May FSX and Flight Comparison Screenshots

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

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 1FSXFlightScreenshot 2Location has not been confirmedScreenshot 3FSXFlightScreenshot 4FSXFlightScreenshot 5FSXFlightBased 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.

[xXArch_AngelXx 0]

First off, you are awesome. Been waiting for these! Secondly, if someone says to me that there isn't any difference between FSX and FLIGHT, they are clearly stubborn and ignorant. I'm really starting to grow on FLIGHT, its really shaping up well! I suppose you could say I'm even excited! Still it seems that FLIGHT hasn't updated their cloud textures much if at all (I haven't noticed much) , they might even have volumetric clouds by the time its released! Who knows, but with about a year left of development.... I think it will definitely turn out better than we think, or at least what some of us think. Thank you very much for posting these! Now we just have to wait and see if FLIGHT will be shown at E3, Microsoft have booked a slot there and I hope its gonna showcase FLIGHT... we'll have to wait and see!Jamie ♥

[penta_a 428]

Thank you so very much for the hard work and the(Eagle Eye observation), I think Flight started to take shape and looks like that it already entered last third of development phase.Thanks again

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Nice work on the comparisons Brandon.I love the FSX vs. Flight comparisons in #3 and #4. Comparing the two, I would agree that Flight looks better out of the box. For me, its all going to come down to addon a/c and scenery. As good as Flight looks, I wont get it until I have either a PMDG or LDS plane to fly in it and a good assortment of after market airports, although the default airports do look better, like in screen shot #4. If and when PMDG/LDS can get a good hi-fi airliner to work in Flight and FSDT, FT, and my other favorite airport developers get their airports working or redone for Flight then I will consider a move if performance is better. Until those conditions are met, it looks like I will have to remain on FSX since I am not much into flying default a/c.

[meshman 109]

I have not been able to find location 2. It seems to be a very tricky one to find, even with help.

Yeah, it's getting on my nerves! :( Spent some time last night going around all but The Big Island in Google Earth trying to spot the location. Tonight it's time to hit TBI!Almost, almost thought it was down on the southern shore of Kaua'i, east of the resorts, but not really sold on that idea.C'mon Microsoft, spill the beans on #2's location. :(

[hisuleiman 0]

Comparing the two, I would agree that Flight looks better out of the box.

2006 vs. 2011--that's all. What a really silly statement. Replace "Flight" with "Madden": comparing the two, I would agree that [Madden 11] looks better out of the box [than Madden 06]. You cannot credit a new game for having better graphics than its predecessor made many years ago. Tired of responding to those type of comments. What should be compared is MS Flight vs. the possible capability in 2011. There are significant improvements but even more can be done/it does not match up to its potential (especially for the possibilities available today). Honestly, it looks like a game made in '08.MS Flight is not, by any means, bad; on the contrary, it's looking pretty good. I'm anxiously waiting for it (can't wait). I'll be one of the first to buy it. Really looking forward to better frames, no crashes/bugs, and 3rd party software. All I'm pointing out is it doesn't look "great;" there are areas that lack. Many really good ideas I've read will not be incorporated. It isn't some 'new-generation marvel' with the complete flight experience and environment as we had hoped, but it's a good step-up.MS Flight will likely hover around an 8.0 and will attract a mild audience of gamers.

[BaronKen 144]

I think Flight is looking very, very good; improvements in graphics are quite evident with each new set from MS. The comparison shots are really an eye opener, thanks for taking the time to do the work for everyone to get a look at. Yes, Hawaii is the only area that has been shown so far; but the potential for the rest of the world is obviously there. I'm hoping for a demo sometime later this summer like we had in FSX months before its release; and if it's Hawaii or a portion of it, then based on the previews being shown it should be a lot of fun to play around with.

[Mountain Man 142]

I'm hoping for a demo sometime later this summer...

As far as I know, they haven't even entered beta yet, so I doubt we'll see a demo so soon.

[ErichB 3,641]

I really do love the new Flight terrain. Much improved!

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

2006 vs. 2011--that's all. What a really silly statement.

Hahaha, you crack my up man. With all due respect, you've made plenty silly statements on this board yourself, so I wouldn't say anything.My response was more geared to the folks that had previously said that Flight didn't look better or much different that FSX did out of the box.

Tired of responding to those type of comments.

Stop then, no one will miss the responses.

[ashepherd316 63]

flight is looking much better than fsx like you say the only thing that is missing is the water reflection but im sure that will be added lets hope it does have better fps than fsx.

[hisuleiman 0]

Hahaha, you crack my up man. With all due respect, you've made plenty silly statements on this board yourself, so I wouldn't say anything.My response was more geared to the folks that had previously said that Flight didn't look better or much different that FSX did out of the box.Stop then, no one will miss the responses.

Which of my responses was silly? By the way, you've agreed with my assessment that yours was (silly). Seems like you could only attack me rather than my words. If I were wrong, I would be corrected. Curious how that doesn't happen here..And also, who really thinks MS Flight looks worse than FSX out of the box? Don't think anyone believes that. Find me just one person.I guess you speak for everyone then? + don't care what anyone thinks; these are my opinions.Don't really know what I've said wrong in my post.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Removed by author

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Which of my responses was silly? By the way, you've agreed with my assessment that yours was (silly). Seems like you could only attack me rather than my words. If I were wrong, I would be corrected. Curious how that doesn't happen here..And also, who really thinks MS Flight looks worse than FSX out of the box? Don't think anyone believes that. Find me just one person.I guess you speak for everyone then? + don't care what anyone thinks; these are my opinions.Don't really know what I've said wrong in my post.

I'm not attacking you at all, although I do admit that I can't stand your demeanor since you started posting here, but that's ok, if we were all the same there wouldn't be any conflict in the world.Why you chose my remarks to say were silly is beyond me, which in itself seems silly to me that you would feel the need to nitpick my short post. BTW, I didn't say that anyone thought Flight looked worse out of the box. I said thet some folks in previous posts didn't think it looked much better or much different that FSX did out of the box, not that it looked worse and no, I am not going to go back and quote them.Goodbye.

[Guest jahman]

...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....

Many thanks for posting these nices comparison shots.Yet for the comparison to be fair WRT comparing the FSX vs. Flight rendering engines, you would need to add the best autogen (or photoreal) textures, 1 meter mesh and REXX weather, because that is what we all run FSX with today.Cheers,- jahman.