http://forum.avsim.net/index.php?app=ccs&a...0Pages&id=8
Avsim performed an interview with the MSFlight lead, Joshua Howard.
100% ad-free
Adamski wrote:QUOTE (Adamski @ Mar 20 2012,3:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well - that's the nail in the coffin for me. They really have lost the plot, big time. All Joshua can do is bark on about "trying something new"
I believe Charl would be proof the FS9/FSX is well in the realm of the genie - PMDG toasted Flight .. talk about FSE .. well i believe they lost the plot .. I think all MSFS had to do was rebuild default airports , change the autogen to be adjusted be more in line with customers cry's , few other things .. long live FSX , shite going to be around for many years yet and being realistic , many are only starting to catch up .Last edited by Ian Warren on Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dbcunnz wrote:QUOTE (dbcunnz @ Mar 20 2012,2:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Should I dare to say it but are they the same directors running it as the ones running ORBX
Could you expand on that a little Doug - or is it too sensitive?
After reading the interview there doesn't seem much point in my buying 'Flight' as it seems FSX does most things I need already, and Flight will not do them as good or better, and will not have as many features as FSX.
They do not seem to be describing an 'as real as it gets' simulator, and is it just me or do I detect a slightly derogatory note in the use of the term 'hard core' simmers?
Lapun wrote:QUOTE (Lapun @ Mar 20 2012,10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>They do not seem to be describing an 'as real as it gets' simulator
I think you have hit the nail on the head with that comment, with all this reading about disgruntled simmers and devs across the forums I have found nowhere where MS stated Flight was a "Simulator". The simmers (us) ASSUMED that it was and hyped Flight completely out of proportion, to then bag the hell out of the MS flight team for their (the simmers) misinformation and false rumors.
FSX is an amazing world renderer yet simmers are still looking to the heavens for the new Messiah, honestly why?Regards always
Pete
Rotordude wrote:QUOTE (Rotordude @ Mar 20 2012,10:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>FSX is an amazing world renderer yet simmers are still looking to the heavens for the new Messiah, honestly why?
Because hardware is cheaper and more powerful - and FSX is (by programming standards) pretty old. It doesn't even support DX10 (properly).
Ask a scenery designer or aircraft developer "could FSX be improved?" - I'm sure you'd get a response.
Having said that, I'd be happy with FSX for a fair while yet, just as it is, with maybe only a service pack that cures a few of the bugs/memory leaks and implements DX10.
Rotordude wrote:QUOTE (Rotordude @ Mar 20 2012,10:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>FSX is an amazing world renderer yet simmers are still looking to the heavens for the new Messiah, honestly why?
You have nailed on the head ... with the weather generators , photoreal with NZSI or VLC , the complex aircraft NGX for example , one thing that could be looked at is the oceans , sea's and waterways , you have your navigation right down to the tee ...but as Adam said the Hardware , some overspend for what they need and some under ... end off the day the choices of software is staggering .
Lapun wrote:QUOTE (Lapun @ Mar 21 2012,11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>'Flight' has given FSX a new lease on life and we simmers will benefit from the 3rd party developers renewing interest as they breath a sigh of relief.
A good point -- you could look at it as the best of both worlds for developers -- plenty of life left in FSX, and the hint of a more open Flight down the track.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests