The first screenshots have been published on the MS Flight website! Just click the Screens tab.

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

For those that can't see them, visit this link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/55710335@N08/5285673941/in/set-72157625659937520/#/...

Well guys, I think we're actually getting a decent sim this time. Signifigant water improvments are evident...

I wonder how good of system you'll need to get those graphics. still its pretty breath taking compare to FSX

Since I haven't purchased new hardware (to run MSFS) in a few years I have started a seperate "Flight compter fund" to  which I add few dollars to now and then.

However I also suspect the anything from a "core duo quad" (which I presently have) upwards can run Flight  adequately.

Anyway, the  new SS do indeed look very promising. 

It looks nice. Hopefully they learned from the biggest problems of FSX - an extremely high system requirement to play on any decent setting. And hopefully my graphics card isn't at idle the entire time. In any case, it looks as if I'll be buying a new computer for this. Probably Sandy Bridge overclocked to 5ghz.

Quote:


It does show one thing:  You don't have to add on third party scenery to make it look good.

As far as system requirements, even if they are using high end computers for their shots, those are *todays* high end systems.  By the time Flight hits the market, those current high end systems will be most likely be "average".

Strawberry Yogurt wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 7:44pm:

Really ? Where ? 

Boikat wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 11:18pm:

It's just a different cliff texture, nothing impressive

Daube wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 10:45am:

Really ? Where ? 

Umm... In the water!  The water is dimmed and looks much more like real life, like in Brandon's shot for FSX the water looks like it has blue lightbulbs below the surface. On MF, the water also appears to have some transparency to it, so we 'might' be able to go underwater. ? 

Strawberry Yogurt wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 4:23pm:


Some people don't want to have any hope.  The water looks way better. I don't know that we could go underwater, but those reefs are pretty interesting. Probably just part of the water texture though.

What location are the pictures of? It looks like Hawaii?

For the most part it looks like FSX but with hugely updated mesh, textures, landclass, with some nice soft-shadows. I just hope they add core improvements to it to increase the efficiency and add actual features.

(Also it looks like the rumors of MS Flight being dumbed down and all were completely incorrect, and Bill was right )

It all looks very promising, but I still need to see some published system requirements before I'm on-board. I would have to build a new PC regardless, my old one won't run FSX decently but it does run FS9 with all sliders maxed.

Quote:


AKA Wings of Prey (on PC)

I was just flying WOP right now, and yes it really seems to resemble that! trees are more three-dimensional too, and man does it run like a freight train on my old dual core! i can only "prey" (couldnt resist) that FLIGHT runs so well!

Ermmm... I didn't notice if anyone else had commented on this but, it's not the Stearman in these screens... it's our old lovely yet terribly underappreciated  Maule M-7 260c... i know they're probably working with FSX bits and pieces, but is this a sign we may get some port-over compatibility? Will most of the native FSX catalog slide into FLIGHT? Anyone else thinking of this? If true, would be great for the years worth of effort put into some very fine aircraft made... MS and user-crafted.

Spindrift wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:11pm:


I think we will have compatibility with FSX add-ons, but nothing older. The Maule has probably already been converted over to a native Flight model, and for whatever reason, they decided to use it instead of the stearman in the shots. I don't think it is any sort of sign, though. They might just be showing that some of the default FSX aircraft will be included in Flight.

Keep in mind that these shots are bait - embellished beyond default to attract potential buyers.  Don't get me wrong, they certainly catch the eye but nothing you can't do with FSX.  In one of the final shots there's a jumble of streams and tributaries, all looking like they were lit with neon - imagine what ORBX could do with something like that. 

olderndirt wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 9:51pm:


Remember, these are early development shots. So, we might get more than what is in the shots, but not less.

Tree shadows are not possible in FSX. The shadowing on the plane and ground look improved overall as well.

It's not about what can be done in Flight can be done in FSX. The fact that Flight looks better than FSX did out of the box is a good sign. It will hold us off for a few months while developers get the hang of the new techniques.

Here is 1 shot

sorry, disreguard that, looks much better when i look at it for a while, but now your probably going to have to buy an amazing computer to get this at a decent frame rate.

I strongly agree with the two previous posts, I can get the same quality visuals as your sceenshot John, only on my modest box it's running at about 10-15 fps... these early samples are still far away from the final development, and even if it wasn't, we'll achieve that same scene as we did in FS9 and FSX, the same way you just did, with add-ons.

the question here is not so much "How does it look?" as much as it is "How does it run?". I'll be very pleased to have a comprehensive Flight Sim run beautifully on my little (and moderately affordable) set-up.

ps. @RocketBird

Rocket_Bird wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 6:17pm:


I couldn't agree more! for those of you with a similar build to mine, check out or even . I get 60-80 fps with insane levels of realism. Then I hop back into FSX and WEEP... 



pss. @ John Crouse - Very nice screenshot man, would love to see it running! post more for us in the showcase! 

Addons might make FSX look good too but whats the point. Sure for some FSX is great but it has a few problems

1. Addons can yes make it look good. Although of all the addons for FSX ive tried (GEX, REX, UTX...) It looks like a waste of money if the default Flight looks like the pictures suggest. Plus. MOST addons cost a decent amount of money.

2. FSX being so outdated is so under optimized for todays machines that one person with a Dual core might be able to run it better than someone else with a Quad core. Ex. I have a ATI 4870 1gb with a Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.2ghz with 8gb of DDR3....on MEDIUM settings....im lucky to get 10-15 frames a second. Its a total crap shoot and its because of poor optimization by Mirosoft.




And besides to have a DEFAULT sim look that good without any addons means more money in our pockets, and if its properly optimized it will run 20x smoother than FSX ever could have hoped. Which would mean you wouldn't need a super computer to run it.

I don't understand why some people cant have faith 

Its just like the old "FS2004 will be better than FSX" thing a few years ago.


The past is all thats gone. Lets hope for the future of flight sim. 

But I see a Maule in the screen shots.
That makes me happy.

Don't know what it is, but I like those little buggers.

I don't think there is anyway FSX can look as good as Flight.

For one thing,  Flight will have full DX10 support and FSX wiil never have the DX10 lighting that Flight will have.
The FSX  lighting effects are a complete joke by today's standards.

FXS does not even support scenery MipMapping for most objects.

FSX was dated even as soon as it was originally released!

Also we don't have any idea what Fight  will eventually  contain. 

So, it is premature to say the least to compare Flight to FSX. 

You guys amaze me, you bad mouth a great flightsim like FSX and all that it can do and yet say that Flight will be sooo much better when in fact we don't even know for sure that it will support anything short of a glorified online game.

Please do some research about how to make FSX all it can be with some simple tweaks and on a computer that can be built for less than $1500.00 and run and make FSX work amazing.

Microsoft left us high and dry once when they fired Aces, what makes you think its going to be any different this time!

Good luck with Flight your new wonderful sim, I will stick with something that works just great!

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