(This was posted by myself at the Aerosoft forum for the discussion of the new Aerosoft simulator currently under consideration)I have discovered something I was totally unaware of- I would like to point out a tactical war simulator that I only learned about nearly 2 weeks ago. As I am sometimes interested in military simulation in addition to flying my full scale Lear Jet 45 sim, I downloaded the demo for ARMA 2 after seeing some of the below videos online. I can no longer accept the long time excuse that a flight simulator has too many calculations to make to keep the flight aspect smooth while having incredible detail on the ground. PLEASE, just look at the videos and see for yourself. This proves that massive detail can be placed into a simulation environment and retain high FPS as well as smooth action all around. My system Im running the demo on is an AMD 6400 (3.2 dual core) w/ 9800 GTX 512MB and 4 gigs of RAM on Windows XP Home and when trying the helo flight myself I have great performance (as well as the other tasks in this sotware too).I should point out that the grass looks like grass, pavement looks like pavement, and trees look like trees. The detail is MASSIVE. Also, the map for this simulator is 250 Sqaure Kilometers, so it's not just some simple little map like what is found on console first person shooters. This title has actually been used by militaries for tactical demonstration.

(Especially between 1:05-1:35)Notice the author's face in the character in the TrackIR demo-Also, you can see that the ground detail blows away anything ever concieved for FS while the pilot is flying the helo- all with incredible frame rate.

Here you see an A-10 mission with tons of low level flight

There are countless other ARMA 2 videos online that will demonstrate what Im raving about, but in short my point here is that,1) It is possible to have all the detail we've ever wanted and still have good performance on the newer machines (like i7). This detail is all present even when you have dozens of AI soldiers, equipment, aircraft, and even animals (rabbit, dear, insects) moving about the map at all times. The sounds are incredible too.2) This company (Bohemia Interactive) has created an incredible simulation that I had never heard of until by mistake one day 2 weeks ago. Maybe Aerosoft can investigate their gaming engine???

Sorry to burst your bubble but Arma II is a resource hog, Arma was a resource hog and even Operation Flashpoint was a resource hog. You forget the truckloads of bugs too (and i do love the series)So no nirvana here.

Well, there's no buble bursting for me my friend- I posted for the benefit of others to see it. Thanks for the opinion but what Im pointing out is from personal experience and the videos and it's clear to me that you can have both detail and fluid frame rate (at least for me). Now, when you say resource hog what are you referring to? That it requires lots of memory and a higher end machine? Memory leaks? The way it works on my machine is great and I see no issues with performance at all. Bugs is an entirely different story. I am not refering to bugs, but simply that this game/simulation engine seems well equipped to handle high detail and fluid performance. Of course, what I am experiencing first hand and via videos captured by other players could be the exception, but I dont see how considering that some of the hard core ARAM II guys play missions well over 2-3 hours, with it being sometimes more than a 5 hour mission. If there's performance issues I cannot see how they can play a continuous mission for that long. Anyhow, I didnt put this up for any reason other than Im excited to see a simulation that involves flight with tremendous detail and fluid graphics on my measly 2 core machine. Other's will have differing opinions, but that's okay too.

I have to agree with coturnix on ARMA 2. It is OK but the AI, bugs and lack of optimization destroy the title. ARMA 2 requires numerous tweaks to be playable especially while networked. The latest patches have helped but it still feels like a beta!On a side note, militaries do not use ARMA or ARMA 2 for training. They use VBS2 or Virtual Battle Space 2 which is developed by Bohemia Interactive Australia a sister company of BIS. It is leaps an bounds above ARMA's engine. Then again so is the pricing. ;)

Thank you for the information Eric. I think I get what you are heading towards, and that is the graphics engine has great potential if applied towards a conventional type 'flight simulation' program that could be developed (hopefully in the very near future).Happy Holidays to all!Mel

Thanks guys for the participation- Mel you are right in your assesment. Thanks again to all who commented. I just want to point out that the purpose of my post was that if the engine is developed right, then high detail (like ORBX or better) can be implemented into a FS without it killing performance on a modern machine. Oh, and I went and researched Virtual Battlespace 2- that looks pretty good, in fact just like ARMA ;-) thanks again,

that if the engine is developed right, then high detail (like ORBX or better) can be implemented into a FS without it killing performance on a modern machine.

But many of us have ORBX+FSX and with fluid frame rates today.Also, I must say, IMHO, on purely visual terms, ORBX is way better than what I can see here from the cockpit of this A-10 flight. Not to mention that this A-10 cockpit is mostly analog and not exactly state-of-the-art graphically - you would put here something like PMDG's MD-11 instead and then we could judge fluidity. Add to this that probably the scenery is far from 'global' and I see nothing here that would provide evidence for a superior simulation engine.

Hey MichaelThe ARMA II map is 250 square kilometers and has way more detail than ORBX. Naturally, because this is primarily a ground tactical simulation, the focus was on terrain, folliage, etc. We dont need this in a flight simulation, but if it could be there and not affect performance, then why not have the ability to implement it? I am a flight simulator user, not a gamer. I like other simulations as well, and although I have no need for this level of ground detail to walk amongst in-game (simulation) due to the fact that I have a 1:1 full scale LJ45 simulator, I still think that there are many folks who would love the ability to have a true flight simulator with a very high level of ground detail too. Naturally, you wouldnt want this with any performance hits. Im simply showing here that this game engine, IMHO from using it in the demo that anyone can d/l, has fully impressed me with the level of detail it can show with tons of AI and moving about simultaneously. Your comments about PMDG quality aircraft, etc. is certainly true- way more complicated than the A-10 shown in one of the videos. However again, my point was not to put down anything (ORBX, FS, etc.) , but to show that it's possible to run lots of very complicated terrain and maintain high FPS when all the MSFS developers were saying over and over again it's not possible to get both, when someone here clearly has. That's all. If you can run FSX and ORBX perfectly fluid, then consider downloading the free ARMA II demo one day when you are bored just to see the detail and performance Im talking about.

Got your point. For some reason however I don't see this phenomenal ground detail in this A-10 video, even when turning HQ on. And again complex cockpit is usually a major hit on performance, hence impossible to judge with this very rudimentary A-10 cockpit. In short - this 8 minute video did not impress me at all.

Show me the sim around a Major city with lots of buildings, then I may have the same opinion.

Got your point. For some reason however I don't see this phenomenal ground detail in this A-10 video, even when turning HQ on. And again complex cockpit is usually a major hit on performance, hence impossible to judge with this very rudimentary A-10 cockpit. In short - this 8 minute video did not impress me at all.

Michael,ArmAII starts to "Lose" quality as you move away from things, it also has a view distance slider that heavily affects what looks like what, and how far you can see what. Same as ArmA one.

I'd say ArmA really wasn't made with flying in mind, infact I don't really enjoy flying in ArmA (the Flight dynamics aren't realstic, then again, it is a war simulator focusing around infantry)The sound, and graphic engines, are both fantastic, they create a realistic visual environment for the guy humping it on the ground, not so much for the fly boys though.It's an extremely fun game when you get together with some buddies though, I highly recommend it.

With enough processing power that could be build in FSX. A bit of hyperbole

I've been playing this since it came out, and I gotta say, it's epic. I loved EW with the 1.05 update though, something which had me depressed constantly for the first few hours after the... shall I say... incident (anyone else notice the reference in the EW credits to a certain youtube video?).Still, ArmA 2 by itself is nice, but you HAVE to try the ACE 2 mod for it. I was an alpha tester for that mod, and anyone who ever played it knows that it's worth learning how to install it (consider the installer an entry exam). The sheer mod community for ArmA 2 is sweet as well, and i see so many cool things too coming out. Overall, while it has a good engine, it's not superior, however remember this, it's a resource hog because of the level of AI involved, the AI has ultra high fidelity compared to A1 and OFP, and I actually notice A2 being more efficient than ArmA 1 or OFP: CWC.

If you have a powerful system, ARMA II runs pretty ok...but not great. I can get about 45fps constantly running at 1920x1200. Other games such as FP Dragon Rising or the new Dirt 2, i can get 60+ easy. The main difference between ARMA II and flightsim is the global detail issue. I know it might seem "easy" to adopt the same types of graphics into a flight sim, but it's not.In a FPS or any type of controlled situation game, the engine only needs to render whatever is around the player. Plus, the world is much much smaller than the entire planet of flightsim. Thus, the programmers know exactly how much info to put into the world. You can also do stress tests to determine the maximum poly-count/memory-count per level. For a flightsim, all these variables go out the window. First of all, the wold is seamless - meaning you can go from NY to LA without having to re-load the terrain. Next, you can't control the player's movements. They can instantly turn around and go in another direction; or switch to a fast military plane and go 100s of miles an hour. Thus, the engine can only use an average curve to calculate what to load into memory. You can see FS9/FSX failing at this calculation when grey boxes somtimes appear.Anyways, it's not impossible to make a flightsim full of details...but it'll probably be 4-5 years away. The LOD (level of detail) technology has come a long way since i first started working on games. Racing games such as FUEL have achieved a lot in terms of real-time world simulation (the world of Fuel is about the size of HK + Singapore combined...and there's no loading but the world is extremely detailed).I too can't wait for a day when i can land my 172 on water and go take a walk in the beautiful forest.-feng

If you have a powerful system, ARMA II runs pretty ok...but not great. I can get about 45fps constantly running at 1920x1200. Other games such as FP Dragon Rising or the new Dirt 2, i can get 60+ easy. The main difference between ARMA II and flightsim is the global detail issue. I know it might seem "easy" to adopt the same types of graphics into a flight sim, but it's not.In a FPS or any type of controlled situation game, the engine only needs to render whatever is around the player. Plus, the world is much much smaller than the entire planet of flightsim. Thus, the programmers know exactly how much info to put into the world. You can also do stress tests to determine the maximum poly-count/memory-count per level. For a flightsim, all these variables go out the window. First of all, the wold is seamless - meaning you can go from NY to LA without having to re-load the terrain. Next, you can't control the player's movements. They can instantly turn around and go in another direction; or switch to a fast military plane and go 100s of miles an hour. Thus, the engine can only use an average curve to calculate what to load into memory. You can see FS9/FSX failing at this calculation when grey boxes somtimes appear.Anyways, it's not impossible to make a flightsim full of details...but it'll probably be 4-5 years away. The LOD (level of detail) technology has come a long way since i first started working on games. Racing games such as FUEL have achieved a lot in terms of real-time world simulation (the world of Fuel is about the size of HK + Singapore combined...and there's no loading but the world is extremely detailed).I too can't wait for a day when i can land my 172 on water and go take a walk in the beautiful forest.-feng

Actually, I was talking about this over at CSP. I figure a way to possibly get around that would be LOD based not just on distance, but a combination of: distance, speed, and altitude. This would allow for more dynamic LOD while still preventing frame rate chokes by preventing issues caused by loading too much at the wrong type of situation. For example, while flying overhead supersonic in a jet, you don't need dog houses in the yards of homes, on the other hand, while ground pounding, or even riding the benches of an MH-6, you may want higher detail.