Simviation Forum - Print Page

I am one of those simmers that waited for a long time for FS-11, then we were presented with Microsoft Flight. I wasn't forced to buy the Hawaii package and one aircraft but did so to compare it with my current version of FSX. My investment was $32 as compared to buying a FSX Gold Edition for $23.99 from amazon.com. FSX, covering the whole world, was released in 2006 and, every few months over six years, improvements were added to it by third party developers. What I have today in FSX, I believe, is far superior to Microsoft Flight or anything the current Microsoft Development Team would have produced as FS-11.

Every few months, I uninstall FSX plus all complimentary software and start again from an original Default FSX install - the way it was when released six years ago. Today I completely removed then reinstalled FSX. I followed this by capturing the following three pure default FSX screens before installing any Add-ons.

This first screen is a twin Beach making a left turn over Diamond Head in Honolulu. This was taken with my Autogen turned off using only the photo-real content within FSX.

This second screen is a view over Honolulu at dusk.

This third screen is over the coastline of RIO. You can see the waves breaking onto the shore.

Now envision how these screens will look after reinstalling my complimentary Add-ons collected over the past six years.

Again, you be the judge how the above three FSX Default Screens compare to Microsoft Flight. My personal opinion is that the default water, clouds, and scenery all are more realistic than what Microsoft Flight offers. The one screen at dusk show two aircraft taxiing at the distant Honolulu International airport and two other aircraft in the air. Cars are moving on the ground and seagulls are freely flying along the coast. Its hard for me to believe that the Microsoft Flight Honolulu International Airport was sculptured perfectly then left bare without aircraft, vehicles, or any kind of movement.

"Now envision how these screens will look after reinstalling my complimentary Add-ons collected over the past six years?"

Here are three screens taken after adding a few add-ons, REX, UTX, and GEX (no Mega Scenery).

For me, the Cumu clouds and tropical water are fabulous.

This is Honolulu International Airport come to life. There are nine aircraft parked at their gates, and three other aircraft to the right of me taxiing for takeoff (I'm flying the plane).

Climbing out over the Hawaiian mountains with realistic terrain, sky, and water can't get much better than this.

And in response to "Is it just me" Post .........NO. I don't know what the Microsoft's marketing intentions were but in a world of being politically correct, they goofed with this one.

Awesome, just awesome!

I think we all will enjoy FSX more and more, and that´s maybe the best MS Flight will do, remind us all what we have already!

Great shots.. 8-)

Flight is designed for people who think FSX is too hard-core & difficult.

MS bargained on the fact that people who have Flight would prefer an easy to use game with ok graphics rather than a sim with great graphics that is very realistic.

The only thing Flight has to offer that FSX doesn't... Is crashes. ::) ;D

andy190 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Flight is designed for people who think FSX is too hard-core & difficult.

Well said. Exactly the same for car games vs sims. I play the car 'games' as I'm not hard core enough for the car simulators :D

andy190 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Look at it this way, Microsoft is still printing and selling FSX while putting on the market a flight game aimed at those who, as you put it, prefer a package that is easier to manage and probably friendlier with older PCs. The end result is that most hard core Flight Simmers, like myself, will buy at least one package out of curiosity while a gate is opened to a whole new breed of customers. When one makes a comparison between the two and depending on a person's taste, the probable result will be buying FSX or MF, both being sold by Microsoft. How can they lose? What Microsoft did was to add an alternative product to FSX. Lets face it, what more could they have added to FSX in a FS-11 version that has not already been added by Third Party Software Developers?

Flight Ace wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

andy190 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

This could also be a marketing strategy.
They release a flight game,some of the newcomers might be interested in a more realistic sim or can't afford the packages,( ::))so,they look for an alternative:FSX,wich MS is still publishing.
So this would make us all happy,possibly more simmers on our side,MS gets their money even if the customers step up from flight.

"Lets face it, what more could they have added to FSX in a FS-11 version that has not already been added by Third Party Software Developers?"

They could have fixed the terrible autogen and cloud popping + a load of other problems!

I think the suits pushed the product before it was actually completed..

Anyway, this is history now, enjoy what we have.

:)

Thai09 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:38pm:

Thai,

I believe you misunderstood what I meant by that statement.

I meant that FSX including the sum total of all improvements by Microsoft plus external sources is what I envisioned a FS11 to represent. And with the availability of GTX, UTX, REX, Mega Scenry, aircraft, vehicles, cities, airports, animals, birds - on and on, what is left to be added?

What makes the Microsoft Flight Simulator(FSX being the tenth release) so robust and realistic is that it has always been open to you, Me, or any entrepreneur anywhere in the world to add content. Because of this, over the years, successful worldwide software development businesses have emerged for the sole purpose of improving the product. Added to this are the many other individual contributers. This openness is missing with Microsoft Flight.

I don't know what you mean by your statement "terrible autogen and cloud popping + a load of other problems!". I have no problems with FSX or MF.

Now on another note, I have included my last add-on (Mega Scenry Earth) to Hawaai. Here are three screens that speak for themselves - the difference between Microsof Flight and FSX.

Microsft Flight

FSX - This is how it really looks.

FSX - The lower cloud covers partially Diamond Head.

Simviation Forum
/yabb Current Flight Simulator Series >> MS Flight >> Pure Default Comparison /yabb?num=1333208281 Message started by Flight Ace on Mar 31^st, 2012 at 11:38am