233 replies to this topic

[The_Fonz]

Closest thing to that was that mission in FS2000 when your approaching San Fransisco, i think they were just telling you to follow this approach.

[LA_PHX]

 SwitchFX, on Aug 28 2010, 05:42 PM, said:

Didn't FS have something similar to that? I don't remember seeing it in FS9/FSX, but I know I saw in in FS 2002.

I'm not sure...I know FS98 did.

 Jeremy-Bentham, on Aug 28 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

^Well if you put it that way. I just mean (and i know this has been said before) i don't want it to become more video game-ish to stretch out to a wider community.

Oh I agree with you.  You just brought back memories of that arcade game I loved.

[Peter797]

 LA_BOS, on Aug 28 2010, 08:34 PM, said:

There was actually a really cool arcade game where you fly a 747 and try to fly it through rings or something.  It actually wasn't that bad...it had you sitting in a seat with throttle controls and yoke and such.  It was pretty fun for when I was 10.

Yea I played it at playdium. Some Japanese version

[ArmChairAviator]

Before picking up FSX the last flight simulator I played was the commodore 64 version.



Actually I wasn't aware they had a book out back then: http://www.flightsim...m/foi/cover.php

Anyway I have always kind of thought that fs9'ers were just a bunch of complainers when they would knock FSX for performance issues among other things, and would claim fs9 was a superior product.  The other day I picked up FS 2004 and installed it to check it out before passing my own judgement.

I must admit fs9 is virtually identical to FSX except I could fly with max sliders (GTX 280) and cruise at 50 plus FPS. If I had active sky, GEX,REX and ORBX for fs9 there wouldn't be much to gain from FSX. That said I am happy with FSX, but was surprised how similar it is to fs9.

I hope Microsoft turns a completely new page with Flight.

Edited by ArmChairAviator, 29 August 2010 - 10:19 PM.

[-Dexter]

 SwitchFX, on Aug 28 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

If you wanted to go further, you could say a destructible environment like Battlefield: Bad Company 2, would be cool, but can you imagine all the "sick" people or otherwise out there crashing planes into buildings? I don't mean to offend anyone, but there's a lot of weird people who would buy the game just to do that.

Leave out the destructible environment, though. No need for that in MS Flight.

BC2 gives players a large map area, a free-roam area. Players aren't confined to hallway corridors, or to courtyards surrounded by a fence barrier.

BC2's engine (the Frostbite 2 engine) works good because it was designed for snipers to be able to shoot all the way across the map, so the view distance in BC2 is as far as the map extends to the skybox. Players are given an area that is, not only extremely detailed, but completely dynamic, destructible, and performance-friendly.

I think that if Microsoft used a different engine for Microsoft Flight, they'd make a lot of simmers very happy. (They'll also make my computer happy )

Edited by pwn247, 31 August 2010 - 06:41 PM.

[_NW_]

I think the main problem is, MSFS tries to render all the scenery in a distance and then increase it's LOD as you get closer...  which is fine..  but really unneeded.  They should design the engine to be able to figure out what the user actually can see and render that..  IE..  don't render buildings behind mountains if you're in the valley..  

Another big factor is weather..  clouds..

[Mohammad]

In terms of visuals, I hope to god this next game renders the sky more properly. When you're 33 thousand feet in the air, the sky should be crystal clear, not blurry or hazy like what we see in FSX right now.

[Buziel-411_RED]

 Mohammad, on Sep 1 2010, 03:37 AM, said:

In terms of visuals, I hope to god this next game renders the sky more properly. When you're 33 thousand feet in the air, the sky should be crystal clear, not blurry or hazy like what we see in FSX right now.

Maybe in the Middle East, but not here in Texas.

Almost every time I fly in real life, the sky is much hazier than in MSFS. When I was flying to and fro San Francisco a few weeks back, I kept thinking about the lack of haze and long visibility in MSFS.

Another thing I like about lower visibility is it hides the blurries. If we're lucky, Microsoft will finally figure out how to nail the blurries this time around, though.

[Daube]

 Mohammad, on Sep 1 2010, 03:37 AM, said:

In terms of visuals, I hope to god this next game renders the sky more properly. When you're 33 thousand feet in the air, the sky should be crystal clear, not blurry or hazy like what we see in FSX right now.

The sky in FSX varies a lot and is not always hazy.
Also, most of the times it corresponds quite well to what I can see from real planes.

[pyruvate]

 Mohammad, on Sep 1 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

In terms of visuals, I hope to god this next game renders the sky more properly. When you're 33 thousand feet in the air, the sky should be crystal clear, not blurry or hazy like what we see in FSX right now.

You should fly above India, it's always hazy no matter what altitude you're at

But hopefully the haze in MS F looks more natural.

[Peter797]

I believe you ^

[-Dexter]

 Domo, on Aug 31 2010, 11:20 PM, said:

I think the main problem is, MSFS tries to render all the scenery in a distance and then increase it's LOD as you get closer...  which is fine..  but really unneeded.  They should design the engine to be able to figure out what the user actually can see and render that..  IE..  don't render buildings behind mountains if you're in the valley..

It should determine which altitude you're at, and adjust scenery accordingly.

If I'm flying at 1,000ft, I kind of want to be able to see buildings and trees and traffic. At the same time, if I'm flying in a valley, the game shouldn't be rendering anything that I can't see yet. The problem right now is that FSX tries to render everything with in X mile radius, which is silly. It should render, in detail, only things that I can see at that moment. Worry about what's on the other side of the mountain later.

But if I'm flying at 30,000ft, I don't give a about trees, buildings, or traffic.

Quote

Another big factor is weather..  clouds..

It seems that other game engines do smoke and mist very well. The HL2 engine, for example, shows little to no framerate impact when the player walks into an atmosphere of smoke. This is especially noticeable in Counter-Strike Source, where smoke grenades create a thick, dense cloud of smoke, but players see almost no framerate impact.

Why we have such a problem with FSX's clouds, I don't know. And it's not about the size of the atmosphere that's being rendered, it's about how the atmosphere is being rendered.

[Peter797]

I think a good example how MS Flight should render, is how HAWX renders. Smoke, clouds, scenery etc. perfectly.

[VFR_Pierre]

There's so much haze here in DC each time I fly in summer, but it's crystal clear in other seasons. I just hope they re-make this game completely.