I read lots of people pointing to the 250 sq. km. figure. Just to add a little perspective....250 square kilometers = just less than 16km x 16km (aka: 10 miles x 10 miles)How many square miles does a dedicated flight simulator need to render in any one visual cycle?

I read lots of people pointing to the 250 sq. km. figure. Just to add a little perspective....250 square kilometers = just less than 16km x 16km (aka: 10 miles x 10 miles)How many square miles does a dedicated flight simulator need to render in any one visual cycle?

at least 30x30 (70x70 would be a lot better, and more realistic)in essence, with view distance only at 10,000 Meters, ArmAII goes to its knees on a powerfull system in the helicopter (From loading terrain/textures)

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.

I have to agree. Watching the A10 video it didn't look like the panning was very smooth. I can hop in the default F18 and fly over ORBX scenery that looks just as good with a much moother experience.

I'd say ArmA really wasn't made with flying in mind, infact

You only confirmed my main point - it can't be compared/judged against FSX.Lets have a video of another competing simulation done with flying in mind, lets have the scenery quality comparable to what ORBX offers (when viewed fromcockpit) and let it depict the whole Earth and not a mere 500 km^2 and then we can discuss who has got better flight simulation engine. This whole thread may offeran interesting glimpse into what combat simulation offer but it tells us nothing about flight simulation.

You only confirmed my main point - it can't be compared/judged against FSX.Lets have a video of another competing simulation done with flying in mind, lets have the scenery quality comparable to what ORBX offers (when viewed fromcockpit) and let it depict the whole Earth and not a mere 500 km^2 and then we can discuss who has got better flight simulation engine. This whole thread may offeran interesting glimpse into what combat simulation offer but it tells us nothing about flight simulation.

Exactly, the ArmA 2 engine still has it's limits. I won't go in to specifics, however these limits have hit the big mod teams. The biggest limitation though is BIS's crappy documentation of their scripting language, SQF.

Exactly, the ArmA 2 engine still has it's limits. I won't go in to specifics, however these limits have hit the big mod teams. The biggest limitation though is BIS's crappy documentation of their scripting language, SQF.

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Categor..._Commands_ArmA2

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Categor..._Commands_ArmA2

It isn't a matter of the volume of documentation, every function is listed, however clear examples of usage are not available for the lions share of them.*edit* I'm now more tempted than ever to review ArmA 2 and Steel Beasts Pro PE...

at least 30x30 (70x70 would be a lot better, and more realistic)in essence, with view distance only at 10,000 Meters, ArmAII goes to its knees on a powerfull system in the helicopter (From loading terrain/textures)

FSX is actually up to 120x120 miles or 193.12128 x 193.12128km or 193121.28 x 193121.28 meters. for a total of 14400 sq miles, or 37295.83 sq km or 36527343668.84 sq meters. So that sort of put's things in perspective!!

Very good discussion here- thanks to all who have contributed so far!

http://www.youtube.com/user/orbxtube#p/u/0/GikjfQHQ1NsThis is John's Video Blog