Latest Microsoft Flight shots (May)

[mutley 4,498]

Are here

Can't say I am that impressed yet.

[GabethePilot 1]

Are here

Can't say I am that impressed yet.

Bottom line is whether the engine is more efficient, or it can utilise 6 or 8 cores.

Fat chance of either I reckon !!!

I hope everyone ignores it. They should have fixed FSX.

[needles 1,013]

I agree Joe, apart from the coastlines and water at the coastlines looking a little better, we are already experiencing what they are showing us.

Don't judge a book by it's cover though eh?

[pacinka 0]

1. I still see FSX clouds.

2. I still see blurries.

3. It still looks like a cartoon.

4. I still sense that the person taking these screenshots is using a supercomputer.

5. And the buildings in Shot 3 look rather... ugly.

Unless MS can drastically change the look of Flight prior to release, I'm sticking with FSX.

[allardjd 1,853]

One of the most potentially ominous things about Flight was in the recent second installment of their interview with PC Pilot. I don't recall the exact wording but it appears MS are going to lock it up much more tightly than FS9 and FSX and intend that add-ons be made available only through Microsoft, regardless of who actually develops them. There wasn't much detail, and it was all painted in the light of being for the users' benefit, but it sounded like the first note of the death knell of the small developers and the shareware/freeware developers and perhaps even the individual tinkerers and tweakers. It's a scary thought. If it means what I think it means, only the bigger add-on publishers will be able to remain in the game.

 

John

[ddavid 149]

No moving pictures for me - the page just produces text. I'm bored with this b*ll**** (hope that's the right spelling!)

And, anyway, MS want back into a franchise they now have little control over (i.e. FS9 and FSX) - so they're promoting 'A whole new concept...'. Sorry if I sound cynical, but I can only see a minor drain of FS9/FSX fans migrating to it. Unless, of course, it's completely brilliant - maybe they'll have flying porcines?!?

Cheers - Dai.

[hurricanemk1c 195]

The bi-plane looks alright - for a tube-liner fan at least!

[GabethePilot 1]

Well if it is true that no SDK will be released... they're dead in the water.

Stuff em.

[Tim_A 997]

I'm guessing the new plane is an RV6 or an RV9.. a Vans RV at any rate. (Vans make *the* best selling kit planes on the planet by a huge factor). The biplane of course is the same Boeing Stearman we've seen before. (Apropos of which, I heard yesterday that Martin Shaw [Judge John Deed, Inspector George Gently, The Professionals etc] has just sold his. It's currently parked up here at Enstone)

Bottom line with MSF is, if it (a) better supports modern multicore + DX-whatever hardware and (b) works properly, it doesn't matter that some bits of it still look like FSX, people will flock to it in droves. I know I will. Purely for the modern hardware support. So, with regard to John's 5 points:

1. Don't care.

2. Don't care

3. Don't care

4. I doubt it - they are still sore after getting burned with the faked DX10 picture

5. It's America: They're renowned for it

Other John: It looks like they are going after a model very similar to Apple's App Store. Honestly I don't have a problem with that: It has worked very well for Apple in both the iOS and now Mac markets, and certainly has not dampened the market or enthusiasm for freeware. Heck even I'm working on a number of iOS projects! What it *has* done is raised the minimum standard, since rubbish apps get rejected (A****s watch out!)

[SEATAC 400]

I don't see that they are offering anything that we are not currently getting with the add-ons such as hi-def clouds, water, scenery, aircraft, etc. Some of the realism that we can get with the FSX 3rd party developers is astounding. There is no way that Microsoft can give us the high detail add-ons that Orbx, Aerosoft, PMDG and all the rest give us right now. I for one do not plan to dump my FSX hardware and software anytime soon. I have too much invested and am having too much fun.

That said, we can not stick with FSX forever. One day it will be as obsolete as the orignal SubLogic flight sim.

That day will not be anytime soon though, as FSX still has a lot of untapped power. The fastest processors made today still cannot run with everything maxed out in FSX. But it would be nice to have true multi-core support.

[Tim_A 997]

That day will not be anytime soon though, as FSX still has a lot of untapped power. The fastest processors made today still cannot run with everything maxed out in FSX. But it would be nice to have true multi-core support.

Maybe the people that can already run FSX well don't see an advantage, but for those with fewer horses under the hood, what if Flight tapped all that power while only requiring half the grunt... or 2/3... You've suddenly opened up the whole of FSX-level simming - and possibly more - to an awful lot of people that don't have the grunt to run FSX as is. And that must surely be A Good Thing, yes?

Of course, it's a big "IF"

[allardjd 1,853]

Tim makes a good point about re-writing the FS engine to allow better use of the hardware. FSX is far from efficient and makes limited use of modern PC resources. If the kernel (is that a valid term any more?) of the app will permit efficient processing by multi-core processors and effectively use large amounts of memory and improves graphics processing, then the performance of the app will improve dramatically. Nothing is absolute but at any given level of hardware, the user will be better able to run add-on apps, more detailed AC and scenery, traffic, WX, effects, etc. That's all a plus if it happens and it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't.

 

As it stands today, the PC horsepower is there in most cases, but the app makes poor use of it.

 

One of the things they should do is look at the most successful add-on apps and examine why people feel the need to spend additional money to do better what's already there, e.g. traffic, WX. They can't do it all and add-ons will always be popular but some basic things badly need improvement.

 

Things I'd like to see improved...

• AI traffic behavior
• MS ATC
• Flight Planner
• Icing effects
• Better WX (both visual effects and changes/transitions from one set of WX to another)
• Runway traction effects (slippery, wet, snowy, icy; effect on braking, etc.)
• Surface wind effects from buildings, etc. close to runways
• Wake turbulence effects

[rabbitc 0]

I'm happy to be the voice of dissension here. Flight looks excellent - particularly the lighting effects on the June preview. Also, the codebase is written for multicore from the ground up and 'yes' I believe it will quite easily utilise 6-8 cores.

The FSX codebase is junk. It's a fancy sports car with a heavily-modified 'Chevette' 4-banger engine underneath that is well past its sell-by date.

Hopefully 'Flight' will be what FSX should have been in the first place.

Flightsim junkies: Old grumpy men who don't like/fear change.

[mutley 4,498]

I am hopeful that the most up to date FSX models are compatible with the new ESP SDK so should work with MS Flight? Still early days.

[rabbitc 0]

I am hopeful that the most up to date FSX models are compatible with the new ESP SDK so should work with MS Flight? Still early days.

Hmmm...not sure about that one, Mut. If they're re-writing the code base, there's a very big chance that all bets are off for compatibility with past add-ons.

This is a double edged sword. Keep modding the old code so it works with older stuff or dump the lot and start again to take advantage of current hardware.

[rob16584 42]

Most of us already get scenes like this with FSX courtesy of Orbx and REX2

I think if they do make it so you can only sell add-ons via a dedicated MS site it will be a massive mistake. The 3rd party delveopers make FS a whole lot better than what it is, it's unfair that MS should try and cash in on that by not doing anything to develop the add-ons

As has been said, it's still early days but I'm not convinced

[PanzerFodder 0]

Being a new guy to FSX, (less than two months).

I find it a bit scary that any add-ons that I buy today, may not be compatible with the new “MS Flight” when it gets released, as thats going to be a lot of money down the drain! in my case .

So more than likely, I will not get the new MS Flight when it first appears, and will just sit on the fence to see what happens .

Cheer's...Graham...

[mutley 4,498]

You will be amongst thousands of others!

There's no obligation to change if you are happy with what you have. There is still massive support for FS2004 and even FS2002.

[allardjd 1,853]

We're making a lot of assumptions here - it's far from certain what MS will do - they may know, but we don't yet.

 

Having said that, there are all manner of folks out there who are messing with the innards of FS9 and FSX, not nefariously (though there may be a few of them too) but because parts of the architecture of FS9 and FSX are left open to users and it's a facet of flight simming that adds materially to the enjoyment of those who do it - some even make money at it. At the lowest end there are folks who make a minor tweak to an Aircraft.cfg file and it ranges all the way up to the big development houses who spit out sophisticated payware add-ons.

 

I'm a tinkerer by nature and spend a lot of time fooling around under the hood of FS just for the fun of it. I've messed with traffic, scenery, waypoints, airports, flight plans, navaids and all sorts of things that require going in through the back door or require the use of add-on tools and utilities. Though I like to fly, I also like very much tinkering with the various bits and pieces of FS to customize and personlize it and to make it modestly better for me. If the capability to do that is not available in Flight, then I will cling to the two earlier versions as a toybox. That's not to say I'll boycott Flight - it may and should be radically better for flying and I can see having the new shiny one while still retaining the older version(s) for the fun of playing with them.

 

It really is a dilemma for a long-running software franchise like FS to decide when to let go of backward compatibility and re-write from the bottom up. If the franchise lasts long enough, it's inevitable that will have to be done sooner or later. Maybe this is the right time.

 

Code that is patched and re-patched to incorporate new things while retaining compatibility with the old eventually becomes so bloated and convoluted that performance suffers badly and it can become buggy as well. FS is probably about one version beyond where they should have re-written the code. There's a lot of new hardware out there, particularly multi-core processors and data busses and OSs that can address many gigabytes of memory directly. It's high time the capability to utilize those things effectively are incorporated and doing it by slapping patches to the old code will probably not satisfy anyone.

 

I don't have a problem with them doing that, even though I and most FS users are going to be left with shelves full of things we've bought that we will not be able to use in the new app. It's a necessary thing, at some point, and I really believe that now is the right time to move on.

 

My biggest concern with Flight, though not the only one, is that MS will lock it up tight and that the flow of add-ons will be meager, expensive, and quite possibly not what we want. I expect that Flight itself will be very good, but quite limited. The crux of whether this is the continuation of the robust, active, diverse and commercially successful genre (including add-ons) or the beginning of the end lies there, in the extensability of whatever they offer. If they lock it up tight, it may as well be a console game and many of todays avid FS users are not going to like that very much.

 

It's their software and they have a right to configure it any way they want to. We as users have a right to vote with our credit cards. If we like it, we'll beat a path to their door and they'll continue to prosper. If it's a PoS, we should stay away and let them suffer the financial consequences of their management and marketing decisions. That's kind of how the world works. I'm hopeful all will be well, but there really is a lot to be concerned with here.

 

John

[Tim_A 997]

Don't forget, if you buy and install Flight, that does NOT mean you have to uninstall FSX. You will not lose out on the money that you've spent on FSX addons, as they whill be right where you left them. The same is true for FS9 addons, FS2002 etc etc

I really fail to understand the doom and gloom over addons -- Installing MS Flight will no more invalidate my FSX investment than would, say, Railworks.

If Flight then allows us to use or import said addons, that is pure bonus.

[hurricanemk1c 195]

Now RailWorks is similiar in many ways to this new 'Flight'. Most add-on's go through themselves (RailSimulator.com then via Steam), but a few (eg. a fair few from Just Trains) don't. RailSim.com have stopped selling stuff made by Iron Horse House (no idea why)...

Anyway, I'm going off the point of this topic. I'm personally not going to buy Flight when it's released. Before buying something, I always read reviews of it etc. and then judge. But I'm 90% sure some day I will go over to MFSF (Microsoft Flight Sim 'Flight')

[rob16584 42]

You've hit the nail on the head there Tim.

I still use FS9 a lot - I find it much more stable for flying on-line than FSX, plus I can crank the settings right up and not suffer the performance hit I get with FSX. Hopefully if MS Flight is being re-written from the ground up it will take advantage of all the powerful hardware available at the moment and people will be able to run it problem free straight out of the box, unlike FSX when it was released.

After seeing the initial FSX videos/screenshots and expecting to be flying around Africa with heards of Giraffes wandering around beneath me I am not being stucked in by the visuals just yet

[Tim_A 997]

Tell me about it. I've recently flown extensively around a big chunk of Africa that is famous for it's wildlife - massive herds of attenboroughs; big game parks and reserves chock full of BBC wildlife documentary units as far as the eye can see, lakes covered in pink flamencos, and Wimoweh is constantly wafting on the evening breeze...

But in FS... nada. The place is a barren desert.

[mutley 4,498]

Ah Daktari, where's Clarence?

[allardjd 1,853]

Quote

...pink flamencos.

 

Ah, Spanish dancers? I'll bet you meant flamingos.

 

John