The USS Missourri docked at Pearl Harbour I assume. I think I saw this screen a while back. I've been looking at the
Palm tree shadows and they seem to me to be far to massive. But cool looking none the less. 

maybe because hawaii has the general features:cities,flats,beaches,mountains,water and rainforests.

or because they are taking there time and that's the most finished part.

or because that's the only detailed scenery m$ is going to make. 

There are so many other beautiful locations on earth. Tepuis,e.t.c Why only Hawaii? But anyway, as I was reading on another thread, Microsoft can't give as what we all want. That's why REX, PMDG and other developers including freeware ones are there. To improve. . My computer has just needed a reboot after looking at that picture

Capt.Propwash wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:


I wish I could add not just airports and scenery ,how many issues, error, flashing screens ,then in less than a year after being released TWO service pack that didn't fix the problems at all (at the beginning you couldn't use any FS9 Model ,was SP1 that allow it)
Still FSX has Unsolved operational issues, I think the best FS of all was FS9 

maybe someone will reply If you spend 10.000 dollars in a computer you can play FSX

I rather buy and apartment or a house then

alrot wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:



My point exactly, and this is EXACTLY what it will take to even remotely enjoy Flight.

Has ANYONE.. anyone, ever seen the specs on the computers that Micro$oft uses to test and try out their 'games' (not just flight) but others as well?? Because THAT should be the Benchmark or Minimum requirement(s) on our systems so that we can get the same results that they get. Because, I can seriously say that they are NOT using a $300 Desktop bought at Walmart, but they are using a $5,000+ (possibly) Alienware computer.  We are not as spoiled as they are, and they are not gonna give us the same results they get.  If they did, we would be as happy as a lark and NOT need 3rd party designers except for aircraft (which I can only bet that FLIGHT is going to deal primarily with GA aircraft and not Heavy Tubes, or Military)  Here we go again with another let down. 

Maybe Micro$oft needs to change the name of their product line to "MICRO$OFT CRASH" because to me, FS2000 was a stable platform, 2002=stable, 2004/FS9 = some problems but still fairly stable, FSX..."We're loosing altitude quickly",   Flight =Green bar at the top saying "CRASH" and everyone goes back to FS9!!!! LMAO

Capt.Propwash wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 4:09pm:

I think you're missing the point here. The biggest attraction of the MSFS series (for me anyway) has always been the open architecture platform allowing freeware developers to create their own addons. From reading between the lines I doubt this will be possible with Flight. The "suits" at Microsoft never understood the principle of freeware. It's alien to everything they believe in.

Quote:

Hmmm. FS2000 has different memories for me. The development team completely lost the plot IMHO. It took me a couple of weeks to install it successfully & when I finally succeeded it was full of bugs. IIRC 3 (yes three) official patches were required to make it run any sense. FS2002 was everything that FS2000 should have been but a couple of years late.

After FS'98, and the rather poor FS2000, FS2002 was/is an excellent step-up in the series.
It took me ages to be encouraged to install my new FS2004 to replace it!
Although I now have FSX I still cant be encouraged to swap over to it from my FS2004... ...!

Its amazing how you get addicted to a certain version of the Sim......!

Paul...FS2004...FS Nav... ...!

...and FS2004 and FS Nav work flawlessly together in on-line Multiplayer sessions... ...!

People should stop trying to see the sim as a final product.
The sim is just a platform, on which you are meant to install addons.

It's not MS's task to make everyplace on earth look beautifull and detailled. MS's task is to develop a system that allows any developper to create sceneries as easilly and precisely as he wants. That system includes a big variety of landclasses, the ability to read and display high resolution meshes and ground textures, the ability to read and display high amounts of autogen objects etc... Thanks to this system, you were able to get OrbX-style sceneries, or ultra-precise photosceneries, and other things that cannot even exist in previous versions of the sim.

It's not MS's task to provide Accusim-like airplanes. MS's task is to develop a system and an API that allow plane creators to simulate anything they want. This system includes various features like animations, flight model handling, APIs for communication with external programes, SDK, etc... Thanks to this system, you could get new airplanes with unmatched level of details and realism (VRS + soon TacPac , Accusim aircrafts, PMDG etc...) with again, stuff that could not even be imagined on previous sim versions.

What MS includes in the sim is pure bonus to start with, to help you discover the new sim, that's all. Default SABA suck just like 99% of the airports on the virtual earth, that's a fact. Another fact is that MS has created the sim in such a way that you can replace them.

Finally, when it comes to the amount of CPU power that will be required to run Flight, or XPlane10, or even the amount of money required to run FSX after the SP2, it's always the same story. If people would stop trying to push the settings to the max, they could get some nice performances and "nice-enough" visuals. How many times could we read complains like "if it doesn't run on max settings, then it sucks" ? How smart is that ? How many people actually tried to set the FSX settings on the same level of details than FS9 ?

Yes, you will probably need a 10 000$ computer to run Flight or XPlane10 on max settings at more than 10 FPS... Or you can just keep your 1000$ computer (or less, if you don't change the screen, keyboard, mouse, speakers, joysticks and I don't know what else again) and set the game settings a bit more wisely, trying to focus on the feaures instead of the visuals

exactely

'everything can be improved' someone once said.(don't have a clue who)
fs is the same.
if the default isn't good then you can improve it so you have something to do.
they improve the standard game so its a bit it is easier and new possibilities open.

BUT i still think flight is going to be good,i just don't know about the performence.but i think i heard something about flight running in a different way from fsx.

Quote:

I agree too ,but its today when FSX can run decently and because of the add on developers who has perform and improve FSX in all its aspects
what I mean to say that FSX brought too many problems in the beginning that Both service pack didn't fix the root of these problems and many are still in it, and at one point many were like trying to hide it ,ahver you heard the " If FSX can't run well, Is your machine's fault" I wonder if M$ paid to those guys

I openly said now I love FSX more than ever ,I can't start any FSX model until I see if I can export my actual airplanes to the new "Flight" format other wise I would loose my work ..

I really would like to start a new or resume another citation but not until I see what's M$ will bring us
I think this company can't be such of idiots and do what the gossips says , as Bill Leaming says Maybe Flight Will be a nice surprise and maybe even will accept FSX Mdls too,who really knows?
No buddy knows for sure ,they would win much more money with this than Make a whole different way of modeling and make a closed games with M$ forums only that sounds more like rumors, Lets have a little faith ,shall we?

Alrot, I've got this bad feeling that you should probably test your exports for XPlane10 instead of Flight...
But I hope I'm wrong. The lack of consistent news about Flight is getting me more and more pessimistic, I have to say :/

And besides, again, FSX, FS9, FS8... will not "self delete" from you HD when Flight is released. 

What Capt. P said is something i've also said before:  How is MS going to stop an independant designer from developing their own Flight addons and distributing them? No matter what they would try (if they were to try to prevent "unauthorized addons") someone would figure out a workaround within a matter of minutes or hours, anyway.

Besides, if they did manage to have some sort of "lockout" that prevented addons that could not be worked around, Flight will not be much of a success since *we still have the FS series*.  Coupled with faster computers, I don't see FSX or any of the other FS's going away, nor do I see any limits for FSX.

I'd be willing to bet that in five or six years, someone could create an animated "Mountain Banshee" from Avatar for FSX, and it would be fliable, with flapping wings and Na'vi rider, full articulation, and so on, and not kill the frame rates.

Exactly.

We have fsx, Look at all the modifications by striking software, HDEv2, EnB bloom e.t.c They've completely changed the fsx graphically. It's only a matter of time until we figure out how to put cloud shadows and water that changes with the weather. (e.g Stormy/rough water) and so many more improvements. So if M$ Cannot deliver, We can stay in fsx/9 and change to flightgear/Xplane. Mr. Ballmer should remember that in windows 8

well...
i once made a mistake.
i once bought a second-hand fs 2002(wich we never installed) and then i found out fsx was out.
what a waste of money

When it comes to On-line Multiplayer, I have always enjoyed joining in, in either Solo or Multiplayer Flights, for many years, all round the World, with all my friends, in FS 2002 and FS 2004 with all the ease, and instant free connectivity of FS Host...(or even personal IP address to IP address!).... ...!

With FSX, Multiplayer became a bit of a difficulty, (apparently), due to the MS insistence in using their own, complicated system for connecting to the Internet, which may be the reason why we see so little FSX Multiplayer activity, (including me), compared to FS 2002 and FS 2004?

The simple, drop-down, Menu system used to connect to On-Line Multiplayer in FS 2004 is so simple and straightforward, I see no reason to change it for future versions of the Flight Sim, (which included FSX!)...!

Paul....FS 2004...FS Navigator...and Multiplayer!.... ...!

Hagar wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

Jezz christ!!! I never think about it ,and due that M$ is all about money , as I said MSFS series its being a Game, a Simulator and also a game to Built stuff Like airplanes and scenery
that would be the end to me of all about M$ FS ,even If I would be the richest man on the earth ,I would never give them a penny ,would be rude ,would be the lower thing this new Umbrella or Skynet company would do ..

The title of the topic is now false since the picture has been posted on the official website.

I'm just saying it's not "leaked" anymore because it's on the website.

F35LightningII wrote on Oct 13^th, 2011 at 9:22pm:


And this is significantly important how?

JBaymore wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 8:47am:


Umm...this is the

MICROSOFT FLIGHT

forum. That's how. 

Looks cool. cant wait to buy it lol.

To risk being disowned by all of you.
Do you not think expecting microsoft to perfectly model the ENTIRE PLANET or even 24,000 airports is a bit much to ask.

It takes Rock Star or Ubisoft for example 2 or 3+ years to create a game which has maybe one or two city size areas of game play.

The games they design are multi-platform mega selling games which retail at around £45 ($70US) and sell around 20 million + copies in a couple of years (£900million return). Compared to Microsoft flight sim which according to the Guiness book of records sold 21million copies between 1982 and 1999.

Your expecting Microsoft to deliver a game that's vastly more complex than most other games, covers the entire planet in perfect detail down to every airport (including Farmer Jones' dirt strip behind his barn which no one will ever actually go to),  features licensing of vehicles/logos/systems rivaled only by the driving sims (Gran Turismo etc), model flight dynamics,weather and navaids to a perfectly real world spec, then deliver it for £40 on one platform to a pretty limited audience AND for it to run perfectly smoothly at on pretty basic spec system.

I personally think that's one hell of an ask.
Just think to your self, how much time and effort does it take to find out the frequency and locations of every VOR station on the planet or to type in the name of every airport on the planet and that's just the simple things.

Boeing and Airbus etc have incredible systems, software and engineers to model flight dynamics and even then they only model one or two aircraft in the space of 5 years. For Flight Sim your expecting Microsoft to model perfectly the flight dynamics of 20+ aircraft which are all totally different.

I'm sure of course Microsoft can get access to the models Airbus and Boeing have created but I'm also pretty sure the computers used to model Boeing's aircraft are a bit more powerful that your average gaming pc.

My point is I think it's unreasonable to expect a sim of this complexity and size to be perfect.

A final thought world be. PMDG addons are amazing and virtually perfect BUT they very expensive and need very powerful systems to run them. And that's because to model every system perfectly takes a lot of time and effort and to then run them all on your system takes a lot of computing power.
But no one is slating the NGX because they can't run it at 30fps on their $300 system from walmart.