Microsoft Flight Webisode #3

[_michal 5]

let me know when you can fly FSX with autogen fully maxed at 30 fps with no stutters on an average pc.

I don't have to fly with all sliders maxed. I have average, three years old computer, I have FSX settings around middle, and it is fun to fly. The same with RoF and DCS or mainstream games. I can't enable hardware PhysX in Mirrors Edge, or Batman: Arkham Asylum. Even though I don't have graphics maxed all those games are still fun to play.I've tried Wings of Prey demo, and yes, it is pretty. Nothing else.

[Todd2 2,201]

.......Go ahead and enjoy your now defunct airlines. Thank you, I very much will enjoy my now defunct airlines. However if one chooses to move to a modern airline such as an Airbus or Boeing one easily can. Once again the beauty of the MS flightsim community. Thanks for pointing that out I'm glad you agree!

[fly_like_an_eagle 10]

yes, thats exactly my point: WingsOfPrey is very pretty! and so should be the next version from the people who invented DirectX, but didn't even incorporate it properly themselves in fsx."I don't have to fly with all sliders maxed."right, no one HAS to, but most FSX users would love to, given the choice without sacrificing performance. and that will only be possible by utilising latest graphics technology, as WingsOfPrey and other advanced graphics engines have demonstrated. people who pefer low scenery density or do not require silk smooth animation do never suffer as much as the ultra hardcore realism freaks.Todd: no offence or sarcasm intended: I really meant: go ahead and enjoy that classic airliner ! after all - gaming is all about fun and everyone likes different aspects. flying defunct airliners is one of the many things even a real pilot couldn't do, if it weren't for a simulator.Safe landings!those defunct airliners are known to have run into engine problems due to lack of proper maintenance or illegal replacement spare parts.

[JonRD463 146]

I don't post very often, so maybe I'm out of line asking this. Is it my imagination or is the general tone 'round here slipping down to the level of a First Person Shooter community?

[Rimshot 1,263]

It is not your imagination...

[simmerhead 885]

I don't post very often, so maybe I'm out of line asking this. Is it my imagination or is the general tone 'round here slipping down to the level of a First Person Shooter community?

There are probably some r.e.t.a.r.d.s. among us, but I choose to look at it in a positive way. Flight simulators users are a passionate bunch. There aren't many of us, so it's good that we can at least make some noise.

[Gibbage 199]

yes, thats exactly my point: WingsOfPrey is very pretty! and so should be the next version from the people who invented DirectX, but didn't even incorporate it properly themselves in fsx.

I gotta say your obsession with WingsOfPrey is boarderline shill. So far every post of your is nothing bot WingsOfPrey this, WingsOfPrey that! Yes, it does look pritty, but when you can limit your team to small towns, you can afford to make it that pritty. Sadly, the big boy flight sims dont have that luxery. FSX modeled all major airports IN THE WORLD, and most of the minor ones. Can you fly from England to Berlin without a load screen in WingsOfPrey? No? Can you even cross the channel? Once WingsOfPrey allows you to fly from NY to Japan non-stop and model all airports between and STILL be able to cram a lot of detail in every inch of scenery, THEN I will be impressed. Till then, its just an arcade game that has aircraft. So did GTA4, but it aint no sim.

[Christopher Low 5,511]

Flightsim has never been on the leading edge of graphics, except maybe back in the FS5 days

You have got to be joking. FS5 was the worst looking version of FS that has ever been released.

while I was impressed by Oterra's waves near the shoreline, the rest of the ocean rendering was so bland....

....and yet still light years ahead of the default water in FSX. You also have to note that this is apparently the first version of their ocean rendering engine. I am willing to bet that the final product will be considerably better than anything yet seen in FSX (including REX2).

[fly_like_an_eagle 10]

You have got to be joking. FS5 was the worst looking version of FS that has ever been released.....

................................I don't recall having said FS5 or any other version was "good looking", I said it was the first version to incorporate texture mapping, which then was unheard and unseen of, no more and no less.back then it was a milestone improvement and FS5 sold like hotcakes. don't try to interpet text into my posts that I didn't write.

[fly_like_an_eagle 10]

I gotta say your obsession with WingsOfPrey is boarderline shill. So far every post of your is nothing bot WingsOfPrey this, WingsOfPrey that! Yes, it does look pritty, but when you can limit your team to small towns, you can afford to make it that pritty. Sadly, the big boy flight sims dont have that luxery. FSX modeled all major airports IN THE WORLD, and most of the minor ones. Can you fly from England to Berlin without a load screen in WingsOfPrey? No? Can you even cross the channel? Once WingsOfPrey allows you to fly from NY to Japan non-stop and model all airports between and STILL be able to cram a lot of detail in every inch of scenery, THEN I will be impressed. Till then, its just an arcade game that has aircraft. So did GTA4, but it aint no sim.

-----------------------------I don't remember having said I was impressed with WingsOfPray per se. all I have pointed out is its much superior graphics, no more and no less. Since most FSX users complain about the lack of performance, this is a very valid point because only by exploiting latest state of the art graphics card and DirectX technology can those low frame rates and stutters be overcome if the eyeycandy in FSX is turned on. Should you care to read the fine print: I will repeat it for you; WingsofPrey is a combat game and as such no competitor for any GA simulator, still it has graphics 1-2 generations ahead of FSX. If you are happy with 5 year old FSX graphics technology, good for you. There are others who can never have too much graphics quality , and I for one belong to the latter. Microsoft have acknowledged the performance issues and confirmed they will address performance and graphics quality in FLIGHT. It's about time. I am glad and hope this time around they mean it, unlike their false and misleading DirectX10 promises with FSX back then, to pull us all over to VISTA, which was a requirement for the promised DirectX10 land."but when you can limit your team to small towns, you can afford to make it that pritty. "autogen could look much prettier because it is self repeating, always the same objects. no matter how large an area is covered, be it one small village or the whole world. it is all about current state of the art DirectX graphics technology versus 5 year old FSX mostly VGA style. Another missing feature: Volumetric lights have existed since NVidia launched Voodoo graphics cards at least 15 years ago. xplane has had it for ages, while FSX gets away with primitive light textures that do not correctly illuminate 3D objects - I hope all this gets fixed in FLIGHT, or else. :biggrin:I bet next you are going to tell us the FSX ATC has to be flawed because it covers the whole world? and the flight model has to be simplistic because there are just so many airplanes in FSX?My parents enjoy their old TV tube with mono audio - it doesn't occur to them that there might be more beyond 50 year old Standard Def , while anything below HDTV 720p hurts my eyes.<br><br><br>To each his own.

[stonelance 136]

autogen could look much prettier because it is self repeating, always the same objects. no matter how large an area is covered, be it one small village or the whole world. it is all about current state of the art DirectX graphics technology versus 5 year old FSX mostly VGA style.Another missing feature: Volumetric lights have existed since NVidia launched Voodoo graphics cards at least 15 years ago. xplane has had it for ages, while FSX gets away with primitive light textures that do not correctly illuminate 3D objects - I hope all this gets fixed in FLIGHT, or else. :(

I don't think you are using the right terminology. I think you are referring to dynamic lights, not volumetric lights. FSX has support for some dynamic lights. VGA graphics refers to a particular resolution and color bit depth, not to any rendering technology or style.

[Guest veeray]

Sorry all the next GEN engines use Directx 9... you are full of it Mr Eagle... go buy an xbox. :)

[fly_like_an_eagle 10]

I don't think you are using the right terminology. I think you are referring to dynamic lights, not volumetric lights. FSX has support for some dynamic lights. VGA graphics refers to a particular resolution and color bit depth, not to any rendering technology or style.

you are right: it is dynamic lighting but volumetric clouds. I don't remember seeing realistic dynamic lighting in FSX.and those volumetric clouds I would love to see in FLIGHT. And yes, it has been done already 2 years ago at 60Hz:http://www.devmaster...ead.php?t=12409

[_michal 5]

I don't remember seeing realisitc dynamic lighting in FSX.

VC and nav point lights are dynamic.http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526969.aspxparameter Light=1 in Particle N tab

[fly_like_an_eagle 10]

outside taxi lights are not so dynamic in FSX, this is how it should be in "as real as it gets" FLIGHT, and how xplane had it for centuries. and yes, you CAN indeed cross the british-french-dutch-belgian channel also with xplane with your dynamic lights turned ON if you like to..:(