91 replies to this topic

[TopDollar]

Hughes-MDflyer4, on Oct 5 2010, 02:44 PM, said:

I would think that after the disaster with FSX, they would have learned their lesson!  

Now someone will come along and make my post negative...  

Pretty sure you already did that to yourself.

[BrandonF]

TopDollar, on Oct 5 2010, 12:00 PM, said:

Pretty sure you already did that to yourself.

Well, I've been around forums long enough to know that this happens. That's all I'm saying.

[Prancer]

spam3d, on Oct 4 2010, 04:55 AM, said:

Yes but MW2 is a first person shooter intended for shooting stuff and killing things. unlike our simulator which is meant to be flown and not crashed. Why would they waste effort implimenting such a pointless feature. I agree with the visual damage flaps, engine fires, gear faliures etc... they have some use. Slamming planes into the ground so Dat it goez boomz isnt.

Maybe some people would like the amusement of seeing what actually happens in their errors ("...and that's how my cockpit ended up wedged between two hangers..") as opposed to just seeing the screen freeze. If you don't like it, just turn crashes off.

Edited by Yay4Afterburners, 08 October 2010 - 06:08 AM.

[Spam]

Its nothing to do with if i don't like it, it doenst bother me morally. its just id like to see them not waste time implimenting some feature like that when they could be making a dozen other things better instead. You'd be pretty dull to not know what happens when you plow an airliner into the floor. I gues it could have its use in things like bush flying and things  

[Prancer]

spam3d, on Oct 8 2010, 06:46 AM, said:

Its nothing to do with if i don't like it, it doenst bother me morally. its just id like to see them not waste time implimenting some feature like that when they could be making a dozen other things better instead. You'd be pretty dull to not know what happens when you plow an airliner into the floor. I gues it could have its use in things like bush flying and things  

So what if you know what happens, but seeing it is quite amusing.

[Spam]

lol! well i guess you really like the idea then  

[Mohammad]

Hopefully they focus on improving default sceneries of places that will never get addons, like oh maybe Kuwait?

[wynthorpe]

Mohammad, on Oct 9 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

Hopefully they focus on improving default sceneries of places that will never get addons, like oh maybe Kuwait?

Why don't you create a scenery for Kuwait?

[pyruvate]

wynthorpe, on Oct 14 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

Why don't you create a scenery for Kuwait?

Not everyone has the skills and time

[BuboBubo]

i think a benchmark tool similar to the one just cause 2 uses would be kinda nice.

instead of forcing the user to experiment with the graphic settings, it benchmarks the computer and
when finished it will adjust the settings automatically to optimize the graphic/video settings.

[-Dexter]

I understand it's not a simulator by any means, but ARMA II (this video, especially) has air vehicles, ground vehicles, and ground troops (sometimes 100+ players together in a single server) running at the same time with superb FPS.

ToFB7K4oymw

^ Note: The autogen, the buildings (each building you can enter, it is furnished and decorated), the weather, the shadows, the effects (motion blur), and all the other players. BTW, he is using TrackIR in that video.


Considering the amount of other stuff going on that needs to be processed (bullets flying around, other players, vehicles, fuel, wind speed, etc...), there is no excuse why MS Flight should have such poor performance on launch. I would give up some 'simulator' things just to fly with acceptable FPS and visuals.

Edited by pwn247, 11 November 2010 - 09:44 PM.

[Daube]

Yes the scenery in that video looks very good.
However you have to consider the difference in complexity when you compare with FS (9 or X).

The differences are huge, and covering several domains: scenery, physics, AI, systems, weather etc...

Scenery: it looks good but nothing can be seen at more than 2-3 miles away. We get some fog with imprecise and blurry terrain after that threshold. Making an approach at 5 to 10.000 feet like we do in FS would simply be impossible, since the airport would not be visible until very very close.
Also, the terrain itself is not a dynamic terrain. It's fix, build by hand, which means it has been optimized everywhere it could. This non-dynamic style makes it much easier for the programmers to optimise the display of such things, leading to performance boost. Unfortunately, this system won't allow you to add your own sceneries/landclass/improvements so easilly. It won't allow you to model a very large area either.

Physics: the physics of the various vehicules in Arma is closer to "XWing vs Tie Fighter" than FS. There are very few parameter being taken into consideration. Basically, if the plane goes fast enough it can fly, else it kind of stalls. This extreme simplicity lead to simple flight model computations, which lead to much fewer work for the CPU, which leads to better performance. Sure there is some damage handling but it's very basic, you won't get any precise damage like in IL-2 for example, and of course you won't get any kind of "precise" effect for a given damage. Simplicity again, leading to better performance because the CPU has very few things to do.

AI: the game has some AI, but when you speak about 100 players it's not AI anymore, it's just real players. Having 100 AI would not lead to the same impact for example, but yes I know that Arma does a pretty good job in this area, I've seen those fantastic videos with the huge simulated AI conflicts.
However, there is no ATC system, and in FS once you install some AI packages you have virtually more than hundreds of AI planes flying on the whole planet.

Systems: there are more than basic in Arma. You won't be able to start your plane, nor to interact directly with the various instruments in your cockpit. No lights, no radios with several frequencies, no VORs, no ILS, no anti-ice, no mixture, no RPM control, no generators, APU or battery, no damage due to incorrect engine handling, no effects of flying environment (pressure, altitude, temperatures etc...) on the engine behavior. FS has all of this, but Arma does not. Again, that means much less computations to do for the CPU, leading to better performance.

Weather: in Arma you won't get a dynamic weather with appropriate effects on atmospheric pressure and temperatures. You won't get thermals, changing winds according to altitude, layers of visibility etc... You won't get any impact on the behavior of the plane/engines because of those parameters. You won't get anything like carburetor or propeller icing, and if it starts to snow, the surrounding lands will not get white. Also, I don't know if you can choose a season in Arma ? If yes, does it impact the look of the terrain (color of trees etc...) ? That's also some heavy stuff removed from the CPU you see.

Of course, in Arma the CPU definitely HAS hard stuff to compute, for the elements that you mentionned previously for example (bullets etc...), but the challenge is different. Basically, you are severely underestimating the complexity of the FS world.

Edited by Daube, 12 November 2010 - 05:44 AM.

[-Dexter]

You have clearly never played ARMA II.

Quote

Systems: there are more than basic in Arma. You won't be able to start your plane, nor to interact directly with the various instruments in your cockpit. No lights, no radios with several frequencies, no VORs, no ILS, no anti-ice, no mixture, no RPM control, no generators, APU or battery, no damage due to incorrect engine handling, no effects of flying environment (pressure, altitude, temperatures etc...) on the engine behavior. FS has all of this, but Arma does not. Again, that means much less computations to do for the CPU, leading to better performance.

You can start your aircraft in ARMA, there is a radio system (see ACRE), and there are definitely light controls.

Quote

Weather: in Arma you won't get a dynamic weather with appropriate effects on atmospheric pressure and temperatures. You won't get thermals, changing winds according to altitude, layers of visibility etc... You won't get any impact on the behavior of the plane/engines because of those parameters. You won't get anything like carburetor or propeller icing, and if it starts to snow, the surrounding lands will not get white. Also, I don't know if you can choose a season in Arma ? If yes, does it impact the look of the terrain (color of trees etc...) ? That's also some heavy stuff removed from the CPU you see.

Yes you will. All of this you see in ARMA.

I was trying to point out how it is possible to have a flight experience with decent visuals. If we can obtain 100+FPS in ARMA, why can't we obtain just ~40FPS in FSX without having to literally tweak the game's files? I'm not trying to ask for the world and the stars, but for the love of FSM, it is clear that other game engines do everything better than the FSX engine.

Your points are valid. Flight dynamics are the #1 priority in a flight simulator, but Microsoft will never sell more than a handful of copies if they can't get their act together. It's 2010, there's no excuse for a game with nothing but airplanes to run worse than a military simulation game.

Edited by pwn247, 12 November 2010 - 07:49 AM.

[Daube]

pwn247, on Nov 12 2010, 07:46 AM, said:

You have clearly never played ARMA II.

You can start your aircraft in ARMA, there is a radio system (see ACRE), and there are definitely light controls.

Indeed. I only played Arma, and various iterations of Operation Flashpoint.
There, to start your aircraft, you simply had to choose the action into the menu, and you could not interact with the instruments in your cockpit. For the lights, it's the same, just a menu option, not a real cockpit interaction. But that's not the point, I was trying to emphasize the simplicity of Arma systems.

Quote

Yes you will. All of this you see in ARMA.

I don't think the weather system is as complex as FS weather system at all. Sure Arma can display some clouds and fog with global winds, but that's about it. No need to mention the display distance of such a meteo, too.

Quote

I was trying to point out how it is possible to have a flight experience with decent visuals. If we can obtain 100+FPS in ARMA, why can't we obtain just ~40FPS in FSX without having to literally tweak the game's files? I'm not trying to ask for the world and the stars, but for the love of FSM, it is clear that other game engines do everything better than the FSX engine.

Once again, you are not considering the real complexity of the various things that are taken into consideration into FS.
And no, Arma engine doesn't do better than FSX. What does it do better, appart from graphics exactely ?
- flight dynamics ? No. Arma's dynamics are just ridiculous.
- AI flights handling ? No. Arma does a good job for flighting AI, but it does not handle ATC operations.
- world scenery building ? No. The scenery system in Arma doesn't allow to model big areas.
- aircraft modelling ? Well, yes and no. Models in Arma look good, but not as good as an FSX plane. Nowhere as complex, either, and not as interactive either.
- systems and engine handling/modelling ? No, not at all, just very basic and arcadish system/engine controls.

Quote

Your points are valid. Flight dynamics are the #1 priority in a flight simulator, but Microsoft will never sell more than a handful of copies if they can't get their act together. It's 2010, there's no excuse for a game with nothing but airplanes to run worse than a military simulation game.

There's no reason unless you pay attention to the technical details.
But I understand that you prefer ignoring those.

[-Dexter]

Daube, on Nov 12 2010, 09:32 AM, said:

There's no reason unless you pay attention to the technical details.
But I understand that you prefer ignoring those.

Like I said: Flight dynamics are the #1 priority in Flight Simulator.

[Daube]

Yes indeed, but the sim is not limited to flight dynamics. There's much more in an aircraft than just the wings
Same goes for the flying environment.

[-Dexter]

Daube, on Nov 12 2010, 10:48 AM, said:

Yes indeed, but the sim is not limited to flight dynamics. There's much more in an aircraft than just the wings
Same goes for the flying environment.

Microsoft needs to ensure that MS Flight will have both 1) good performance, and 2) good visuals... on top of realism, of course.

Edited by pwn247, 12 November 2010 - 10:51 AM.

[MikeMann]

pwn247, on Nov 12 2010, 07:51 AM, said:

Microsoft needs to ensure that MS Flight will have both 1) good performance, and 2) good visuals... on top of realism, of course.

Considering the title of this thread, that makes a reasonable wish list. Unfortunately wishes don't always come true so you may have to settle for what Microsoft delivers, warts and all.

Regards, Mike Mann

[Pjotr2626]

:-)  All of the above and ....

Please do not forget that any FS pilot has a (huge) flight LOGBOOK with many many hours.
I would really like an IMPORT and EXPORT function within my account.
Microsoft should investigate with real Pilots how valuable these collected hours are.

We, the Virtual Pilots, are as much proud of those hard-work earned hours,
and continue to log many more hours to come in MS FLIGHT.

Regards,
Pjotr2626

[-Dexter]

Pjotr2626, on Nov 17 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

Please do not forget that any FS pilot has a (huge) flight LOGBOOK with many many hours.
I would really like an IMPORT and EXPORT function within my account.
Microsoft should investigate with real Pilots how valuable these collected hours are.

Or, alternatively, have a cloud system. Where logbooks and the like are uploaded and synced to an account somewhere, and you can access those from any computer online. That would be neato.