I have to say, I was at first not very convinced by the Flight shots, but the more I look at them, the more I like what I see.

Personally I don't care so much about the textures (can be replaced), but to me it seems the technology for projecting the textures was changed. It appears that the textures are not projected straight from the top anymore (turning every steep clilff into an ugly washed out blob), but the projection on steep surfaces seems to be improved.

If this is the case this could improve the overall looks of the sim in mountainous regions a lot.


My shot with GEX and REX:



What I really hope is that they will bring a wider variety of landclasses to bring a more distinct look to the different continents.

Spindrift, I do and have acknowledged everyone that does contribute to the Flightsim, The ones that use are Nick N and Jesus Altuve. The services of FS-GS were one of the best I used that helped me to understand the unification of the Computer and the need for scenery mesh and landclass. This is what makes the sim what it is and then add in the tweaks made by the mentioned people above and testing the tweaks to find what settings with tweaks that make your system run best. Its not about a ton of money like some people have said above ($4000.00) you can do it with a system that costs about $1500.00. To me thats not that expensive when you think back 5-7 years ago you paid $1000.00-$1500.00 for a prebuilt computer that was very substandard by todays standards. So I am not made out of money either, I just spend time reading and trying different things that make things better. I have no trust in Microsoft that this time around will be any different than when they launched FSX and will leave again with no support. I will just stick with what I know works great and IF Flight comes out and is all that its been hyped to be I might consider purchasing it! 

DaveSims wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:


I have been around as long as you if not longer, I had Chuck Yeager as my first flight sim game back in 1990 when if was on floppy disc. My first computer was a tandy without a hard drive and used dos as a operating system. Microsofts biggest problem was us (the consumer) demanding backwards compatibility so all of our add-ons would work. So I hope they learned their lesson and changed the engine and base code to make it more effective performance wise with todays computers. But so far their record isn't too good. I so hope i am wrong!

John Crouse wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:


I heartily agree with you John! (not that "I hope you're wrong" - well, I do, but you know what I mean!  ) I also hope MS has learned their lesson from their last release and are willing to put the time, effort and focus into optimizing FLIGHT into all it really could be - All we wanted FSX to fulfill for everyone in the community, even those who couldn't afford a serious system dedicated to it. If we lose backward compatibility this time, so-be-it! It was going to happen sometime, I'm ready to move forward! Who's with me?!

You are right again John, $1500 is realistic for an awesome dedicated set-up. I must admit I spent about $1100 on mine 1 1/2 years ago (including a 25" monitor and various FS peripherals)

Here's the key point: I have decided, to the last, to be positive about FLIGHT. Maybe that's why I defend it so vehemently! In the end, if we want a fully satifying experience, MS will need to know that we have at least some faith in their expertise, (thay did bring us our beloved FS series after all!) I also hope they will see and ultimately want to satisfy an already established communtiy that

well, that's my point of view... i'll return to my humble self now folks! 

P.S. - John! Good news is, you'll have plenty of time to enjoy FSX on you hot-rod box, it'll be quite a while before we all get to take-off in FLIGHT. Let's see some more screens man! I'll be looking for you in the showcase! 

Peace-Out! 

   As many have stated above, I hope FLIGHT is actually "flyable" much sooner than later. It's a shame to have to wait 2-4 years before you can actually simulate "flying" an aircraft. A lot of us pay premium price for the program at the time of release, and buy/build the "latest & greatest" pc on the market at the same time just for the ***NEW*** simulator, and still not be able to "fly". Then, we have to wait for patches of all sorts that should have been caught in the testing phase of the program.    That's bvllsh!t in my book.

   Anyway, that being said, the flight simulator series, in general, have had many great and legitimate sub-disciplines such as AI traffic & scenery programming, screen shots etc... But, as the name of the program implies, and my simple definitions, "flight" - to be in a flying machine, able to take off, become and sustain airbourne statis, and land safely and correctly (ballons to spacecraft), and simulator - to be in a safe, realistic environment, without actually being in that real, and possibly dangerous environment (race car driving, combat, trains, shooting sims, etc.).

   To me, the whole idea of the flight simulator program series is to be able to "fly" airplanes, and "fly" them properly. Screenshots are nice, as I stated, but if that is the main idea of the program, why not call it "Aviation Photoshop", err... something like that? The fact of the matter is, no matter how good the stock screenshots look, most of us end up buying scenery programs such as FTX, REX, GEX, UTX, Instant Scenery, Mega Scenery, AFX, etc. The same goes for AI traffic, many of us end up writing our own AI plans, use freeware AI such as UGA, WoAI, PAI and MAIW along with payware AI, such as Traffic X, My Traffic X and Ultimate Traffic 2. We even go so far as buying sound programs such as Audio Environment, SEX (Sound Environment X)  and various other sound programs for individual aircraft. So, we covered all of that and it's all great, and makes for a VERY pleasant view and environment -it really is nice.

   Now, what about high quality aircraft with accurate flight characteristics? How about fully functional avionics? - not flip the avionics switch and have ALL of the avionics light up with no control over what is necessary and what is not, such as having your transponder set to "test", "stand by","on" and "off". How about correct and fully fuctional era panels for the older aircraft to all modern glass panels (G1000, G300, Avidyne Entegra, Aspen, etc)? How about dimmable, backlit gauges and dimmable glass panels for night "flying"? What about proper ATC function (VFR, IFR, SIDS, STARS, talking in turn, emergency situations, holding patterns, aircraft spacing in the landing sequence)? Oh, and, by the way, we usually end up buying higher quality aircraft also. 

   Anyone understand? Anyone follow? ..........Microsoft?

Semper Fi,

Dave

   That's a fair enough answer Travis. I guess like any specialized hobby or interest, it's ALWAYS more expensive than one would initially think. So, I can live with your arguement, it's a good one. But, can we, at least, fix ATC, and gain more control of the standard FS avionics panel - just the panel, not the whole plane?

   Oh, and, by the way, I paid $80 for FSX, $60 for Acceration AND I went through six pcs before I could get a moderate amount of "flyability" with FSX. OUCH!!!

Semper Fi,

Dave