143 replies to this topic

[SuperCar1000]

MikeMann, on Oct 27 2010, 08:44 AM, said:

So is FSX compared to FS9 at similar eye-candy. My computer runs FSX much smoother than FS9.

I was just looking at the latest photos for X-Plane 10 in their news section. The scenery looks much worse than Microsoft Flight (from what little we've seen), which is already being regarded as not good enough for many posters on this forum.

These shots were taken from XP9... We don't actualy have shots of the autogen from XP10.

Don't forget that it's running OpenGL witch is less impressive than DX but is at least compatible with something else than crappy Windows...

[BuboBubo]

MikeMann, on Oct 27 2010, 09:00 PM, said:

I have a couple of problems with Just Cause 2. One it is not a flight simulator. Two my computer does not even meet their minimum system requirements, let alone their recommended requirements! Yet I have no problems running FSX.

its the opposite for me, JC2 looks splendid and runs fine on medium-high settings on 1920x1080
while FSX looks like @£€$ and have a mediocre performance on medium-low settings on 1280x960

[Prancer]

I don't think there's any group harder to please then hard core flight sim fans.

[Spam]

SuperCar1000, on Oct 27 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

These shots were taken from XP9... We don't actualy have shots of the autogen from XP10.

Don't forget that it's running OpenGL witch is less impressive than DX but is at least compatible with something else than crappy Windows...

I think you mean OpenGL and Direct3D (a part of DX which is the graphic API). without XPlane running on Open GL you wouldnt have multi operating system support for the iphone version etc...but the two basically do the same job. Its really complicated some googling may enlighten you abouth this stuff.


"Which because it is so easily done explains why there are so many better flight simulators available that provide all the simulation that FSX does with the superior graphics of Terragen 2. Now if you can just name these superior flight simulators for me, I would be very thankful!!"

No its not easily done.... But seeing as the FSX engine was designed for FS2000? 02? * Im pretty sure the coding that MS is using is ancient, It cant be the case that they can use the same old engine and provide a new simulator with more goodies and updated graphics and surpass the performance of FSX. don't get me wrong my FSX runs really well compared to the horror stories i see on hear of really good computers falling to their knees. I think their just eager to put a new flightsim out there and regurgetating FSX as an excuse instead of sticking some development time into a fresh engine, or atleast overhauling the code for things like shadows and lighting. Im not liking this bashing im doing becasue i love the FS franchise i really do but i think im awaiting a dissappointment  

[MikeMann]

In the end Microsoft really doesn't worry too much what we think because they know we will buy their product anyways. People say that FSX was not the success that Microsoft was wishing for. If that is the case then why did they have a shortage of available product activation keys. When a lot of Windows users expressed dissatisfaction in Vista, did they then turn to Apple or Linux operating systems? No, they stuck with Windows XP until Windows 7 arrived. They have got us hooked and they know it.

[Mohammad]

As pwn said, hopefully the performance issues are solved. If the new game can utilize a computer properly, then I don't mind graphics that look a little bit like FSX, albeit slightly tweaked.

And as Buziel said, Windows 7 was an improvement over Vista, even though it might look the same. But at least it functions a lot better. If Flight can be a better version of FSX, I certainly wouldn't mind.

[Elukka]

MikeMann, on Oct 27 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

Do you see the pattern here; flight simulators put a lot of processing power into simulating flight, non-simulator games put a lot of processing power into better looking graphics.

We have separate devices in our computers for general processing and graphics processing for a purpose. Sometimes there's overlap (software rendering or GPU physics, for instance), but how much effort is your graphics card really doing to simulate flight in FSX? My guess is that it's done entirely in the CPU, which leaves the GPU free to, in the case of FSX, render underwhelming graphics for the performance you get, which was his point.

Edited by Elukka, 28 October 2010 - 01:11 AM.

[Daube]

pwn247, on Oct 27 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

Just Cause 2 does not use fixed scenery (have you played Just Cause 2?). In fact, you can mow down trees and clear a path for a tank, etc... It's like autogen in the way that it's placed depending on the environment (more trees generated in the jungle than in the snowy mountains, and different types of trees in the desert, etc...).

I think you do not understand what I mean with "dynamic" terrain.
The terrain that you see in JustCause2 sure looks good. It's because it's not dynamically generated. It's a very precise build, like a giant 3D object. It has a completely fix photoscenery on it, hand-placed objects/scenery, optimized parts of landscape where a very precise shape does not count, heavy parts of landscape where precise shape does matter, etc....
It's not a terrain that is generated "on the fly" while you're getting next to it, based on some simple and editable data like FS.

It's hard to understand but basically, the summary would be that it is NOT possible to build a terrain like JustCause2 for the whole world, because:
- photoscenery for the whole world does not exist
- you would need thousands of people to model the mesh precisely, working for several years
- you would need other thousand of people to place objects precisely on this terrains, for a much longer period
- you would need more disk space than you will ever be able to afford to store all of that data
- you would not be able to spend the necessary money for such a product
- nobody will ever build such a terrain anyway because it would take too much time., and nobody would be able to buy it in the end.

On the other side, FS engine is able to generate the whole world based on generic, simple and easilly editable data. It's called "generic" data, where a texture can be used automatically in several places (contrary to photoscenery), where trees and building positions are placed directly on those textures, covering several places at a time, etc...

And even generic terrains can take a lot of time to build, depending on the level of details. Look at OrbX sceneries, still highly generic but yet very detailled. They have quite a team there, but nevertheless they need several months to build a single region.

Of course these notions are easier to understand for programmers than for normal gamers....
And I'm sure the rule #11 will certainly apply, so FSX will still suck because Crysis can display more details...

Edited by Daube, 28 October 2010 - 06:25 AM.

[MikeMann]

I sure hope no Microsoft developers are reading this thread! Imagine a flight simulator based on a fictional island in Southeast Asia. At least they could put all their efforts into graphics and not worry about accurately placing over 24000 airports and countless rivers and mountains. They could then maybe just give us a fictional aircraft which would be way easier to model as well as easier to produce flight dynamics and sound.

Perfect for gamers but it would absolutely suck as a flight simulator!

[Peter797]

MikeMann, on Oct 28 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

I sure hope no Microsoft developers are reading this thread! Imagine a flight simulator based on a fictional island in Southeast Asia. At least they could put all their efforts into graphics and not worry about accurately placing over 24000 airports and countless rivers and mountains. They could then maybe just give us a fictional aircraft which would be way easier to model as well as easier to produce flight dynamics and sound.

Perfect for gamers but it would absolutely suck as a flight simulator!

It's not quite what we're talking about here? But okay..

[MikeMann]

Peter797, on Oct 28 2010, 06:29 AM, said:

It's not quite what we're talking about here? But okay..

Unfortunately it is exactly what some others here are talking about.

I wasn't the one who brought up Just Cause 2 as example for Microsoft to aspire to!

[pyruvate]

MikeMann, on Oct 28 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

Unfortunately it is exactly what some others here are talking about.

I wasn't the one who brought up Just Cause 2 as example for Microsoft to aspire to!

FSX > JC2

Just fix the bugs, up the performance; even keep graphics at FSX level, just give us a stable platform.  3rd party does the rest

[niteye]

They're discussing Just Cause's graphics engine, not that Microsoft should make the game itself like Just Cause.
Also kind of irrelevant but furthermore placing all the 24000 isn't all that time or effort consuming for Microsoft. The FS world with the airports is generated from a database file containing all the airports and runway lengts/locations. They don't individually and manually place each airport. (except a few major airports that have higher-than-standard detail).

[MikeMann]

pyruvate, on Oct 28 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

FSX > JC2

Just fix the bugs, up the performance; even keep graphics at FSX level, just give us a stable platform.  3rd party does the rest

Well put, exactly how I feel!

[Daube]

pyruvate, on Oct 28 2010, 09:02 AM, said:

FSX > JC2

Just fix the bugs, up the performance; even keep graphics at FSX level, just give us a stable platform.  3rd party does the rest

I agree with that, but unfortunately some people keep confusing the plateform and the content.
I don't care about the content anymore. I don't care if there are no default planes or if there are some bad ones. I don't care about the level of detail of the default airports or sounds or textures.
What I care about is the set of features proposed by the platform. This is the one and only thing that is important for a sim.

Edited by Daube, 28 October 2010 - 09:36 AM.

[pyruvate]

Daube, on Oct 28 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

I agree with that, but unfortunately some people keep confusing the plateform and the content.
I don't care about the content anymore. I don't care if there are no default planes or if there are some bad ones. I don't care about the level of detail of the default airports or sounds or textures.
What I care about is the set of features proposed by the platform. This is the one and only thing that is important for a sim.

I rarely ever use the default aircraft.  It's worse than a game if the A321 can easily reach Mach 1.5

[Daube]

pyruvate, on Oct 28 2010, 09:51 AM, said:

I rarely ever use the default aircraft.  It's worse than a game if the A321 can easily reach Mach 1.5

I don't think the A321 can reach Mach 1.5 if you don't disable the damage from stress.
Those planes ARE overpowered in real life, don't forget that.
The max speed of the A321 is supposed to be Mach 0.82. The plane may not be at full power at this speed, but the airframe might not resist to any faster speed.

Also, the default A-321 in the sim is by default totally empty. When you set some additionnal weigth to take into consideration passengers and luggage, the plane is not so nervous anymore.

[pyruvate]

Daube, on Oct 28 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

I don't think the A321 can reach Mach 1.5 if you don't disable the damage from stress.
Those planes ARE overpowered in real life, don't forget that.
The max speed of the A321 is supposed to be Mach 0.82. The plane may not be at full power at this speed, but the airframe might not resist to any faster speed.

Also, the default A-321 in the sim is by default totally empty. When you set some additionnal weigth to take into consideration passengers and luggage, the plane is not so nervous anymore.

But I still feel it as very very overpowered, I can takeoff w/parking breaks in no time, and must climb very steep to not go above 250 knots.

Well IDK about real life aircraft, but the PMDG 747 and 737's definitely aren't like that.  Nor are the CLS A330s (even they don't quite equate to PMDGs, but you get the point).  

[niteye]

I think they should still include the unrealistic default aircraft.

Everyone keeps complaining that they need to spend hours configuring it before they find 'the sweet spot'.

Imagine what it would be if the game is completely unusable before you buy or download some extra planes and scenery to go with it.

[MikeMann]

I use the FSX default Cessna 172 frequently. I enjoy creating scenery with custom objects made with 3ds Max. The only way to judge the frame rate impact of my scenery accurately is to use an aircraft that doesn't strain the system. The default 172 is perfect for that purpose.