New Fs2004 Screenshots

[Cruachan 705]

Hi Paul,>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.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.80s. Indeed, I tried and noted the 'performance' variants of the 43.45s also have a lack lustre quality about them, when installed straight out-of-the-box, which in itself suggests additional tweaks have been applied to the quality variants by the author.:( I can bring up the menu in full screen mode when FSAA is active.Yes, I know what you are thinking. Why didn't he just d/l, install and tweak nVidia's drivers after applying the relevant patch scripts. Valid point, but right now there seems to be no need as the 'Omega' set are working just fine and they are essentially the nVidia driver set in any case with the patch scripts already applied. Perhaps I will next time around, we'll see ;)At the end of the day it's all down to individual preference. If I wish to enjoy flying over scenery that remains in focus and updates quickly then I will not fly at Mach 1 in an F16 or Vulcan B2 at 4000ft - sure and certain way to generate the dynamic blurries. Just completed a superb flight in Cessna 172 from Zurich using Ernst Bosshard's excellent version 6 of his Swiss Landclass files and Lago's Terrain Mesh. Quite, quite beautiful and totally immersive with the room lights turned off.Regards,Mike :-wave

[Guest PaulL01]

>Paul,> >About the mip map slider you want,you are talking about the>Mip map texture or the dynamic updating texture system?Hi Chris,Yes I am referring to a slider control or even a cfg setting control for the hard coded Mipmap levels of terrain textures ("static") that go beyond the reach of any LOD and Aniso settings. Not referring the ever shrinking (with more powerful CPU's and memory)"dynamic" texture updating.Have any news to share on that front? I have heard an affirmative and then it was "well...no" to a mip control???Also would be great if MSFS helped us out and allowed the use of 512x as well as 1024x terrain textures! The visual difference between 4.8 meter and 2.2m is incredible let alone vs. 1.1! :)Hint Hint Hint!!! :)

[Guest PaulL01]

Sorry John, wrong "blurries".I agree with your take on the "dynamic" blurries and it is becoming less and less a concern as harware progresses.See my reply to Chris.Later.

[Guest MikeEppright]

I haven't even seen the new screenshots yet as a corporate pilot first and sim pilot second I consider some blurries to be realistic. Realism is landing into the sun on the 4th day of a summer road trip consisting of 12 legs without a good windshield cleaning (bugs, bugs, bugs) and also the effects of years of crazing of the windshield coupled with perhaps a healthy dose of delamination!!! Now thats realism!

[ckukmale 27]

I still like the Vickers Vimy shots from the original set of beta pictures as they show some textured UK style ground which seemed very interesting. Maybe London has photo textures or maybe they are better texture mapping for areas of the world.Anyway not long to go.Before you know it, July 29th will be here.Craig Kiltie

[Guest cwright]

> I consider some blurries to>be realistic..... Mike, it's true that in the real world the view may not always be completely clear (e.g. fog) but I think the effect of static blurries is completely different and is to be avoided if at all possible. And if you know somewhere in the real world that has the equivalent of the dynamic blurries I'd like to know, as it would break most of the known laws of physics! Best regards, Chris Wright

[Guest]

The Mooney VC might look "lame" I believe because of the zoom out...try doing that in FS2002 and you'll have to puke also...I think the point of that pic is the horizon... now if i am mistaken sorry :)... anyway... I can see the mooney's bonnet... :)...the lear,dc3,piper are absolutely cool ..... I also like the clouds very much, but I dont know about the water,it looks OK, but we should see it moving, to get a better idea...I know many times I could not make a difference between water and sky in Fly! 2....now where are those twy signs they promised :)...and yea I know it is still in development stuff... :(

[Guest PaulL01]

>Hi Paul,>Ouch, that hurt!Why? It wasn't a personal attack Mike.>Taking each comment in turn:>>No problem with the DX9 versus DX8.1 as that observation was>made with ref. to FS2002. I saw no difference in visual>quality ...snip>Right, my point exactly as it has been tested and proven that there is, but you don't see it so there is none....>My 'experience' regarding the rectification of the static>blurry problem relates to the tweaking of the LOD and>anisotropy settings. At this stage, since we have yet no>information to the contrary, my assumption from viewing the>first image is that we will again be faced with having to>apply these tweaks to sharpen the ground textures in FS2004.>If that is the case then I for one won't be unduly worriedAgain, if you fail then to see the visual problems associated with the hard coded mip levels then I can understand why you didn't notice a difference between DX9/8.1.It is a matter of what the human eye can resolve in real life vs. the FS2k2 much to soon blurred condition of the terrain textures> go ahead set LOD even at -3.0 it doesn

[Guest jase439]

I've been looking through these screen shots and AVI's on their website and quite honestly, I can't say that it looks all that much different than what is currently offered in FS2002. With your clouds from FS Sky World, the terrain mesh and land class from FSGenesis, FSMeteo for weather, some SimFlyers scenery, 767 PIC, the PSS airliners, my DreamFleet collection, and the upcoming Ultimate Traffic...my FS2002 setup "looks" as good or even better than what I see in these shots.I dunno. This smells of "FS2002 - The Gold Collection" - a content upgrade - and doesn't seem to be a huge leap forward in technology.I'm probably going to wait on this purchase until someone can articulate a more compelling reason to upgrade. The screenshots aren't enough for me.

[michal 44]

>The>screenshots aren't enough for me. Neither for me. But I downloaded their little movie about clouds and this convinced me they have truly volumetric clouds this time (you can fly around the cloud). Volumetric clouds alone is a huge leap forward in flying experience. And sun light that properly 'reflects' from clouds. Definitely worth $100 for me.Michael J.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Chris Willis 8]

Jase439, The entire weather engine is not comparable to fs2002 and exceed fly!, x-plane by years!. If you compare with fs2002 you are too way limited:#1 extremly limited Clouds formation + paper thing flat#2 line in the horizon#3 clouds thats disappears to flat#4 can't reach high altitude like 30 000, 40 000 feet etc.#5 cirrus clouds near the mounth cutted the edge or the mesh#6 X, Y Z, rendering view are not accurate and wrong in apparence#7 the engine strech the clouds (poor result in some view)#8 Rain and Snow not acceptable/buggy#9 No Cloud FrontIn fs2004 they have all fixed and add new feature also, clouds stick in 3d even way higher then the aircraft, there is full 3d alto cumulus + castellanus never seen to date in any sim, finally real stratus, cumulus mediocrus, Cumulunonibus Calvus,Cb incus,Cumulus Congestus + Mediocris + Towering Cumulus, and these are default formation, full capability to recreate the virtual "real thing". The sky color are dynamic and change color according to the season and get deeped blue when you get higher in altitude. Sky color I have seen are very realistic, they are not overdone.Cloud density vary with altitude, air density, temperature and dew point. Transparency changes as you fly through cloudsVolumetric cloud types that build and dissipate; these are selected dynamically by the simulator as you fly through changing weather conditionsI have not seen to date a rounded weather engine in any other sim, expect fuIII, but the rendering was poor pixeled, it remove all the feature from the weather.From whats I have seen and technique/capability , the capability will blow up fs2002 clouds and weather engine.New capability in fs2004 are not available in fs2002 to more complex addons for AI Traffic, Weather, clickable virtual cockpit etc, and all other stuff we don't know yet for 3rd party.I have seen all comment are refering to only screenshots of weather and never use the sim yet.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest Max Cowgill]

>I've been looking through these screen shots and AVI's on>their website and quite honestly, I can't say that it looks>all that much different than what is currently offered in>FS2002. With your clouds from FS Sky World, the terrain mesh>and land class from FSGenesis, FSMeteo for weather, some>SimFlyers scenery, 767 PIC, the PSS airliners, my DreamFleet>collection, and the upcoming Ultimate Traffic...my FS2002>setup "looks" as good or even better than what I see in these>shots.>>I dunno. This smells of "FS2002 - The Gold Collection" - a>content upgrade - and doesn't seem to be a huge leap forward>in technology.>>I'm probably going to wait on this purchase until someone can>articulate a more compelling reason to upgrade. The>screenshots aren't enough for me. That's exactly what I've been thinking since the first details of FS:ACOF were released, and my thoughts were confirmed by the screenies and movies I've seen so far. Looks and sounds to me like all the dev. team did was fix the known bugs with FS2k2 (like ATC), switch to volumetric clouds (finally!), jazz up the autogen a bit, and throw in a few new planes to go along with the century of flight theme. I hope that's not all they did. I don't see those few improvements/additions taking up the full 2 year dev. cycle in between FS releases... Of course, I could be completely wrong and this could be the most revolutionary release of MSFS ever, but I highly doubt that one.-Max Cowgill

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, "was fix the known bugs "Not for the weather it's much more than a fix, it's not only volmetric clouds at all..New weather engine from scratch.Also you are missing the 12 new detailed 3d airports photo sat with new ground generic texture, gps, water etc.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest Max Cowgill]

>Hi,> "was fix the known bugs ">>>Not for the weather it's much more than a fix, it's not only>volmetric clouds at all..>Chris, don't you think that quote's a bit out of context? Taken in context with the rest of my post it casts a completely different light on the matter. After reading your previous post (you were posting while I was) I must concede that it sounds like the dev. team did a lot more with the sky/weather than it appears at first glance. However, if the aforementioned items are all they did to the sim then I think it'll be somewhat of a letdown. Don't get me wrong, the new sky/weather engine sounds great and I'm glad they've finally done it - I just don't know if a new weather engine, a couple bug fixes, and some new planes is worth the upgrade price... Who am I kidding though? I know I'll be out there standing in line with everyone else to buy this sim when it comes out ;) I just don't want to get my hopes up too high only to have them dashed by a seemingly mediocre FS release.regards,Max Cowgill

[B777ER 2,484]

Max,The first time you take off and climb to altitude with the new weather engine, I am sure you will be happy.