|
Microsoft Flight
After 10 minutes trying the new released Microsoft Flight the only thing I could thought was to come here and say... THANK YOU devs, seriously... THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH !
I promise never again criticize your landscape, FM, shadows, lighting, colors, whatever... none at all! ( This is not true... but almost XD ) A corporation like Microsoft only released such a indescriptible thing that looks even more outdated than FS9. Horrible plastic sea, extremeley low resolution terrain textures, no smooth transitions between terrains, horrible cross trees from 10 years ago games, 3Dish colors and look in everything with no realistic lighting (not even good looking) at all. Even the clouds are badly ordered and you can see far clouds over closer ones... OMG! Planes and cockpits completely outdated when compared with COD ones and what a flight dinamics with zero sense of being flying. All that in a very small terrain with only 4 planes. And at least in my system, when maxed it provides less fps than CoD, wich is amazing. So people... seriously... CoD devs, wich are a very smaller team than microsoft one with lot less budget, have achieved something far (very very far) superior product. So, even with the buggy and incomplete CoD, devs deserve our most sincere admiration. Now... bring us the pach so we can fly it! XD |
Really? It's that bad?
|
Biggest part of MS success with that franchise was because of the CEM. 1c was smart to include that in the new engine, along with the other features that established them as the leader, with the release of Il-2 years ago.
|
seems ok...
I only played for a few minutes and fort it looked alright ... Its a game that I wouldn't compare with cod mind!
At least its free and working ... 1.5 gb download ... I may purchase the add on later Ross |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Now when the hardware catches up and a patch or two iron's out what is already a deep sim, many ww2 combat sim pilots will be glad Maddox kept the genre alive(despite lack of support from many in the community) cause we all know microsoft isnt going to save us. Now... bring us the patch so we can fly in formation! lol |
With everything graphics on max it looks like good FSX payware,
but forget FM: the Stearman feels more sluggish but otherwise just like the Icon A5 ! So its seems the FM difference between different aircraft is: more or less sluggish. 100% Arcade. I did not find anything for TrackIR...maybe there is but I deleted it now. Tiny world, water looks more like colored saran wrap...same look generally, but ridiculous FM. Varying the throttle on the Stearman has very little effect...They say even the experienced sim pilot will like it, well that is an outright lie. And sooo expensive add ons...the price of a full FSX for a few islands and a couple more planes ! (no cockpit for the Mustang) I don't think this will fly because it is so very very tame...like looking at nice pictures...maybe for The Sims crowd ? |
Quote:
|
I got diarrhea every time I hear for MS flight sims....of any kind
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
increased stability smooth braking auto mixture propeller effect (reduce) Well I stand by my previous review. I tried the full no assistance and it feels as it would in an Arcade at the mall. Period. PS: After binding all the keys and axes, the Stearman is a bit better, landing is a challenge, weather is excellent I must say. But FM ... 80% arcade. |
Quote:
http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/01.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/02.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/03.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/04.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/05.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/06.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/07.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/08.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/09.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/10.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/11.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/12.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/13.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/14.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/15.jpg And now... for something completely different ( and lovely ): http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/16.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/17.jpg http://download.ailantd.com/mflight/18.jpg Pd: And yes, even in the non asistance "realistic" mode the FM is pfffff |
one can said, "but Flight sim are these little bad thinks because have the entire world map"
no my friend, this is only hawaii:o |
WTF :shock:
|
MS
It's all about the money boy's. Who is there intended consumers and will it make $. This is not intended for anyone looking for a combat flight sim.
|
Quote:
|
Funny. I just downloaded a Demo and now have to slowly purchase the rest of the game around it.
Tried it. There are some things I like, the weather is not at all bad, better what we have in IL2 right now (which is no achievement, given we frankly do not have any weather at all). That aside I have to agree to some other posters here. FM feels incredible lush and forgiving. Maybe IL2 made us all too good pilots to really appreciate what MS got us here, but I do not think it will have much future on my drive. |
Quote:
Thanks for the pics Ailantd. I agree, truly horrible environment. Long live CloD. |
Long live CloD
Amen! |
Certainly adds a bit of perspective :)
|
if was running 1c, this day, i would go to luthier office, tell im to get is gmae working, stop the tank thingy, and develop a boing 767 simulator, and wait for the money.
no matter how bad COD is at the moment, it has a future, and a bright one i still believe, but this, this is just a dead horse. |
Wow, thanks for posting this, especially all the pics. I had been thinking of buying FS + A2A Power 3 Spitfire + effects addons which would easily havevset me back $100+.
I think I'll just redirect that cash towards a new monitor instead and just wait for the upcoming CoD patch (which I know will fix every broken/missing feature mentioned in this forum). I'm puzzled though. None of your pics had any Barbie fashions -- not even a Spitgirl! Very disappointing. ;) |
I was gonna post what i thought but Ailantd took the words right out of my mouth.
And yes, it really is that bad. I played the beta for all of 5 mins and shelved it straight away. Very glad i knew before i bought. |
well do you remember this???
MS tend to show amazing cinematics and then... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGQxC8cQ3g |
Quote:
I've tried some very good WWII birds on a friend's PC and they have the individual aircraft systems down to a rivet sometimes. The rest can differ depending on the add-on makers: you may easily see freeware aircraft done to a higher standard than payware add-on. The thing with civie flight sims is that it's very modular, so individual designers can decide how much to push the envelope. That means you need to do some research before deciding what to buy. I could easily suggest all A2A products that contain the enhanced accusim module, the FW190s from classics hangar and aerosoft's PBY Catalina. I've flown all of those on various occasions when visiting that buddy of mine and that's how i happened to know enough CEM and then some to transition smoothly to CoD :grin: |
Quote:
The Devs need maybee every encouragement and positive feedback they can get to go ahead;-) Thank you for remembering us to recognize a realy bad sim. Anybody else some humblepie? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
P.s. dammit snapper now you have me thinking about a 30" monitor :| ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The accusim Spitfire is the best plane I've flown on a computer. Obviously no guns, but I have no doubt that at this point in time, it's the closest I'll ever get to knowing what it's like to fly a Spitfire. |
Quote:
Consider a 120hz monitor before you buy a monitor (read small print and reviews, some 120hz units exaggerate, and true 120 hz may depend on certain factors), there is a nice difference in the viewing quality though, with the 120hz.:) |
Quote:
Quote:
Methinks that will fail miserably as far as the PC flight sim community goes but will probably sell quite a few copies on the XBox if the DLC is sensibly priced. Dumbed down doggy doo's of the highest order in my humble opinion. :twisted: |
This is unfortunate, I was looking forward to just flying around, looking at the scenery of Hawaii. The posted scenery screenshots highlight the reason I absolutely hate 3d objects on satellite photo terrain. It doesn't get any uglier. I really though MS might raise the bar on the graphics, but its the same old crap.
|
Quote:
Thats about the only thing going for it as far as I'm concerned. |
It sure runs good though
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've bought a few extra sims whilst waiting for 'the patch' to come out. The Spitty and KA-50 Black Shark are awesome in how everything in the cockpits work. They don't hold a candle to CoD in other aspects though. The one that I don't fly a lot because it bores me a bit is RoF. I think I just like lots of buttons and levers. After buying and trying a few sims I can see, even now, CoD is miles and miles ahead. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I just went from a Dell/Sony trinitron crt, to the lcd 120hz. The difference was huge, but I'm not knowledged as to the why. Here is a review where some of it is explained.:) http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mon...2233rz_10.html Edit: I just noticed in your sig that you have a 120hz...I should be asking you to explain the technology.:-P |
Quote:
Yeah, M$-Flight has almost all the shortcomings you mentioned, BUT it runs great even on low-end rig and is actually somewhat entertaining GAME, unlike this russian wishing-well that is still, after 1-year of patching, missing even some of the most basic elements. Having faith in the unfinished product is OK, but you should have some realism when criticizing and making comparisions to other products. It seems that CoD is all about hopes & promises. It would be nice to see some of them delivered. On a diffenent note; maybe we are expecting too much from the visuals of any sim? I´m inclined to think that there is a sound reason why Flight looks the way it does; if you want good performance and a big flight area, you can only get this much eye candy. And you must admit, that Flight has it´s moments; weather effects and sunrise & dusk settings look very nice. Clear daylight flying has nothing to write home about. |
Quote:
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Sure Flight have nice things, like the weather... (and I can´t think about any more right now), but I would say that when CoD have weather it will looks and feel way better than Flight, again because the concept itself, 2D billboards full clouds never will fell as good as 3D well done clouds, at least not from close or for flying through them. About sunsets... I can´t believe when in Flight I see that they are still using the same trick that FSX uses with sky color. In a real sunset a especific point in the sky do not change color while moving your head. CoD and even old IL2 did this very well. In FSX and now in Flight, if you set a sunset, and turn your head towards the sun looking an especific point in the sky, you will see all the sky color changing, and not, is not the sunglare what I´m talking about. It may be true that we are asking to much to sims, but my point here was CoD team, being a very small team, has done a very step fordward in all areas (so it can be done), while microsoft has not innoved almost nothing from FSX and Flight looks like a game from 10 years ago when you look close. Flight only uses the noise solution, too much things very bad modeled, textured and placed, but a lot of them. The overall first feeling can be good in this situation, but all the illusion breaks up when you look close. For me it´s a no go, perhaps because I work in that area and that faults jump to my face like an insult. Anyway I can understand what Microsoft has done with this, I can think it´s main objetive was to make it visually appelaing in low end systems ( and I´m talking about consoles, xbox you know, wich I think was it´s main target really ) when you set low graphics. And here I must to admit that when you set both CoD and Flight in the lowest graphics, CoD still runs faster than Flight but looks a lot worse. Cod is a high end creature builded for the future that even runs today. Flight is a creature for future build like yesterday games... maby for Microsoft the future are outdated consoles... The sad thing it´s that microsoft may be right here. If this is the case then gaming and simulation future is very sad and no appealing to me. The use of old techniques in Flight fits well with this, but even asuming this, that poorly executed textures and models are not admisible for me. It feels like a lack of love while performing the work. I would never accepted something like that from myself, so I´m not accepting that from anybody else. It´s so different from CoD in this aspect, the love for what you are doing and not only the search for easy money... long talk, sorry. |
Quote:
Its unfortunate as I thought since Microsoft wasn't modeling many of the resourse hog features of a combat flight sim, they would compensate with cutting edge graphics. |
This product wil be for someone but not for me.
I've tried it for 15 min and feel dissapointed. For sure there is no way to make a comparison between COD wich wasnt finnished when released and this product that does what was promised but can not stand in the shadow of the COD SIM even in its unfinished state. Ive looked at the landscape of this MS product and there are square patches all around the trees are something out of a Geof Hammond sim from the nineties ( sorry Geof ) Its free to some extend basicly you get a demo version that you can expand on. I will not do so, the flight model is verry simplyfied. I've put it on max acros the bord but it doesnt impress me one bit. Out of ten I would give it five because it ( seems ) to work as intended. As the latest ofspring from the Ms flight sim family its a shame. This product has reached its potential at launch, The Storm of war series is just beginning and has stil to reach its potential. Al above my opinion Gents, Those who are happy with it I'm glad you are. |
:confused:
Quote:
To get to 120fps I supose other graphics settings would be lowered, with CoD Im not sure there is any hardware that an put up 120 fps? How about vsync with 120hz?:confused: |
I think a 120 Hz monitor would reduce screen tearing where the framerate is 60-120 but not above. The usual method of stopping tearing, vsync, should lock the framerate at 120 but wouldn't that cause problems when the video card drops below 120 framerate output?
|
Quote:
That said Ailantd, I fully agree with you. Flight looks complete crap compared to it´s predecessor, if you only put a littly bit of work into fsx. Besides, its arcade anyway... http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshots/images/9471.jpg http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshots/images/1682.jpg http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshots/images/9513.jpg MS Flight, I can only laugh... ;) |
+1
My FSX install also looks 10x better then those screenshots of flight (at least 10x) I really don't see what flight can offer to flight sim fans that FSX doesn't do a hell of a lot better, FSX tricked out a little really can be a stunning creature, I love flying my A2A P-47 ( just one of my many "favorite" aircraft) between small airports is Australia with the excellent Orbx add-on and realtime weather as well as some other nice little add-ons, there's some truely stunning scenery to be seen. And before anyone gives me the ol' "pfft no guns = no fun" argument, I haven't been a mad aviation fan since I was old enough to realize what they were because they can "blow stuff up", the sheer lines, power and beauty of aircraft has always been the number on appeal for me, so to fly some of these VERY VERY detailed aircraft around my home country is very satisfying indeed. Of course that said blowing crap up is also a lot of fun too :P |
Quote:
Like I said above in my other post, you will need to do research, and move slowly! There are 120hz monitors and then there are what is called "True" 120hz monitors, after researching I bought the Planar...some manufactuers make un-true claims or half truth's about their product...found this from a cool site. And interesting in the game has a option either 59hz or 60hz.. it must have something to do with this: "Note though when gaming at a frame rate of exactly 60fps (vsync on at 60)," http://www.overclock.net/t/662628/60...20hz-explained Regarding TRUE 120hz Computer Monitors and Future TRUE 120hz HDTV Displays "[Regarding TRUE 120hz monitors, (and future TRUE 120hz LCD HDTVs) these displays will indeed improve your gaming experience (few exceptions). Because the screen is refreshing 120 times a second, the image projected will seem smoother and decrease tearing, even when gaming at below 60fps. Note though when gaming at a frame rate of exactly 60fps (vsync on at 60), 120hz LCD HDTVs and TRUE 120hz monitors should theoretically perform identically (both displays refreshing 120 times a second and repeating each frame once at 60fps). More information is being outputted to your eyes at 120hz even if it's just repeating frames, making the experience seem smoother. Don't forget though, to truly see the benefits of a TRUE 120hz monitor, you must be gaming at an average FPS greater than 60(ideally over 120fps). When your average frame rate is above 60(for this example let’s say you are averaging 120fps), you WILL see the in between frames that a 60hz monitor could not display. For a list of TRUE 120hz monitors, see nvidia's page on monitors that are compatible with their 3d technology.] [Note though, video card solutions that are recommended for 60Hz 2560x1600, will not perform as well at 1920x1080 @120hz due to the amount of information that needs to be processed. In other words, it’s more taxing on a GPU to display 1920x1080 @120hz than 2560x1600 at 60hz. You will need one heck of a powerful GPU solution to see all the benefits of 1920x1080 @120hz. Beyond this resolution, at this high a refresh rate, dual link DVI will no longer have enough bandwidth to broadcast a signal to a monitor. As this point we'll have to move to a more advanced cable method like Display port (seen on a lot of the new HD 5xxx series cards)" |
My contribution.
If you compare Flight with FSX then, you'll never install Flight on your harddrive ever :grin:. But If you are looking for a General Aviation sim that can run almost maxed out at 50 frames then it's your sim. Despite all critics, planes feel very realistic and FM is dynamic in fact the flight model is better than on FSX stock planes. Flight is lacking in many features that FSX has but it's a new product and I think, it needs time to evolve. Just made two videos showing the flight procedures. Pay attention radios are working on the Vans but ATC is not implemented yet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l8RjOOiHFA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hirL8mpHypU By the way, the screens shots posted earlier are no where near what Flight looks when maxed out. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
this effect still missing in il2 new version. "shinning glass details lines" on the cockpit
http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...titled-1-2.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Best description I heard for MS Flight "it's like FSX with a boob job and a frontal lobotomy" it's pretty but dumb.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
it gives you get more inmersive in the game and realism. http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...achoff/f14.jpg |
Its not that bad actually, the terrain isn't low res in fact they detailed some very nice areas. The FM is so-so what do you expect even FSX is the same but this is very clean and fun I guess. Its never meant to be a hard core sim. Just have fun with it.
|
Thread closed... enough has been said, you might want to take this discussion to a MSFT Flight forums.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.