Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Default Comparison beween FSX and Flight (Read 3548 times)
Mar 5th, 2012 at 10:57pm

Flight Ace   Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender: male
Posts: 205
*****
 
Brandon said, and I quote, "What I would like to see are pure default comparisons between FSX and Flight".

Well Brandon, I have granted your wish. First bear in mind that the FSX  default software released six years ago contains Photo-real scenery. When you turn off Autogen Density and Scenery Complexity in FSX, you end up with just Photo-real scenery but not as good, for example, as Mega Scenery Earth. However, a high end computer with a good video card utilizes this Photo-real scenery quite well.

The following screens were taken with both my FSX Autogen Density and Scenery Complexity turned off. The only Photo-real scenery being used is the default FSX scenery. All my FSX traffic is set at max. My performance with these settings approach and some times exceed 200 FPS.

These first two screens compare MF with FSX approaching Hilo in a Maule Orion. You be the judge how they compare?
MF Screen
...

FSX Screen
...

This third screen shows a B25 chasing another aircraft that just took off Hilo Int. You can also see at the bottom of the screen the tail of an aircraft taxiing for take-off. There is no point comparing this screen with a MF screen as MF does not support traffic (Aircraft or Vehicles) at this time nor third party aircraft.
FSX Screen
...

This last screen shows a Maule Orion over Hilo at dusk. I tried but found it impossible to create with MF, a duplicate as exacting showing the true environmental schema of Hilo.
FSX Screen
...

My personal opinion of MF is that it needs a lot of work to compete with FSX as a Flight Simulator. The Microsoft Development Team did an excellent job trying to capture the reality of Hawaii but fell short by not offering a more real flying atmosphere/environment. When I fly MF, I feel totally alone, nothing other than your plane moves. It is like the world has come to an end.
 

1.   Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2.   Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3.   ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4.   EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5.   16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6.   Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7.   240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8.   120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9.   1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - Mar 6th, 2012 at 1:18am

BrandonF   Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender: male
Posts: 2296
*****
 
I'm curious to know what your FPS are in Flight? (and with what CPU + graphics card + how much memory) (nevermind, just saw your specs in your sig. Wow, that's quite a system!)

It is semi-true that FSX uses photoreal scenery. What you are actually seeing in most default FSX locations are landclasses. FSX comes with a wide range of landclasses, such as desert, forest, city, etc. These are auto-generated and blended during the development process. The landclasses are used globally, so the textures you see used in San Diego will be the same used in Florida, London, Australia, etc. The landclasses are made of square satellite images and are tile-able. That's why they look so good. Flight uses the same method, with some true (unique) photoscenery thrown in around all of the airstrips/airports. To put it simply, Photoscenery is generally referred to as satellite imagery that is unique to one location. (basically an aerial photo of the location) Landclasses are just general/generic satellite textures used and blended together repeatedly anywhere in the world to try and represent a location. (in many cases, the types of landclasses used in Flight will be fairly close to what the actual satellite imagery would look like because they are blended so well and used correctly.)
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - Mar 6th, 2012 at 1:21am

Jetranger   Offline
Colonel
Jetranger

Gender: male
Posts: 675
*****
 
Thumbs up for the comparsion, bout' like Apples & Oranges, Oil & Water , or, Fred & Ginger, Thunder & Lightining  - Rain & Hail ,,, Lips Sealed Lips Sealed Lips Sealed
 

Please do NOT link images, it slows the forums down for other users.
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Mar 6th, 2012 at 11:33am

Groundbound1   Offline
Colonel
No, I don't work for Mythbusters...
Michigan, USA

Gender: male
Posts: 1745
*****
 
I'll gladly say this. The Flight development team definately scored a run with the new water. To bad there isn't a way to port that down to FSX.
 

Specs: Asus Crosshair nForce 590 SLI,
AMD Athlon X2 6400+ w/ZeroTherm BTF90, 
4GB G.Skill PI Series DDR2-800,
Sapphire HD4870 512MB,
PC P&C 750 Quad, in a CoolerMaster HAF932

...
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Mar 6th, 2012 at 6:08pm

Flight Ace   Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender: male
Posts: 205
*****
 
BrandonF wrote on Mar 6th, 2012 at 1:18am:
I'm curious to know what your FPS are in Flight? (and with what CPU + graphics card + how much memory) (nevermind, just saw your specs in your sig. Wow, that's quite a system!)

It is semi-true that FSX uses photoreal scenery. What you are actually seeing in most default FSX locations are landclasses. FSX comes with a wide range of landclasses, such as desert, forest, city, etc. These are auto-generated and blended during the development process. The landclasses are used globally, so the textures you see used in San Diego will be the same used in Florida, London, Australia, etc. The landclasses are made of square satellite images and are tile-able. That's why they look so good. Flight uses the same method, with some true (unique) photoscenery thrown in around all of the airstrips/airports. To put it simply, Photoscenery is generally referred to as satellite imagery that is unique to one location. (basically an aerial photo of the location) Landclasses are just general/generic satellite textures used and blended together repeatedly anywhere in the world to try and represent a location. (in many cases, the types of landclasses used in Flight will be fairly close to what the actual satellite imagery would look like because they are blended so well and used correctly.)


I am getting a steady 60 FPS running MF with everything topped off. In FSX with everything maxed, I get 150 plus. Hawaii was always an area that one could get good performance.

Makes me wonder how well MF will do in an area like Manhattan, New York. Thanks for the update reference Photo-real/Satellite imagery
 

1.   Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2.   Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3.   ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4.   EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5.   16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6.   Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7.   240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8.   120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9.   1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Mar 8th, 2012 at 10:22am

Flight Ace   Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender: male
Posts: 205
*****
 
Groundbound1 wrote on Mar 6th, 2012 at 11:33am:
I'll gladly say this. The Flight development team definately scored a run with the new water. To bad there isn't a way to port that down to FSX.


They already have. It is called Real Environment Extreme (REX). Does a nice job with both water and clouds.

...
 

1.   Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2.   Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3.   ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4.   EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5.   16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6.   Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7.   240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8.   120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9.   1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Mar 8th, 2012 at 7:46pm

matthewdev   Offline
Colonel
The best safety device
is the pilot
Hobart

Gender: male
Posts: 310
*****
 
Groundbound1 wrote on Mar 6th, 2012 at 11:33am:
I'll gladly say this. The Flight development team definately scored a run with the new water. To bad there isn't a way to port that down to FSX.


Agreed, so far for me that has been it's only saving grace! The coastlines in particular are much better.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Mar 9th, 2012 at 12:05am

JoBee   Offline
Colonel
Better to give than receive.

Posts: 582
*****
 
matthewdev wrote on Mar 8th, 2012 at 7:46pm:
Groundbound1 wrote on Mar 6th, 2012 at 11:33am:
I'll gladly say this. The Flight development team definately scored a run with the new water. To bad there isn't a way to port that down to FSX.


Agreed, so far for me that has been it's only saving grace! The coastlines in particular are much better.

What about the lack of water climbing up the shores, or the lack of streams that defy gravity, or the fact that the landing light actually illuminate objects, not just the ground around them.

How about the fact that in Flight accidentally getting too close to a building , or a taxi sign, has consequences. You can't just drive through them.

What sold me on Flight was tooling along in the Stearman one day I pulled back on the stick and just as she stalled I kicked in the rudder and away she went into a spin. Can't do that in 9 or X with any default planes.

Oh yeah, Flight has legs and she has barely started walking, wait till she runs.

Flight's future is so bright I gotta wear shades.

cheers,
Joe
 

Don't argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Mar 9th, 2012 at 12:17am

BrandonF   Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender: male
Posts: 2296
*****
 
Agreed, Joe. There was a time, one day after the beta started, that I was flying the Stearman around Oahu just as the sun was rising. I was thinking about how all that we didn't think would happen and things even worse than the naysayers expected to happen had indeed happened. The next day, I was flying online with a few friends along the coast of the Big Island near Upolo towards the sun as it was beginning to get low in the sky and I realized that I was actually having fun and enjoying Flight, despite the horrible things we had learned after the January 4th announcement. Since then, my hopes for Flight to be a successful franchise have only gone up. It seems that the team is dedicated to the franchise and anticipate that it has a bright future with many expansions, as hinted by Joshua Howard in a few interviews:

Quote:
Howard (Microsoft) said: - “We are really in the midst of transitioning the organization from being an old-school development studio to really being an online business.
I think that’s actually pretty exciting and fundamental, and we’re certainly not the only team at Microsoft going through this change. We are running a service now, not just shipping a piece of software.
It means I have to build a team and an organization that can always do three, four, five things at once, because I’m supporting the current release, I’ve got somebody working on the next release, I’ve got somebody working on the release after the next release and I’ve probably got somebody planning the next big expansion after that."

http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-flight-a-step-previous-efforts

Howard (Microsoft) also said: - "Instead of opening Flight up to everything, anywhere, by anybody, which frankly creates sort of a confusing mess for a new customer, we get to manage it more, we get to tell a story, we get to help it grow and get up on its feet. I completely believe that this ecosystem will come to be even larger than the existing product’s ecosystem. And that will be a point where I can’t possibly meet the appetite of a customer base, and I will invest to bring more people in. That’s the future, that’s what success looks like."

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-joshua-howard-microsoft-flight/091961


The base engine is there. It just needs to be expanded on. There really is nothing they can't accomplish if there is a demand for it.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - Mar 9th, 2012 at 3:23am

Camel_Moe   Offline
Colonel
Manufacturer of high quality
spam since 2002

Gender: male
Posts: 251
*****
 
Unfortunately, has a gamer for almost 30 years, almost as long as I've been a simmer, I can tell you what your seeing from MS/Josh at this point is the standard post release hype strategy, commonly seen with their more popular Xbox games, but not something dedicated simmers, who don't consider themselves gamers, have had much experience with up until flight. MSFS had Hype, but this is a whole new breed of hype. This is genetically altered super hype.
90% of what they'll say is tailored to create inspiration amongst the masses, generate an positive product image, and carefully crafted to froth up the fanbase into opening wallets for DLC. It's like a Winston Churchill speech, and the method works, but overall it's bunk.
It's just that coming out and saying what they really think might not work so well:

"We got this new internet thingy a while back and we've discovered that we can sell you the same amount of content we used to sell to you for an affordable set price, and one that got us a reasonable profit, and now we can sell it to you in pieces for a much higher profit.  Cheesy
If you question this, we'll have a standard set of excuses for why this stuff that used to come has a package deal, for 60 bucks, now comes has monthly installments for a total in the hundreds or more in cash.  If you don't buy, we go bankrupt, or at least your friendly MS game design team get's fired. You'll have to live with that knowledge. Nerd hatchlings will starve because of you, and our wonderful company will cease improving your lives. The world will fall into a dark period like no other. Apple will win.  Shocked
We don't really care if you don't believe that a multi billion dollar profit a year company needs to sell you a $60 bit of software for $600 to survive. We don't care if you don't believe production costs climbed 360% just around the time internet speeds broke the 56K mark. The Fanboy Defense Force will fight that one for us, and most of you will spend at least the $60 we were getting before anyway.  Roll Eyes
We're only going to give you the bare minimum to keep you interested, otherwise we don't really care what you want. We only care about the appearance that we care what you want. If we went arround giving people what they want any more than we have to, there'd be nothing left to give by sequel 3, but as long as you think your getting it you'll buy other stuff while you wait. We recommend MS Calendar to assist you in waiting. Comes standard with Windows. You have bought the latest Windows, right? Go do that now. Then buy some gadgets.  Wink
Oh. Sorry. Got distracted.  Undecided
We won't give you some things you really, really, REALLY want at all unless the money starts to dry up, and even then it'll most likely come in a "new" version where you'll buy much of your previously purchased stuff yet again because the old purchases won't work anymore with the new version. We already secretly tested that one on you with FSX backwards compatibility stunt. You still bought it. Tongue
You might get a little mad, but that's ok cause there's a sucker born every minute to replace you, and most people want whatever we tell them they want anyway, so angry customers don't usually count.  Angry
There are exceptions to this, but trust us, your going to have to get quite a bit angrier, and has a large group give another competitor a HUGE sum to qualify. I mean, yah, that makes us laugh as well. Grin
To be honest, we don't really worry to much about competition now that we think of it. Not like you have a whole lot of choices, and many of you dislike change enough to stick with us as long as possible anyhow. Go ahead. Walk out on us. But then we'll imply that we've learned our lesson, and that we're going to mend our ways. You'll be back. Wink
We did mention you we're replaceable? Smiley
Yep. Few paragraphs up. Check. We'll wait. Grin
Now then, If you have any more question or complaints please address them to your nearest Fanboy Defense Force Representative. They can be commonly found on any number of MS sites. They are always more than delighted to assist you in understanding how your nothing but an ignorant worthless slug, and more importantly, wrong.  Roll Eyes
Doesn't matter. Angry
Your still wrong. Tongue
We're a monopoly. Look up omnipotent. Don't use Windows Help though. Even we admit that never works quite right for most questions.  Embarrassed
Can't get it to tell us how to fix it.  Huh
Annoying. Angry
Alternately, if a Fanboy Representative is unavailable, you may use our Windows XP compatible complaints and suggestions device. It's located down the hall. The door marked "restrooms". It can handle all your crap for a small fee of $2.50 per flush, errrr, complaint and/or suggestion.  Cool
Meanwhile, the rest of you, line up to the left, in alphabetical order, and have your credit cards ready for presentation. We know you will. People are cattle. Grin
Opps, didn't mean to say the last part out loud. Embarrassed
Remember, we're Microsoft. It can only get better from here. Bright future and all that.....blah blah blah..."  Cheesy


    
      
« Last Edit: Mar 9th, 2012 at 10:50am by Camel_Moe »  

...


Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - Mar 9th, 2012 at 6:07pm

BrandonF   Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender: male
Posts: 2296
*****
 
I give up. This has to be the most negative community I've ever seen. I guess no one is open for change or willing to see at least one positive thing from something new. (I know not everyone here is like this, so this doesn't apply to them)

I am done here.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - Mar 9th, 2012 at 6:16pm

andy190   Offline
Colonel
This is the voice of the
Mysterons...
Havelock North, NZ

Gender: male
Posts: 1368
*****
 
BrandonF wrote on Mar 9th, 2012 at 6:07pm:
I give up. This has to be the most negative community I've ever seen. I guess no one is open for change or willing to see at least one positive thing from something new. I am done here.


Brandon, we're telling the truth not being negative.

You can't just storm off because people don't see your point of view.

It's a fact of life that people don't always agree.

I am open for change for the better just not for the worse.
 

...

Intel Core i5-2310 CPU @ 2.90GHz, 6GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6450, Windows 7 Professional 64 bit, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - Mar 9th, 2012 at 7:04pm

Steve M   Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender: male
Posts: 4097
*****
 
The emotions and opinions are far too intense. After reading some very well written posts, all I come away with, is this feeling that we shouldn't be divided by a piece of software.


                                   Cool
 

...
Flying with twins is a lot of fun..
IP Logged
 
Reply #13 - Mar 9th, 2012 at 7:44pm

Flight Ace   Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender: male
Posts: 205
*****
 
andy190 wrote on Mar 9th, 2012 at 6:16pm:
BrandonF wrote on Mar 9th, 2012 at 6:07pm:
I give up. This has to be the most negative community I've ever seen. I guess no one is open for change or willing to see at least one positive thing from something new. I am done here.


Brandon, we're telling the truth not being negative.

You can't just storm off because people don't see your point of view.

It's a fact of life that people don't always agree.

I am open for change for the better just not for the worse.


Since I started this post, let me add my two cents and I don't want to seem negative.

Some of the questions recently asked the MF Developers were - "What would you say to those third-parties such as Just Flight who are eager to produce extra content in Microsoft Flight? Some will do their own thing instead. Do you welcome the competition?"

In response, this statement was made by one of the MF Developers. "I always do. I’m excited that we’ve taken a very different direction than the traditional simulation audience has. I think there are some really fantastic simulation products out there, not just Flight Simulator X."

I am glad that Microsoft is acknowledging that FSX is a fantastic Flight Simulation product. The big question is, if they felt this way, why did they walk away from it?

As I see it, MF Developer's different direction from FSX is three fold. First Microsoft is offering a product that sets up flight as a game and I must say doing a good job of it. As an example, landing on Lake Waiau without touching any land. Secondly, Microsoft's development schema is to: (A quote from a MF development team member), "do three, four, five things at once, because I’m supporting the current release, I’ve got somebody working on the next release, I’ve got somebody working on the release after the next release and I’ve probably got somebody planning the next big expansion after that." I'm not sure how to interpolate this. Maybe it means that they can simultaneously create a new photo-realistic copy of any new area such as Alaska, put in an existing or new aircraft, then add a few new games. And this brings me to the last difference and that is money. For each new area, you will be charged.

I look at a real or computerized flight simulator as a means for replicating and teaching how to safely fly an aircraft under different realistic environmental flight conditions. FSX is not perfect but can be set up for almost any flight situation. For example, many years ago, I was taking off in an Army DeHavilland Beaver from an airport in France on a flight to Germany. I had been given a clearance to climb to 9000 feet which would put me on top of an 8500 feet overcast. It was winter and raining and I had received a weather brief stating the freezing level was at 9000. At 7000 feet I found my aircraft completely covered with clear icing and had to declare an emergency then do a back ILS to the runway I just departed. I used the skills I learned from past flights with most (since this was a once in a lifetime occurrence) coming from simulators to get the aircraft safely back on the ground.

I replicated that flight with FSX from the same airport in France. To replicate it with Microsoft Flight is not possible as it won't allow me to go to France, fly in a Beaver, and duplicate the weather conditions. It makes one wonder how many people fully realize how robust and sophisticated FSX really is.

My personal view of Microsoft Flight is that it is a good game for the younger generation or someone who continues to have fun flying it. I sincerely hope there are enough people having fun with it to make it a success. And who knows, it may, over time, converge to a more defined Flight Simulator. I, for one, hope so.

I bought the Hawaii package and one aircraft. I will fire it up on occasions to do some low level flying around Hawaii and to remind myself how fortunate I am to have FSX.
 

1.   Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2.   Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3.   ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4.   EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5.   16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6.   Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7.   240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8.   120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9.   1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor
IP Logged
 
Reply #14 - Mar 10th, 2012 at 5:47am

Scruffyduck   Offline
Colonel

Posts: 164
*****
 
I stand by to be flamed or trolled but I am beginning to wonder why folks are comparing Flight to FSX.   Smiley

It would make sense if Flight was FS11.  It isn't and never was.  Flight and FSX are different things.  (I use the word thing to avoid using game or sim!).  I don't see any evidence that there will be a FS11.

Personally I have both,  I use both,  I enjoy both. However I don't do the same things in both.  What they have in common is that they simulate flying to some degree or another.  They are not mutually exclusive.  FSX has a long life ahead of it

Having said all that I do understand where the interest in comparing comes from.  My hope is that this aspect will fade away and we (those of us that have time for Flight) can concentrate on the 'thing'
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print