Club508 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 11:26am:


Yeah. Had to dim the display. Looks nice except for the trees. M$flight Has nice looking trees (3d). So displaywise it is allot better than the current

JBaymore wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 9:13pm:

I would say that.  I REALLY miss the trees and houses in FSX, but I have to get rid of them to keep the framerate above 10.

Yeah, I'm sure changing the blending in the sky texture has a HUGE  performance impact. 

And with a modern engine like they are making, higher detail trees shouldn't be an issue.

I didn't say it needs less, but I'm not saying it will need more. I think the engine will better use what hardware is available to it.

I voted yes of course. The problem is the game engine: it's antique and way overdue for retirement. Just sprucing it up is not doing anyone any good and flight seems to make the same mistake as fsx.

Quote:


Be my guest.


Quote:


Learn to read other's thread. Your risible attempt at a rise does not deserve other answer.


Quote:


It's called "going around the censorship", FYI.


Quote:


Cannot say I recognize the quote.


Quote:


Was there one one, I would agree. KNOWING the ease the media circus has always made mincemeat of its supposed freedom for the good of the few rich, in a sort of Robin Hood reversal role, I do despair.


P.S.
I must point out that you added nothing to the discussion, here and in the other thread, only extremely impolitely pontificated on my supposed lack of intelligence (and I don't remember having done the same towards you, so you can't claim self defense) for having dared rise doubts about M$'s work basing myself on its well known past history and philosophies, and boisterously waved around your flag for Flight to be a great success regardless and even in spite of whatever worth it will have, so forgive me but I MUST ask... where do your interests lay, exactly? Please tell us all. We cannot but be curious.

Quote:


Of course is boycott. IF the end product IS NOT WORTH, it SHOULD be boycotted, to make understand those who'd want to sell it that it's NOT the case to peddle mussel for oysters.

Or do you want people to act like an obedient and disciplined herd of sheep regardless?


Quote:


Of course you have to spend your money for something you like, and in fact I never said we MUST, but we SHOULD reward well done software and boycott crap. But of course, you seem not to understand the fine differences between the two words.

If you like a thing regardless from its lack of worth, I may be sad and think it a shame, but surely will never tell you not to do it. Your money is your own. Hardly anything to say.

It's you who doesn't seem able to recognize my words, making it appear you want OTHER people to buy a thing, be it FSX or Flight or whatever else, regardless from its worth and regardless from the fact they WANT to buy it OR NOT.

Just because , YOU BUY IT! ...this is what transpires from your words.


Quote:


Bullcrap. "Younger folk", as you call them, that can use internet are used to WAY raunchier words and images. You just have to go on... those sites, and you'll find WAY worse thing that a way to anagram or slightly change a word to get around a censorship.

As disdain goes, I am hardly the only one to use these silly tricks... are WE ALL disdainful of whatever made you write the post? All this torrent of words to focus on HOW a thing was said instead of discussing WHAT was said is tiring and making me disdainful yes, but of your words.

We're obviously on incommunicability ground and way off topic. I will stop here for good answering these provocations. Bloody loss of time trying to make people understand what you're trying to say or share, when they don't want but to see their own only still unclear point that seems to sum up in: "WHATEVER IT WILL BE BUY IT ANYWAY". Talk about consumerism for its own sake (at best).