, so I fired up my mobile broadband on the laptop and had a look at them courtesy of Telecom Mobile, rather than Telstra's obviously misbehaving cache...
The laptop isn't the greatest, so I'll reserve judgement until I can get them full-screen on my nice monitor, but my first impression was a bit disappointing.

[toprob]

Ok, while I was trying to organise the logistics of plugging the laptop into my monitor, the images showed up on my PC.
Second impression:
Image 1 -- I think that this one set the tone for my initial disappointment, it looks to me like a badly colourised set of textures. Orbx have shown that textures can be a lot better, so MS can't just ignore that. I've never seen that particular green in the landscape...
Image 2 -- that's more like it, as this is a good idea of what to expect from default clouds/weather/atmospherics. I'd be really happy to fly around in that. However the overall theme of these images is somewhat gloomy and barren, which is not the way I perceive New Zealand -- ok, at the moment there's a bit of storm happening over the harbour here, but I'd like to see how Flight reproduces a nice day!
Image 3 -- default library objects with much better textures, cool. Ground textures close-up no better than FS2004 so far, but I'm confident that these will improve a lot during development.
Image 4 -- no comment at the moment.

[morrisman1]

Image one -- If thats a Cumulonimbus there then I'm mildly impressed. I think it makes a good job of looking like a stormy day. I can see they have done a bit of work on making lighting realistic. Lighting is one of the most important details in any computer generated image/video/game so good to see some progress

Image two -- They are probably just showing some of their best scenery but the mesh looks pretty good to me, for a default mesh that covers the entire world! We cant realistically expect VLC quality scenery worldwide out of the box. Once again the clouds and lighting are vastly improved on FSX, and thats what we should be comparing to instead of REX or any other add-on because that would be like expecting the Flight 747 to be better than the PMDG one.

Image three -- They are definitely showing their best here. I don't believe for a second that all airports will have this level of detail in them, It would need to be researched and created on an individual basis which is beyond what MS manpower will be capable of. If its just autogen scenery which is appropriately placed then its an improvement definitely but if that image shows the tower exactly as it is at the real airport wherever that is then don't expect that detail worldwide. Textures are better, can see cracks in the road etc and you can see shadows on the buildings which is another good sign that lighting is to be much improved.

Image four -- Not much to say about this but the ground lighting for the town looks a bit more real than in FSX.


I cant help but get the feeling they are putting a lot of work into this promotion island (where is it actually??) and that the final product will only look this detailed in no more than 5% of the world. I like the lighting improvements definitely, hopefully what they have done with that will allow more realistic cockpit lighting too (please allow dim-able lighting!!!)

Any guesses on release? I think in about a year at the earliest.

[ZK-MAT]

I haven't seen any - it says you need to install Silverlight or something. I really don't want more bloatware, what is Silverlight?

[toprob]

QUOTE (ZK-MAT @ Jan 29 2011, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what is Silverlight?

The ideal question to ask Google.

(I think you probably want the fourth result returned, what is Silverlight, really?)

[SeanTK]

Looks interesting!

That's definitely the control tower on Ford Island in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii!

Also, that final image (night with runway lights) looks like it's taken at Lihue airport on the island of Kauai, Hawaii.

[creator2003]

Cliffs are the only change ive seen and the trees of course which from 1000ft still probably look the same ,windows live and having to pay for MP is one hell of a bad move its hard enough to get MP now with people you know let alone paying again and again for it ,the whole concept of flight doesnt look anything different to what we have now ,the planes well how about some new ones instead of FSX port overs ,

Well if you are happy with what you get for your money with recycled FSX objects with Flight you wont mind paying again for my ported over scenerys will ya ? oh hold on ill have to by a license to make addons for you is something ive heard could happen ..ill be out im not getting sux in to the Crap_

[toprob]

QUOTE

and having to pay for MP is one hell of a bad move its hard enough to get MP now with people you know let alone paying again and again for it[/quote]

They confirmed that users will have to pay for multiplayer service? Ouch.....

I do wish that things looked a little better than they did now, but there is still a noticable improvement in the terrain.

Last edited by SeanTK on Sat Jan 29, 2011 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[AndrewJamez]

I say all the developers should get together and boycot any scenery development now in the hope that big bully MS will see some light and talk to the community like Aerosoft was doing. No addons = no revenue. All they should ask for is a small royalty from every addon sold and they would make millions and not stiffle the addon industry. As for user pays multiplayer, depends on how much and how good it is but my feeling is that most people wont bother if it was over a few bucks a month.

Does all the fancy lighhting mean they are using a GPU to render?

[creator2003]

Its windows live ,it always costs for membership which is the reason id never by a Xbox ,ive been a busy MPlayer for about near 10years, im not going to pay after ive just spent 110$ for a game ,what are the big online flyers going to pay 15 times the value of there game to fly online ?
The game /sim FSX seems to be dieing to me again less people around and many older simmers just moving on in life ,we will see what happens with this big flight game ,even the name sounds cr@p "Flight" flight what ? lol oh my

[toprob]

QUOTE (AndrewJamez @ Jan 29 2011, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I say all the developers should get together and boycot any scenery development now in the hope that big bully MS will see some light and talk to the community like Aerosoft was doing. No addons = no revenue. All they should ask for is a small royalty from every addon sold and they would make millions and not stiffle the addon industry. As for user pays multiplayer, depends on how much and how good it is but my feeling is that most people wont bother if it was over a few bucks a month.

Does all the fancy lighhting mean they are using a GPU to render?

Just a couple of reasons why that wouldn't work. First, MS have always maintained that those of us who download/buy addons are a tiny minority, and not their main customer base. Secondly MS did ask the community what they wanted in a new sim. I guess a few here took part in that project, including me. I would hope that this information forms at least part of their development plans.

As a long-time fan of Xbox Live, I tend to be a bit less concerned about Windows Live. I pay for Xbox Live, and I get a lot of value for the equivalend of $1.50 per week, but at the moment there is nothing to suggest what online access to Flight will cost -- if anything. I have my own ideas about how we could all benefit from a similar system to Xbox Live, but I'm waiting for some real information to emerge.

There are a lot of ideas flying around about how the Flight marketplace might work, but absolutely no real information to go by yet. The same goes for the fancy lighting, unfortunately -- no real info to quieten down some of the more fanciful rumours.

[Ian Warren]

Its all speculation , the amount off times thing said and promised with FSX , then FSE , the levels and the patch,s and service packs , ..... give it 18 months and we wil see they have got and if its earlier , be sure i would be the first to have it test flown and check what the rave is all about .

[connor]

Quite frankly, the way Microsoft Flight (as creator2003 said "Flight what." Flight of the Pheonix maybe, perhaps Flight of the Conchords! ) seems to be panning out, it makes FSX look like the cleanest, best written, cost efficient Flight sim to date! . I really hope Microsoft listen to forums like these across the world, because that is where there money is, and if we aren't happy, we won't give them our money, simple as that!

[creator2003]

We will see i guess ,i hate the waiting time for new things and love having a little moan about the what ifs etc ,im sure they will come up with something good for the times ,i mean it a little way off isnt it so who knows what the peoples demands will be then ,mine mite be Flight what or whatever flight lol im sure ill still be giving them some more money just to see how good or bad it is ..
sucker

[AndrewJamez]

Me too probably, i just hope there is a little bit of competition around when the time comes.

[markll]

QUOTE (creator2003 @ Jan 29 2011, 07:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its windows live ,it always costs for membership which is the reason id never by a Xbox

Actually it's GAMES FOR WINDOWS LIVE, not WINDOWS LIVE or XBOX LIVE. And no, you don't have to pay to use it. Whatever on earth made you think that you do?

[toprob]

QUOTE

Whatever on earth made you think that you do?[/quote]Other postings around this forum and elsewhere , Games for windows live kinda sounds the same as "window live" how could me and so many others get it so wrong without being corrected until now , thank you for correcting me ..

Last edited by creator2003 on Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[toprob]

QUOTE (markll @ Feb 2 2011, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it's GAMES FOR WINDOWS LIVE, not WINDOWS LIVE or XBOX LIVE. And no, you don't have to pay to use it. Whatever on earth made you think that you do?

Windows Live is a pretty generic name for Microsoft's push towards cloud computing -- I use Windows Live for email and video processing, for example, and through it I access Games for Windows Live. So many of us consider Games to be a part of Windows Live.

And some people do think that ultimately Live will be a multi-tiered service, with the top tier being a paid subscription. So it isn't that far-fetched.