Microsoft Flight

[banned]

Originally Posted by David198502

is there something as detailed available as the accusim spitfire but with a 109?

I don't think so mate. I'm pretty sure A2A doesn't do one. I would love that too if there was one. I'm now downloading the Ka-50 Black Shark attack helecopter to see what that is like. It appears to have a full clickable cockpit as well.

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

P.s. dammit snapper now you have me thinking about a 30" monitor

You should stop thinking and start buying! I recently went from 23" to 27" and the difference is substantial for CoD. I considered 30" or 32" but do a fair bit or work on it too and thought the text would be too grainy at 1080.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I'm confussed what good is a 120hz monitor if your graphics card is sending out the picture at 60hz. Does the monitor display the same scene twice per clock?

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.

[Vittuuntunut]

Originally Posted by Ailantd

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A corporation like Microsoft only released such a indescriptible thing that looks even more outdated than FS9.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 Planes and cockpits completely outdated when compared with COD ones and what a flight dinamics with zero sense of being flying.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

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.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I'm confussed what good is a 120hz monitor if your graphics card is sending out the picture at 60hz. Does the monitor display the same scene twice per clock?

You have to configure the game to output at 120hz to get it working. It works just fine in CloD etc, and it sure makes a difference! You also feel rather big difference just on the normal Windows desktop. The mouse pointer no longer gets "blurry" when moving fast etc...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[Ailantd]

Originally Posted by Vittuuntunut

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.

In fact in my system, when maxed CoD ( with only one plane like flight ) and Flight, CoD gives to me a lot betther fps. Note that to set max graphics in Flight you need to set up every option manually, not the general max setting, there are hidden options if you do so. And even in max setting Flight look a lot worse than CoD because technical and art concept design decisions (I´m a professional mysefl in that area and now what I´m talking about) and poor artistic texture art work. That decisions are in the core of the Flight sim so Flight has not even the promise to be amazing visually as CoD level at least without mayor rework. Sure CoD does not give to us all the promissed stuff, but flying with one plane with realistic flight dinamics and CEM in a wonderful enviroment, wich is what Flight is designed for, CoD does that already and perform and looks a lot better while giving you way more terrain and more planes.

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.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Ailantd

In fact in my system, when maxed CoD ( with only one plane like flight ) and Flight, CoD gives to me a lot betther fps. Note that to set max graphics in Flight you need to set up every option manually, not the general max setting, there are hidden options if you do so. And even in max setting Flight look a lot worse than CoD because technical and art concept design decisions (I´m a professional mysefl in that area and now what I´m talking about) and poor artistic texture art work. That decisions are in the core of the Flight sim so Flight has not even the promise to be amazing visually as CoD level at least without mayor rework. Sure CoD does not give to us all the promissed stuff, but flying with one plane with realistic flight dinamics and CEM in a wonderful enviroment, wich is what Flight is designed for, CoD does that already and perform and looks a lot better while giving you way more terrain and more planes.

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 skay, 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.

+1

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.

[NLS61]

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.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I'm confussed what good is a 120hz monitor if your graphics card is sending out the picture at 60hz. Does the monitor display the same scene twice per clock?

I thought that we would need a video card that can handle 120 fps for 120hz monitor to matter in games?

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?

[jimbop]

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?