Well well well. So it time now to be forced to buy a new computer. I remember when FS2004 came out. With my computer I had that ran most software quite well, I could get only a stutter from FS2004.

Few years later and FSX comes out with "improved" graphics. Fire it up and with the computer that runs FS2004 with everything maxed, I get quite a stutter. So again I pack it away and wait.

Few years on and I have a faster computer. So I dig up FSX and it runs quite well but not with everything maxed. Oc course I cannot max aotogen and no clouds and few ground vehicles. Load a few custom sceneries and the famous stutter appears. My screamer is brought to its FPS knees. Getting 4 to 6 fps and I have to make 2 cuos of tea while FSX and the sceneries load.

While the graphics in the screenshots look better, at what cost?

Sure they will claim that my current system is not powerful enough and I must buy Windows 8 and another computer if I want to get any thing more than 2 FPS.

What I would like to see in any screenshots is the actual FPS and the hardware that is being used to achieve those figures. Otherwise any screen shot means as much to me as an image from google - nothing.

Sure Windows 7 can "run" in 256MB of memory, but what they leave out is that then you can run nothing else.

I wanna see their money where their mouth is. Show me the hardware and the FPS or show me nothing.

dapeeper wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:53am:


When has any game company ever shown something like this while a game/simulator is in development? It's something that just wouldn't probably happen.

Well, Tuna: not sure if you've been reading the speculation going on around here, but that's all it is.  Speculation.  We have very little in the way of definitive evidence, and even less actual assurance that the final product will function as they say it will.  There is just no way to know at this point, and anything else is less than hearsay.  What I would suggest is that you keep working with FS9.  When you get that new rig, load up FSX and see how it performs.  If it works well, stick with it.  If not, go back to FS9.  Then wait until Flight hits the shelves and read what will (inevitably) be written about it extensively on this site and many others.  If it sounds like it would work well on your machine at that point, then go out and purchase.  There is absolutely no reason to waste a perfectly good copy of FSX just because something better comes out.  As the adage goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Ahem!  Clearing the guns . . .

Yes, MS has said that they are now catering to the FS community, but they have said that on numerous occasions.

I place much stock in the FS franchise, simply because they have, in the past ten years, consistently delivered a product that tried to meet the expectations of the FS community.  That community is as diverse and as complicated as any in gaming, since it demands complete dedication to the hard-core sim pilot, yet also tries to retain a sense of "availability" to those folks that aren't actually looking for the "as real as it gets" genre.

Those of us that truly want a sim that encompasses the most rigorous and intense aspects of being a sim pilot, versus those that want to just get their jollies by buzzing the tower, have been free to do so up until now.

However, I see that Flight seems to be aiming more towards the avid gamer, rather than the sim pilot in the last two installments.

Sure, we had some new features of aircraft manipulation in FSX, but the main focus was on the look of the sim, rather than the realism of the sim, which is a trend that I see continuing with Flight.

In 2007, I sent a message to the MS (ACES) team, asking that with FSX they develop a way to incorporate true VTOL capability, which has been a constant bother in every installment of FS.  However, they instead focused more on creating dynamic scenery (which ended up being poorly written) than actually developing a new platform that would allow new types of engines and flight dynamics that would allow the 3rd party designers freedom to explore the aircraft designs that are currently being tested.  As a result, we (as designers) have had to rely on legacy software that makes it very difficult to simulate the current aircraft systems in production.

This is the main reason I haven't worked on any aircraft project since the Angel 44.  I refuse to work with a system that makes creating an aircraft that actually exists so difficult.

I started a V-22 project in 2004, but was disillusioned when I found that I couldn't create a true VTOL aircraft without extensive XML knowledge, so I scrapped it.  It would have been a freeware project (I never will make payware products!), but I could not get it off the ground unless I actually paid some developers to get their XML codes that would allow for true VTOL capability.

My hope for this newest installment is that we, as a community, are not forced to set our standards low, simply for the sake of selling to those that would turn FS into a game.

We want a sim.  It is as simple as that.  We want to experience the gamut of flying the aircraft that exist in today's world, and we want to have the option to fly aircraft that may exist in the world to come.  Don't skimp us on the technical data in expense of the visual media.

I would rather have a sim that looked like FS9 that allowed me complete control of the system, than have a sim that reiterated the same functions again and again.

Yes, I ranted, but I think it's justified . . .

I think you could compare graphics untill the cows come home, but without knowing what kind of hardware and software the MS developers are using with Flight screenies or framerate data as they take the shot it's all kind of moot at this point. I still have my FSX if Flight is kicked out of the nest to soon. If I were to take a screen shot from my FSX  a few years ago and compare it to a recent FSX screenie, there is a vast difference. Same Sim, different look.   ☼

BrandonF wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 3:04pm:



Brandon, I am refering to your original topic, not so much the FS9 comparisons.