FSX is broken...

[Jacoba 56]

Since stable highspeed internet connections are common place today, one thing I've always thought about for FS/XP was an idea of a web based server system where the the core of the SIM and all the graphics data was centrally based. Developers could tweak and update the scenery, airports would become more and more realistic and when fling online using this system everyone would have the same visuals, same parking stands, gates etc... no discrepancies due to minor differences in scenery.Of course it would cost more, but if done right and properly maintained wouldn't it be worth it, buying the core programs you would need to load on to your system, where the end user parts of the SIM would reside, your add on planes etc... then pay a monthly or yearly subscription for accessing the online stuff?The possibilities are endless and would take online FS Simming to an all new level. You would have nearly all the scenery in the world at your disposal, your major airports would be up to date. Have a system in place where people could create and upload other airports, encourage folks to model correctly their local airports. Have people review them for accuracy and correctness then place them into the SIM.Have the CSL web based as well, so when you are flying you see the same traffic as everyone else and as new planes come out the could be added to the CSL library by the company who maintains it.This type of approach could be applied to nearly ll online gaming worlds and environments and I do hope this is where its all someday heading!

[Arista 0]

* From my back-of-the-envelope calculations, you would have to be within 100m of an object to actually _see_ the object at its full 7 cm res for normal user viewing settings.

Or put another way, looking straight down from 1000 ft AGL, at 1920x1200 and a 55

[Geofa 108]

"Or put another way, looking straight down from 1000 ft AGL, at 1920x1200 and a 55

[bsupnik 23]

How does the scenery react to:- Changes of time of day?- Changes of season?- Changes of time of year?- Changes of visibility?- Changes of wetness/snow?I imagine they were able to cover some but not all of these issues within the limits of the authoring SDK and within the limits of reasonable effort.Re: 7 cm...good for the pavement, questionable for some other areas, although from a practical standpoint it might be easier to cover a large area at acquired and processed 7 cm imagery, rather than carefully make a multi-res package to save some VRAM based on expected camera location. At some point if we want scenery to look better, authors have to use faster authoring techniques if they are going to have time to utilize all aspects of modern computers. More rant here:http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2009/12/...ter-humans.htmlIn other words, as an engineer, I see 7 cm as wasteful in most cases...but as a developer, I appreciate the need to do what is expeditious when the results will be adequate (if not optimal) performance wise.(And of course, I have no idea exactly WHAT they did...is the whole ground area 7 cm or only the highest density areas? That's my other rant..the attempt to quantify the quality of a scenery pack with metrics. I like that movie because it _looks good_. But I expect the question of how they got that good look to be much more complex than just "they went to 7 cm res", and I would expect that another author could use 7 cm res imagery and still make an ugly pack.)cheersBen

[Geofa 108]

How does the scenery react to:- Changes of time of day?- Changes of season?- Changes of time of year?- Changes of visibility?- Changes of wetness/snow?I imagine they were able to cover some but not all of these issues within the limits of the authoring SDK and within the limits of reasonable effort.Re: 7 cm...good for the pavement, questionable for some other areas, although from a practical standpoint it might be easier to cover a large area at acquired and processed 7 cm imagery, rather than carefully make a multi-res package to save some VRAM based on expected camera location. At some point if we want scenery to look better, authors have to use faster authoring techniques if they are going to have time to utilize all aspects of modern computers. More rant here:http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2009/12/...ter-humans.htmlIn other words, as an engineer, I see 7 cm as wasteful in most cases...but as a developer, I appreciate the need to do what is expeditious when the results will be adequate (if not optimal) performance wise.(And of course, I have no idea exactly WHAT they did...is the whole ground area 7 cm or only the highest density areas? That's my other rant..the attempt to quantify the quality of a scenery pack with metrics. I like that movie because it _looks good_. But I expect the question of how they got that good look to be much more complex than just "they went to 7 cm res", and I would expect that another author could use 7 cm res imagery and still make an ugly pack.)cheersBen

I am just about to load some picts to the screen shot forum. I have tried winter and summer and they are different. I am not sure the seasons in Australia produce snow so that would not be a factor. As to some of your technical questions, I have no idea but it sure looks great. http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=271036&hl=

[MatthewS 761]

I am not sure the seasons in Australia produce snow so that would not be a factor.

Regular winter snow only in a very limited area of southern NSW/northern VIC. Tamworth is about 700km too far north so no snow there.

[Janov 2,383]

Hi everyone, just my two cents on the issues in this thread:As to the original question of which sim looks and performs better: Everyone

[MatthewS 761]

Flight model is a matter of taste, obviously, but with two real-world pilots in this thread strongly rooting for FSX I have to throw all my weight (ATPL with around 6000 hours in anything from Bonanzas, Archers, Cheyenne, 737

[LAdamson 240]

Hi everyone, just my two cents on the issues in this thread:As to the original question of which sim looks and performs better: Everyone

[Geofa 108]

Hi everyone, just my two cents on the issues in this thread:As to the original question of which sim looks and performs better: Everyone

[tf51d 284]

"Also the replay-feature is better implemented and useful with X-Plane, both for practice and also to create great views of cinematic quality. Try the shift-3 and shift-2 (adjust with arrow-keys) views for watching your touchdowns in some crosswind, you will be amazed!"FSX can do this and more with the free addon FS-Recorder. With it I can record the entire flight, gate to gate no matter the length, It records the actual AI traffic used during the flight, You can play it back as an AI aircraft, with you flying in formation with it. The FS2004 version allows customizable views, where these same views and much more can be accomplished within the FSX camera system. With it you can do the normal 2D/3D cockpits, spot, tower, wing views but also view other AI aircraft. You can also customize views, I made a runway side view, with it I can move it anywhere I want in all axis's. Here's a little sample of it. This is the PMDG 744 at 2 of the worlds busiest airports KLAX and RJAA with 100% AI consisting of most major carriers in the world. (WOAI), Also note it records all flight control surface animations, from the videos I've seen on youtube and the one I've done, it doesn't look like X-Plane replay does this.

X-Plane

[Janov 2,383]

First of, I hope no one will feel offended if I adress him with his first name. In reply to the three posts above, Larry I know that there are many real-world pilots that prefer FSX, just like many will prefer X-Plane. I have read and participated in many threads where you posted, and it is obvious that you are very knowledgable about aerodynamics and aviation in general, far beyond what the regular GA-Pilot would know. I haven

[tf51d 284]

Also, when I mentioned the screenshots with the low framerate, I was thinking of tf51d

[Janov 2,383]

Also note it records all flight control surface animations, from the videos I've seen on youtube and the one I've done, it doesn't look like X-Plane replay does this.

Actually it does, I just tested to make sure. The replay also features some unique ways to visualize your flightpath both in the 3D-World and on the map, great for doing aerobatics or judging your tracking on an approach or engine-failure after take-off. The one thing I wish was improved is the sampling rate of the aircraft carrier and the frigate, they move in tiny jerks during the replay. You can also change the visibility/time of day during replay, so you can see in clear and bright daylight where exactly you screwed up that IMC nighttime approach :-)Jan

[tf51d 284]

Actually it does, I just tested to make sure. The replay also features some unique ways to visualize your flightpath both in the 3D-World and on the map, great for doing aerobatics or judging your tracking on an approach or engine-failure after take-off. The one thing I wish was improved is the sampling rate of the aircraft carrier and the frigate, they move in tiny jerks during the replay. You can also change the visibility/time of day during replay, so you can see in clear and bright daylight where exactly you screwed up that IMC nighttime approach :-)Jan

Then it must have been fixed in 9.4 or 9.41. If you saw at the end of my video they weren't, that was 9.3 at the time.