Flight

[amahran]

So would I, but not in a simulator on a 22" screen.

Well played

 

[Jonay1990]

Here's a handy comparison that shows a bigger difference than you first think.

TAKEN FROM FLIGHTSIMWORLD FORUMS

http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=195640&hl=

Time for the comparison shots you have all been waiting for. The only things in my shots that are not default are the water shaders and airplanes. Everything else is out of the box default. As usual, locations are matched as closely as possible. I have not been able to find location 2. It seems to be a very tricky one to find, even with help.
Screenshot 1

FSX

Flight

Screenshot 2

Location has not been confirmed
Screenshot 3

FSX

Flight

Screenshot 4

FSX

Flight

Screenshot 5

FSX

Flight

Based on these shots, we can conclude that there is a huge improvement to the capabilities of the scenery engine. (probably a rewrite along with a texture set that is going to be completely new. They are probably still working on replacing the textures.) The shaders appear to have been upgraded a good amount. Buildings look like they have self shadows. (visible in shot 2) The overall lighting on the aircraft in shot 1 and 2 seems very nice compared to FSX. (was forced to use FS9 planes in the comparisons due to the lack of fsx native freeware Stearmans and Vans RV-6A's) The water in Flight is looking good, although lacking some reflection. Hopefully that will be added. As for the waves meeting the coast, that is a huge improvement. Waves washing onto the coast in Flight are like nothing we can get in FSX. It would appear that the sand is even left a little wet from the water! Clouds look mostly the same, although there might be somewhat of an improvement to the way they are rendered. (more coverage?) Sky textures look to have all been redone. That horrible bright blue from FSX looks to be gone. Autogen coverage looks to be quite good. You can see it go out much further into the distance in Flight than in FSX. Ground textures look much better, although blurry in spots. My opinion on this is that the settings were not turned up all the way for these shots. (Microsoft doesn't want to show us even more amazing shots, then end up having to cut out a feature and Flight not look as good in the end.)

Overall, there is a huge improvement to the whole graphics engine. (I'd guess that it's a rewrite in progress, or completed. Texture set could be a work in progress with most of the textures we saw in FSX getting redone) As long as it delivers with these amazing graphics and good performance, it's a definite win. The online store shouldn't kill freeware. It's a store...meaning, it will offer payware, most likely. Freeware will either be available on a specific freeware place at the store, or will be freely available at all the normal add-on websites. Add-on development needs to be a little simpler for beginners, so I hope that they make that a goal.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

Months of speculation will be resolved in one day after the release of the program.

Rather than wasting time dreaming about what Flight will be, why not hone your GIS and graphics skills in order to be able to create content for Flight when it does arrive?

Dick

 

[mmann]

Better yet; create content for FSX which does exist. Flight is, at this point, only imagineware.

Regards, Mike Mann

 

[bobbyjack]

Well played

Yes, it was a joke.

Bob

 

[robystar]

Am I contagious?
To be honest, I appreciate the comparisons between FSX and Flight.
Seems to me they did indeed do something about the shorelines and the mesh/textures. So please continue updating us with comparative screenshots.
And,Dick, how could you possibly start further exploring your GIS and graphic skills when you do not know what they have 'in petto' for us?

 

[rhumbaflappy]

Content creation skills will carry over onto whatever tools the Flight content SDKs will provide... if in fact any tools or SDK is provided.

Mike's post above is the best idea... just make content for FSX and don't worry about anything concerning Flight until if and when and how it arrives. Knowledge and skills will carry over.

Dick

 

[scruffyduck]

Folks

This thread is fine. However I would remind y'all that we closed the Flight Forum when the speculation ran a bit wild and when the normal rules and etiquette became frayed................

 

[alexczarn]

Here's a handy comparison that shows a bigger difference than you first think.

TAKEN FROM FLIGHTSIMWORLD FORUMS

http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=195640&hl=

[quote name='BrandonF' date='Jun 1 2011, 11:19 PM' post='2419024']
Time for the comparison shots you have all been waiting for. The only things in my shots that are not default are the water shaders and airplanes. Everything else is out of the box default. As usual, locations are matched as closely as possible. I have not been able to find location 2. It seems to be a very tricky one to find, even with help.

Based on these shots, we can conclude that there is a huge improvement to the capabilities of the scenery engine. (probably a rewrite along with a texture set that is going to be completely new. They are probably still working on replacing the textures.) The shaders appear to have been upgraded a good amount. Buildings look like they have self shadows. (visible in shot 2) The overall lighting on the aircraft in shot 1 and 2 seems very nice compared to FSX. (was forced to use FS9 planes in the comparisons due to the lack of fsx native freeware Stearmans and Vans RV-6A's) The water in Flight is looking good, although lacking some reflection. Hopefully that will be added. As for the waves meeting the coast, that is a huge improvement. Waves washing onto the coast in Flight are like nothing we can get in FSX. It would appear that the sand is even left a little wet from the water! Clouds look mostly the same, although there might be somewhat of an improvement to the way they are rendered. (more coverage?) Sky textures look to have all been redone. That horrible bright blue from FSX looks to be gone. Autogen coverage looks to be quite good. You can see it go out much further into the distance in Flight than in FSX. Ground textures look much better, although blurry in spots. My opinion on this is that the settings were not turned up all the way for these shots. (Microsoft doesn't want to show us even more amazing shots, then end up having to cut out a feature and Flight not look as good in the end.)

Overall, there is a huge improvement to the whole graphics engine. (I'd guess that it's a rewrite in progress, or completed. Texture set could be a work in progress with most of the textures we saw in FSX getting redone) As long as it delivers with these amazing graphics and good performance, it's a definite win. The online store shouldn't kill freeware. It's a store...meaning, it will offer payware, most likely. Freeware will either be available on a specific freeware place at the store, or will be freely available at all the normal add-on websites. Add-on development needs to be a little simpler for beginners, so I hope that they make that a goal.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the comparison shots! The water and coastlines are going to look a LOT better and the textures look a lot more realistic.

 

[Deleted member 1281]

I believe it is possible to reply without quoting n pictures that we have already seen. No offence meant.

 

[Hughes-MDflyer4]

Months of speculation will be resolved in one day after the release of the program.

Rather than wasting time dreaming about what Flight will be, why not hone your GIS and graphics skills in order to be able to create content for Flight when it does arrive?

Dick

He's not the one who created the comparison shots...I did.

I don't appreciate you saying that I am wasting my time. It's no easy task to create those comparison shots. And I'm looking at things from a more realistic point of view....things that could actually happen. The point of the shots is to show the huge improvement between the two sims. Again, nothing shown in these shots can really be replicated in FSX. (the clouds, sky, and scenery can probably, but the waves that meet the coast line, new tree/building shadows, aircraft lighting, and more cannot be done in FSX unless you painted on a static texture.)

 

[lionheart]

Very nice screenshots Brandon. Thanks for taking the time. The new Flight sim looks like it will have quite an awesome virtual world to fly in.

Love those shore lines. The beaches in the Honolulu shot are brilliant. Photo real.

 

[scruffyduck]

He's not the one who created the comparison shots...I did.

I don't appreciate you saying that I am wasting my time. It's no easy task to create those comparison shots. And I'm looking at things from a more realistic point of view....things that could actually happen. The point of the shots is to show the huge improvement between the two sims. Again, nothing shown in these shots can really be replicated in FSX. (the clouds, sky, and scenery can probably, but the waves that meet the coast line, new tree/building shadows, aircraft lighting, and more cannot be done in FSX unless you painted on a static texture.)

To be fair to Dick I do not think he was referring to your excellent screen shots. I think he is echoing my view that speculation does not get us far. Your screenshots are clearly not speculation

 

[robystar]

Hi,

When reviewing Dick's answers earlier on, I felt he knew more than he would like to lead us believe. So I was merely prompting Dick to tell us more than he wants us to know .

 

[Hughes-MDflyer4]

To be fair to Dick I do not think he was referring to your excellent screen shots. I think he is echoing my view that speculation does not get us far. Your screenshots are clearly not speculation

Well, screenshots are obviously not speculation. I thought he was referring to the conclusion paragraph of my post.

 

[solid]

This topic is more for a "Flying Forum" than a developers one, until the sim, arcade or game is out and we see what can be done with it, its all speculation which developers can not have an opinion on what ca be done with it. For now FS9, FSX and X-plane are the only "real world" for developers anything else is a dream...........what´s new in FSX???

 

[scruffyduck]

This topic is more for a "Flying Forum" than a developers one, until the sim, arcade or game is out and we see what can be done with it, its all speculation which developers can not have an opinion on what ca be done with it. For now FS9, FSX and X-plane are the only "real world" for developers anything else is a dream...........what´s new in FSX???

Well we closed the Flight Forum because there really was not enough known to have a good conversation but it seems we just cannot keep the discussions down

 

[Hughes-MDflyer4]

Well we closed the Flight Forum because there really was not enough known to have a good conversation but it seems we just cannot keep the discussions down

There's definitely a good use for these discussions: Others get to express their opinions/thoughts on the new sim. It's an interesting subject, especially with little information. It's nice to compare thoughts. As long as these discussions stay discussions, and not arguments, they are fun to have.

 

[solid]

Well we closed the Flight Forum because there really was not enough known to have a good conversation but it seems we just cannot keep the discussions down

I guess you are right Jon, this is like talking about UFOs.....until one lands and little women (or big ones!!) come out and have their pics taken with humans, everyone will continue to see them flying along or on their backyards......until Flight lands on the stores we´ll continue to speculate.

 

[hairyspin]

...until Flight lands on the stores we´ll continue to speculate.

Oh I think we should find out a bit more before that, if there's a beta release.