Eye Candy, Eye Candy ....Jeeze----------- I get tired o

[Guest]

{.....This will get even better in the next version of Msfs......}:-walksmile :-cool ...any insider information... :-cool :-walksmileJust kidding :-)I agree eye candy has to be, I think there are other simulators like "Airliner" was that might have better flight models but graphics of FS5.1, I am not a real pilot and unfortunatelly I am afraid I never might be (comercial anyways) so as long as it's pretty hard to land aircraft in flight Simulator with all setting max (realism) then that is real enough for me.Now ofcourse always do work on better more real flight models, sure no doubt about it, but I would say eyecandy first :-)BTW I tried Airliner and did not like it... why? Well because of lack of eyecandy.:-waveAndy

[Guest]

GREAT post Peter, I could not have said it better myself. :-)Thanks!!Regards.. TrevVisit "The DC-3 Hangar"http://www.douglasdc3.comhttp://www.douglasdc3.com/1/dc3.jpg

[WAD3 0]

I have to say one of the coolest things about MSFS2002 was when I first got the sim I was flying into Bar Harbor with the Baron and I was on approach and what stunned me was that there was trees all around. I knew right there that the scenery was what made this so enjoyable. I hope they keep up with the eye candy. I like to buy the commercial aircraft for the good flight models.Andrew

[Staffan 12]

Hi,I am also getting tired of this discussion. :-lolWhat we are talking about are apples and oranges. I can admit that Micro$oft has some points in FS2002. But it is still not a Flight Simulator. It is more a MS Flying Adventure Game.The issue here is the definition (spelled right?) Simulator. :-)In a Flight Simulator the main issue should be the aircraft systems and FDE. Not the visual enviroment.This is why I strongly feel that Micro$oft should make more diffrences between a Pro and Standard version. Some would fly the Standard version with all eye candy, and some would fly the Pro version with full aircraft systems and accurate flight models. :-lol Something for every taste...... ;-)A Pro version could easily cost 200-300, and the Standard version 100-200 bucks. And beleive me, MS could easily earn much more money than they have until now. I still don

[Guest]

StaffanIL2 has a far better, more thought out and coherant "structure" than FS2002 which has gaping holes IMO.Infact IL2 even with its bland scenery textures give a far more immersive and realistic sensation of flight than fs2002.I would love to see what those guys could do with a GA sim :-)You can clearly see the gaping holes in facts like the two panel system used at present of VC and 2D which both are "Jack of all trades and master of none".You can clearly see the structure holes in the flight dynamics engine.Okay Genius s like Rob Young and Steve Small will work their Magic trying to cover up inadequacies in the flight dynamics engine by all manner of tricks.Dont forget that this engine is years old.There is very little Sky structure with the sim relying more and more on gimmicky glitter alone.Yes I too would love to see every car post box and tree faithfully reproduced but realise other fundamental areas need attention before the sim fully comes together....maybe FS2004 I hope.Peter

[Guest]

Yawwnnnn....why do you spend so much time talking about it Peter, if it has "Gaping Holes?"

[Guest Niels_C]

Hi Peter and all!I like eyecandy, but other than that I'm with Peter.It needs an intelligent content to be really worth it.Fly safe,-Niels C.

[Staffan 12]

>Yes I too would love to see every car post box and tree >faithfully reproduced but realise other fundamental areas >need attention before the sim fully comes together....maybe >FS2004 I hope. >>Peter Hi Peter,I agree with you here.One simple example is the EPR/thrust rating function in FS2k and 2k2. It would take MS very little time to fix that probblem,...among many other systems. But hey,.....they thought it was far more important to add animated waves on the water in FS2002 than working flight systems. :-hmmmThere has been very little to no improvments on aircraft systems and FDE

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Just lending my support for your going out on a limb and helping explain why some of us feel visuals are important.No one who lends such importance to visuals is going to say that aircraft realism, flight model fidelity, etc isn't important. Peter's comments about weather are right on....weather dynamics need to be improved a great deal. Right now, clouds are simply a backdrop for screenshots, and don't extend very far from an aircraft when in "simulated" 3-d mode. Talk about eye candy--imagine flying at FL350 and seeing a line of squalls in the distance, or being in line at BWI hoping to go "wheels up" before the airport is shut down due to an approaching squall line.But going back to flight model fidelity, and instrumentation, I feel both are good enough now that I'd be willing to sacrifice improvement here to add to the weather engine, or to enhance the ground scenery (especially at low altitudes). Flying around in the Flight1 Cessna feels quite close to the real thing--and I had a chance to sit "right seat" in one on a flight in Venezuela a dozen years ago. Perhaps I can't feel everything behave 100 pct., but I'm satisfied with realism on the scale it is today.Often the phrase is used "This is a Flight Simulator" to call for turning the product into a 100 pct. aircraft systems and dynamics simulator. Truth is, that's what we as enthusiasts do wish--we wish it could do everything. But the other truth is that this is an entertainment simulator. The user who simply wants to gaze out of a passenger window, such as one can do with the new A340-5xx/6xx, is as valid a member of this community as a pilot who wants to click switches, practice stalls, spins, handling ATC chatter, etc....Peter's interest in improving the weather engine is also my number one "eye candy" and realism hope for FS2004.... As for flight dynamics and instrumentation, all I can say is I'm satisfied with the status quo, if improvement in those areas would risk slowing down performance of the sim.-John

[Chris Willis 8]

"Peter's interest in improving the weather engine is also my number one "eye candy" and realism hope for FS2004"To be Honnest, I am not expecting anything from a real weather system from the default by Ms, simply because it take many month to do and don't forget the frame rate thats will screw up the sim. Like cfs3 still only 2 layers of clouds cumulus visible at the same time frame rate problems. I expect improvement on the rain, snow, clouds, lighnting Bold, visual and rendering/sky colors, but not a real weather system, thats is ok to me, 3rd party will be able to improve this. I hope I am wrong! I can tell you if they want a true weather system, the details & situation are very long. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[Guest]

Agreed -- and while we're at it, can we call it something other than "eye candy"? How about "eye nutrition" or "eye food."Speaking as a photographer (which I am, among a couple of other things) I have limited patience for the idea that seeing is somehow illegitimate, or less legitimate.Walker Evans writes quite effectively (as always) about the way that our society undervalues the visual in favor of language, analysis and abstraction (like, for example, a preference for systems).And isn't there the matter of the eye being the window of the soul? Leonardo said that. Guy knew a thing or two about airplanes, too.Alan Ampolsk

[Guest]

LOL, yah thats about all this topic has become, lets stop before someone gets their feelings hurt. It's flight simulator, go fly, forget this topic!On another note, I accidently uninstalled FSnavigator off my PC, but I have been flying the FLIGHT1 Cessna 421, and I use it's GPS to navigate. Everything is a bit more realistic now :) Carry on.......--------------Paul Meyerwww.KryptonAir.comwww.LAARTCC.org

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Larry,You'll get no argument from me. I've spent years building and rebuilding Scottland Resort in FS (from v4 on) just so when I fly home there's that sight awaiting me. And when I land, I always helicopter around the area, looking at the lakes, the buildings, the traffic, the forests, the hotels, the shopping areas, everything wonderful.I fly to areas where there are bays, and inlets, and trees, and mountains, and rivers, and cityscapes, and activity.There are places I routinely fly to just for that "crossing the ridge" to see the scenery as I descend - Aspen and Eagle County for instance.I love to fly to California because just like the real place, there's so much diversity to see. I love to fly to the East Coast to the large cities - even though there's hardly a building in there sim.Eye candy, for lack of a better word, is very important, especially when flying VFR.That's why I keep harping on satellite imagery. The stuff in 2K2 still isn't realistic enough for me. That's also why I keep harping on the night scene. Night is beautiful in the real world, with the city lights, the stars, the cars on the roads, the light to dark transitions, and the visible ground and ramps and taxiways at the airports - none of which are in FS.When someone finds a way to add whole cities in 3D, without a substantial loss in performance, that person will be my hero.Even the astronauts constantly comment on the view of the Earth from space - not the view of the stars - which is far better from space than on the ground. When's the last time you heard an astronaut comment on how big and bright the Orion Nebula is from space?Flying is just flying - rather passengering, with all the automation. It's boring, unless there's a purpose to it. That purpose is the visuals, not just the aircraft.I say let Microsoft keep working on improving the visuals - with real roads, telephone poles, rivers, cities, railroad tracks (one key visual missing), clouds, fronts, and real night scenery.Bring on the "Eye Candy".

[Johan_Dees 84]

Eyecandy is indeed important.. not for no reason made the PS1 guys a link to FS for the visuals :-)Johan[A HREF=http://www.phoenix-simulation.co.uk]Phoenix Simulation Software[/A]Unofficial PSS website:www.people.zeelandnet.nl/johdMy help may not me much usefull, or usefull much..eh?http://people.zeelandnet.nl/johd/index2/Ar...s/Leg1/klm5.jpgTrue Blue! K L M!

[Guest Iain Spowart]

Johan,Are you the one on the left or the right? :-lolIain Spowart,Scotland.Webmaster and photographer,Scottish Claymores 2002Cheerleaders Fan Sitehttp://avsim.iainspowart.com/2002-s.jpghttp://www.claymorescheerleaders.com