55 replies to this topic

[Spam]

I don't think its a new engine at all. Added shaders and reworked textures is what i see, REX shows us whats possible just by replacing a few stock textures  

[Buziel-411_RED]

Spam, on Jun 9 2011, 10:02 AM, said:

I don't think its a new engine at all. Added shaders and reworked textures is what i see, REX shows us whats possible just by replacing a few stock textures  

I read their PC Pilot interviews, and it sounds like they're working from the "ground up," but using "legacy code when it makes sense." Regardless, performance is one of their most important goals. They discussed that with FSX, longevity of the sim over future hardware was important, but this time around, they're aiming for good performance on the hardware of the time of release.

[fsxnate]

Buziel-411_RED, on Jun 9 2011, 11:10 AM, said:

I read their PC Pilot interviews, and it sounds like they're working from the "ground up," but using "legacy code when it makes sense." Regardless, performance is one of their most important goals. They discussed that with FSX, longevity of the sim over future hardware was important, but this time around, they're aiming for good performance on the hardware of the time of release.

FSX is running much better on the pc of today then it ever did on my pc when it orig came out, but I still find it funny they tried to make it for future hardware when no one knows what the future brings, thats a hard thing to develop, back then it was just monster single cores, now its multi core, who knows what happens next

[yimmy149]

fsxnate, on Jun 10 2011, 09:04 AM, said:

FSX is running much better on the pc of today then it ever did on my pc when it orig came out, but I still find it funny they tried to make it for future hardware when no one knows what the future brings, thats a hard thing to develop, back then it was just monster single cores, now its multi core, who knows what happens next

Yeah, they didn't make a very good prediction there, FSX would probably be great on a 10Ghz single core machine...

One thing that did impress me was that FSX works on XP, Vista and Win7 both 32-bit and 64-bit.  Most games can barely survive one OS revision!

-james

Edited by yimmy149, 10 June 2011 - 12:16 PM.

[BrandonF]

yimmy149, on Jun 10 2011, 10:16 AM, said:

Yeah, they didn't make a very good prediction there, FSX would probably be great on a 10Ghz single core machine...

One thing that did impress me was that FSX works on XP, Vista and Win7 both 32-bit and 64-bit.  Most games can barely survive one OS revision!

-james

Even FS2004 still runs great for me on Win 7 64 bit! (I don't use FS2004 much, but when I do, I have no issues)

[ChaoticBeauty]

yimmy149, on Jun 10 2011, 08:16 PM, said:

One thing that did impress me was that FSX works on XP, Vista and Win7 both 32-bit and 64-bit.  Most games can barely survive one OS revision!

-james

It's a Microsoft game. What did you expect.

[-Dexter]

Mahomet, on Jun 9 2011, 08:42 AM, said:

If I'm not mistaken it's a whole new engine from scratch.

[Citation needed]

[Mohammad]

-Dexter, on Jun 10 2011, 03:23 PM, said:

[Citation needed]

Here you go



Seriously though I thought I read it on PC pilot last edition.

[SwitchFX]

Spam, on Jun 9 2011, 08:02 AM, said:

I don't think its a new engine at all. Added shaders and reworked textures is what i see, REX shows us whats possible just by replacing a few stock textures  

To make a judgement on the engine, wouldn't you have to be playing the game to make a valid comparison instead of generalizing by casting your fruitless opinion?

fsxnate, on Jun 10 2011, 09:04 AM, said:

FSX is running much better on the pc of today then it ever did on my pc when it orig came out, but I still find it funny they tried to make it for future hardware when no one knows what the future brings, thats a hard thing to develop, back then it was just monster single cores, now its multi core, who knows what happens next

What are you talking about?

The specs on games are the MINIMUM requirements to be able to run the game. No where on the box does it say "To run FSX beautifully you need these specifications". When FSX's demo was made available, Dual core processors were already on the scene. Does Intel Core 2 Duo ring a bell? Or perhaps Intel Pentium D processors, which came out over a year before FSX and its demo came out, that was capable of x64 processing and x86?

You clearly have forgotten these processors, or the fact that every single game ever made plays better on next generation hardware. FS9 ran horribly its first few years. When C2D came out, it did better, and only has done a lot better in the last few years with newer, faster hardware. FSX isn't special.

[BrandonF]

Mahomet, on Jun 10 2011, 04:02 PM, said:

Seriously though I thought I read it on PC pilot last edition.

I believe it's technically stated in both editions of PC Pilot, as well as on the Flight website.

[ryant]

wao

[Spam]

SwitchFX, on Jun 10 2011, 07:58 PM, said:

To make a judgement on the engine, wouldn't you have to be playing the game to make a valid comparison instead of generalizing by casting your fruitless opinion?
What are you talking about?

Not really, its a speculative comparison in the lighhearted debate that were having here. Not sure why you have your guard up i wasnt stating fact...since noone has played it yet theres alot of fruitless opinion here, but its good to debate and throw stuff out there sometimes...

Edited by Spam, 13 June 2011 - 10:57 AM.

[fsxnate]

I agree with you Spam,  I usually don't find it hard to respect a member with 28 thousand plus posts, but this response could show a lot more humility and humblness

[SwitchFX]

Spam, on Jun 13 2011, 08:56 AM, said:

Not really, its a speculative comparison in the lighhearted debate that were having here. Not sure why you have your guard up i wasnt stating fact...since noone has played it yet theres alot of fruitless opinion here, but its good to debate and throw stuff out there sometimes...

Speculation based on inferred data information in the form of visual elements. What you did was more than mere speculation. There's a large difference between "I doubt it's a new engine" and "I don't think its a new engine at all. Added shaders and reworked textures is what i see, REX shows us whats possible just by replacing a few stock textures." Opinion is vastly different from forcing something to be fact (The inferring part).

fsxnate, on Jun 13 2011, 11:24 AM, said:

I agree with you Spam,  I usually don't find it hard to respect a member with 28 thousand plus posts, but this response could show a lot more humility and humblness

Post count is not relative to how much respect a person deserves. I don't even know why you presume I would deserve more respect than someone with '0' posts. Respect isn't given automatically, it's earned.

[Spam]

SwitchFX, on Jun 15 2011, 03:47 AM, said:

Speculation based on inferred data information in the form of visual elements. What you did was more than mere speculation. There's a large difference between "I doubt it's a new engine" and "I don't think its a new engine at all. Added shaders and reworked textures is what i see, REX shows us whats possible just by replacing a few stock textures." Opinion is vastly different from forcing something to be fact (The inferring part).
Post count is not relative to how much respect a person deserves. I don't even know why you presume I would deserve more respect than someone with '0' posts. Respect isn't given automatically, it's earned.

Well im sorry it wasnt my intention to make it fact.

[fsxnate]

SwitchFX, on Jun 15 2011, 04:47 AM, said:

Speculation based on inferred data information in the form of visual elements. What you did was more than mere speculation. There's a large difference between "I doubt it's a new engine" and "I don't think its a new engine at all. Added shaders and reworked textures is what i see, REX shows us whats possible just by replacing a few stock textures." Opinion is vastly different from forcing something to be fact (The inferring part).
Post count is not relative to how much respect a person deserves. I don't even know why you presume I would deserve more respect than someone with '0' posts. Respect isn't given automatically, it's earned.

well that explains a lot then, thanks for clearing that up