• Tillbaka../ Back..
Utdrag från Airliners.net Forum: "Microsoft Flight Simulator coming..."
Inlägg #31 av "BWIAirport"
I came across this nice review of the trailer by a pretty respected simmer, Jeff Favignano: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psZgtal ... dex=2&t=0s
If you don't have an hour to watch it, here are some key points.
I underlined each different aircraft model we see:
Not that there was much question, but the fact it's called "Microsoft Flight Simulator"
alleviates any concern it'll be a gimmick like Microsoft Flight was. This is a full-blown simulator.
The first words we see are "Real time in 4K." This trailer is (likely unedited) gameplay, not artist renderings. Next, we see "powered by Azure AI" which is a cloud computing software that will help power the over 2 petabytes of information required for the full-earth satellite imagery. He mentioned that he could envision this requiring a subscription service.
One of the first shots we see is Chicago. Jeff mentioned the history of MSFS's relationship with Meigs field, which of course would not be included based off satellite imagery. It will be interesting to see how/if they handle it.
Another important component of the Chicago scene is the opaque fog layer. The weather throughout this looks immaculate.
In a shot with a Diamond DA-62, we notice two major things: PBR shadows and dynamic lighting, and animated people.
A subsequent shot of a TBM 930 displays heat blur.
Next we see an A320Neo at LAX. I have a few thoughts on this, some of which Jeff pointed out in the video. He speculates for a couple reasons this aircraft could be modeled by Aerosoft. This is due to the incorrect font used in the autopilot panel and because the registration starts with AS (although the reg of every aircraft shown did as well).
The scenery at LAX looks impeccable, like a high-quality payware addon. If you can remember, FSX picked a handful of airports to really focus on and enhance, while leaving the rest pretty generic aside from the layout and that may be the case again here. Hard to say yet.
Animated ground vehicles and people. He mentioned there could be a built-in GSX-style system with these. If the speculation is correct that Aerosoft is involved, it could be based on their similar AES.
The runway textures look worn and scratchy.
There was a pretty impressive light splash from the aircraft lights, a luxury that you could only get from high-quality payware in FSX.
It looks like there is some nice wingflex in the takeoff footage. This would, of course, be an improvement from the current Aerosoft A320.
Next, we see an Icon A5 in San Francisco. The green water hue is evident of the use of satellite imagery.
We get our first shot of the ground night lighting in Dubai. It looks phenomenal. ORBX probably came closest to accomplishing this realistic look in FSX, but it's nice to know this will be built-in. Worth noting in this Dubai shot that the use of satellite imagery makes itself clear, particularly in the static boats in the water.
The next shot is in a Robin DR400 off the coast of Marseille. We see some great-looking underwater reefs and seagulls.
After that, we get a few shots of what appears to be the American Southwest. We can see a blue haze effect in the distant scenery. In a shot of a Bonanza G36 flying over a crater, we can tell the boulders on the ground are all 3D. This is a result of highly advanced 3D satellite imagery (play around in Google Earth and you'll see what I mean).
Now we get a couple storm shots. In the first shot (Jeff couldn't identify it, but it looks to be Cozumel) we see the dynamic cloud movement, especially in the anvil clouds at the top of the storm cell. When the A320Neo flies through the thunderstorm, there is a very realistic flash of blinding lightning. He used the word "menacing." There are also really good-looking windshield rain effects, something that appeared in the 2D cockpit in FSX but not the VC.
The next shot is a landing at LAX at night. The runway lights, especially the PAPIs, stand out much less against the surrounding neighborhood lighting (in FSX runway lights stood out 10 miles away). It is worth noting the terminal areas were not lit up. However, the autogen lighting at the homes and buildings looks really good.
We see an X-Cub flying around some flamingos. It's nice to see FSX kept its relationship with the Piper Cub family.
Remember how big a deal FSX made over their landmarks such as the Pyramids? Hi, we're back!
In another shot of the TBM 930, this time in San Francisco, we get our first visual of the realistic flight dynamics. It appears to be getting tossed around in the wind, hitting small updrafts and downdrafts. This effect would also be on display on a shot of the A320Neo landing in what looks like either MDW or SNA.
They show off their cityscapes in a flyover of Houston. The ground scenery again looks insane. It is clear in the shot of some of the bleachers at Minute Maid Park that some of the satellite derivation was less than perfect. Also, while the ground traffic looks great when you're flying over, it doesn't seem to handle turns or intersections too realistically.
In a shot of Seattle, we see some nice reflection of the clouds in water. We also see a nice motion blur during an aileron roll. Some of the trees on the ground look cheaply rendered, though.
The excitement over the fauna in FSX was pretty big. They pulled it off 1000x better here, as we see really nice-looking giraffes flying over in a Cessna 208. The trees look really nice too, something you would've needed ORBX for in FSX.
A few shots of planes flying in formation hints at a multiplayer aspect, which I feel would be a no-brainer.
We see a very realistically-rendered Courchevel airport (LFLJ)!
In the last few shots, we get a really good sense that these clouds are 3D, fluid objects, and it doesn't seem like you're flying through layers of parchment paper like it did in FSX.
A few final thoughts:
Any comparison to FSX was not intended to be a dig at 13-year-old software, rather a simple comparison. I, like many, have invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars/pounds/euros into making FSX as good as it can be, and Microsoft understands they have to make a really insane program to get us to switch.
Jeff mentioned the first release will be for PC under Windows 10.
It doesn't look like there will be good reason for 3rd-party non-airport addons such as Drzewiecki Cityscapes, at least in the first few years, due to the satellite imagery. If there will be a way to update that scenery directly from Microsoft, kiss those kinds of addons goodbye.
You might need a behemoth of a computer to run this faster than 10FPS.
The release is supposed to be next year. Any issues pointed out will likely be corrected. If not, they didn't affect flight dynamics and you wouldn't even notice them above 8,000 feet.
I'm stupid excited for this. --- by "BWIAirport" ---