New Fs2004 Screenshots

[Guest PaulL01]

>Hi Max,>>My humble apologies - I looked again more closely at the first>one and yes you are quite correct. However, from experience I>would say it's easily rectified.>>**** 43.45 Omega (quality) drivers tweaked with Texture level>8 Anisotropy and -0.1 Mipmapping LOD bias = beautiful image on>a Ti 4400 coupled with a Sony G200 Mutiscan 17" at 1280x960x32>****>>MikeHi Mike,Really considering your viewpoint on not noticing any visual difference with DX9 compared to DX8.1 as well as your statement:"However, from experience I would say it's easily rectified."You obviously have a different way of looking at the visual elements of FS. :) I for one cannot disagree more with you on it being "easily rectified", like how? You have a way of changing the hard coded way that FS interfaces with D3D? Video card settings like Aniso, LOD and such only can do so much as The rest is all up to the programmers on the MSFS team.BTW,"43.45 Omega (quality) drivers tweaked with Texture level>8 Anisotropy and -0.1 Mipmaping LOD bias = beautiful image on>a Ti 4400 coupled with a Sony G200 Mutiscan 17" at 1280x960x32"Hope you realize that "Omega" drivers are nothing more than normal drivers with a different LOD setup written in the registry for default, nothing more than what one can do with Rvtuner etc. also since you have "tweaked" the driver you just changed the registry settings that the "Omegas" use.Having just spent a tad less than $40k on new 1 meter full color data for a revival of the old photoreal scenery of Upstate NY I for one am hoping for some improvement in the visually poor Mipmaping scheme used thus far and by judging at the nice FS4 pics looks unchanged, Bummer! :(Come ON MSFS team! Just give us a new mipmap slider! PLEASE!!! :)Take care Mike.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Come ON MSFS team! Just give us a new mipmap slider! PLEASE!!!"I couldn't agree more Paul for this wish. If FS2004 goes without it, then I'm afraid it would prejudice my view of FS2004's purpose--as eye candy alone won't win awards when realism is degraded by distracting dynamic blurring, something most have admitted to seeing (while some claim they've never seen it, until you box them into a corner and get them to rationalize what "never" means). Many never noted it, but FS2000 and even FS98 had odd dynamic texture degradation, but it was rarer. In its place we got stutters (in the case of FS2000, that is). I generally am free of most dynamic blurring, and the tweaks applied for sharpening the default texture look take care of the rest. Still, there is nothing more odd than looking down and finding a five or ten sq. mile patch of ground suddenly look as if a sheet of waxed paper were pulled over it, and just as suddenly look sharp again. There has to be some logic that controls this in order to keep the scenery fluid.My sense was that FS2000 wouldn't render a scene until all the textures were at their highest possible mip level. I think that caused the hesitation we often saw. Starting with CFS2, it looked like FS changed that logic to render the scene first, then juggle the mip levels later. If you happened to move out of an area before the juggling was finished, so be it--you just wouldn't see the textures as sharp as they could be.If there were a slider that controlled the priority behind this, one could decide what was more important. In the flight levels, FS2000's hesitation never bothered me. If one could adjust such a slider for high altitude flight, and then adjust it again for low altitude flight, you could possibly get no "perceptible" hesitation. Perhaps even better would be a menu, like the cloud menu, where one could "layer" the setting based on altitude.Good luck on the NY project!-John

[Chris Willis 8]

Paul, About the mip map slider you want,you are talking about the Mip map texture or the dynamic updating texture system?ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[michal 44]

>>If there were a slider that controlled the priority behind>this, one could decide what was more important. In the flight>levels, FS2000's hesitation never bothered me. Well, I used to work for a professional simulation company (Singer-Link) and they built multi-million $$ 6-deg motion simulators. One thing I clearly recall (having worked on the ground-radar simulation for B52) that visual aspect had no correlation with aircraft motion. In other words software responsible for controlling aircraft movement/motion did NOT in any way depend whether terrain was ready or not. One could watch for example a super-sonic aircraft outrun the scenery. If airplane slowed down terrain would 'catch-up'. In my opinion this is the correct software architecture. Any linkage would be a mistake - like it was in FS2000 or how it exists in FLY! now. Having now seperated aircraft from scenery one can now worry about optimizing the terrain engine so its updates are as fast as possible. But I see absolutely no reason for aircraft to 'wait' for scenery to fall into places - not even a microsecond. And as far as priorities are concerned - I suspect there can be no such thing since terrain-engine and aircraft motion are two completely different parts of software having two different bottlenecks and you can't easily trade one for another.I hope MS will navigate clear off this slippery slope ...Michael J.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"And as far as priorities are concerned - I suspect there can be no such thing since terrain-engine and aircraft motion are two completely different parts of software having two different bottlenecks and you can't easily trade one for another."It's interesting that you note even the big sims can outrun the textures. I was not aware of that. But I guess there are some who prefer the eye candy over the motion of the aircraft. One big difference between the big sims and FS, is FS is not a training simulator, although some may use it for that purpose. It simulates flight--all aspects of it, from the view out the window to a passenger cabin, if that's what the aircraft "artist" has in mind when designing the aircraft, to cockpit drill and aircraft behavior. That's why I think a slider is best--you might not wish to compromise aircraft fidelity, but there are some who fly FS2002 with no intent other than to see where they end up, and what the scenery looks like in between. They'd rather compromise aircraft motion rather than look at scenery as if through fogged glasses--and I'm talking about the worst extremes of what's been reported--as I for one find the view very close to that I've seen in real flight. Having said that, until MSFS says "for pilots only" on the box, I think MS should cater to those who just love flight, as well as those who are pilots, and to everyone in between.

[michal 44]

>that, until MSFS says "for pilots only" on the box..FS is by design and its very name a "flight" simulator and not a "scenery" simulator. Perhaps MS could sell a modified copy and call it "a virtual globe" or something like that where aircraft would not even exist. I think such product could be an interesting new tool in teaching geography.Michael J.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Sounds like you're intent on turning this into another one of those "itsforpilotsonly" threads....Yawn.....Define "flight"---you mean a passenger that logs a million miles a year, and enjoys sitting at the window, watching the control surfaces move against the chop, isn't in a state of flight? Come on...this has been argued in the forums for a long time. No litmus test required to enjoy the product, and I stand what I said before. What's good for you or I may not be good for someone else. Neither party should be able to dictate exclusive rights to the sim.

[michal 44]

Never said it is for pilots only. It is for anyone who wants to pay $60 for it. You find your own application for it - even to decorate a coffee table. *:-*Michael J.

[Guest Timbo]

I hate to be a sour apple but it looks a lot like how FS2002 looks now on my computer. The KPHX pic could've almost come straight out of FS2002. I know its still beta, a few months away, etc., etc. but to be honest I was expecting some bigger improvements like getting rid of the blurries :-mad.[table][tr][td rowspan=2]http://timbo87.home.attbi.com/sig/valiant.gif[/td][td]

Tim Pinkawa

[/td][tr][td]

Alpha Sims Texture Artist/Panel Designer

Tims FS Studio]

[/td][/tr][/table

[Guest kurtj]

Awesome shots of fs2004. I can't wait. What videos show the ground texture?

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"....- even to decorate a coffee table...."Nope--won't do that. Every time I've tried to loop the coffee table, the coffee spills. I'd have to order a new CD from Microsoft every time... And, when vis is at minimums, I have trouble finding the beer I have parked on the coffee table. I usually mistake my daughter's feet for the mug handle. She's three, and she kicks!:-beerchug

[LOT737 6]

Me too Tim...Jacek

[Sonar5 3]

CLouds look good.I liked the DC-3 shot, an dthe Lear with the sun shining on it with the clouds in the bckground.Regards,Joehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/sigban.jpg.Politics - Give Me Liberty or Give Me Deathhttp://pub207.ezboard.com/bpoliticsgivemel...tyorgivemedeath

[Guest JonP01]

>Me too Tim...>>JacekOr as John and Paul say, "adjustable" blurries. That way it will scale without stutter on a large range of machines.

[Splash_One 0]

I'm lovin it - looks fantastic !But.... [big]GOOD GOD! PACIFICA IS BACK!!!! NOOOOOO[/big]Nightmares tonight.... *shiver* *shiver*:-rollJay :-wave