FS2k4 got it right this time!!!

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi Paul W, "who simply wants the most realistic representation of flight over the most realistic world that can be generated on a computer, and it looks like that's going to have to be in a fighter jet in LOMAC"How this sim will be most realistic representation when there will be only thin area, with non mathing water color, with repetitive ground texture coloring and really basic clouds not even good compare to what's was available previously and now..Did you tried the beta?See these pic_http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/26437.jpg__http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/26438.jpg_Cloud remind me fs2000_http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/26439.jpg_ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest Paul_W]

Hi. I'll certainly look around some more; my first flights were around Seattle and Puget Sound, which is one of my favorite areas. I did specifically set scenery to extremely dense, and had the autogen all the way up. I cut out AI and ATC to compensate.Athlon 1700XPGF3 Ti 200500 MB

[Guest Paul_W]

>How this sim will be most realistic representation when there>will be only thin area, with non mathing water color, with>repetitive ground texture coloring and really basic clouds not>even good cpmpare to what's was available previously and>now..Did you tried the beta?Hello Chris. Am I really to debate this with the world's number one FS fan?? I don't stand a chance, do I...?Thin area: Yes, I agree--it's a limited geographic area, but that is its strength I believe. In fact, I just mentioned that concept in Peter's thread. Now obviously if I want to fly airliners from point A to point Z that's not the one for me--but I don't; I want the highest fidelity virtual world I can get, and that currently translates to a limited geographic area in my opinion. Trying to produce the entire world will result in generalizations I believe.Non-matching water color: I don't quite know what that means, but LOMAC's water is definitely the best I've seen, even from the deck of the aircraft carrier (have you seen the latest screen of that?)--in other words, right down to the level of the waves. And I think IL2--Forgotten Battles has done the water very well too.The clouds: I agree, they could use some honing. That's the improvement I'd like to see the most. Perhaps in its follow-up (if there's one), or in its add-ons they'll be taken to the next step. But the overcast is pretty well done.Repetitive Ground Texture Coloring: Again, I agree--there are swaths of land that look similar in terms of the coloring. But the view down to the ground from a thousand feet still shows individual crags and gashes and specific structures in the terrain--in other words, it looks real. They refer to it as ultra realistic, and I agree, because it represents a new level of realism I've seen nowhere else. Dark checkered splotches on a hillside just don't appear very realistic in comparison.If you haven't seen this video, I highly recommend it; it's the best pre-publication video I've seen for any sim. The sounds alone reach a whole new level of realism for me:http://www.pcarena.com/previews/lomac/beta/preview.htmlThe link is about half way down the page.

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi Paul, I still think IL2 is better then LOMAC, and this sims was released way before, even if the water and ground object in lomac could be better than IL2.You will notice at high altitude on all shots, they delibirate blur the texture. See the last two shots from your links at the bottom of the page, at the right and the left one.To be honnest, I am not a real fans of these sims, yes they looks great, but after some mission and mission ....that it`sThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Dillon 2,197]

Mackenson and LAdamson, what are your system specs...Mine are as follows,Dell 8300 2.6gig Processor 800FSBRadeon 9700pro 128ram100gig SDRAM100gig HDI should have enough horsepower to get the overcast cloud effects you guys are talking about. The only bottleneck I could see is my Radeon 9700pro video card which is crap anyway seeing as it's still concidered almost top of the line.

[Guest ozhero]

Wow, those shots are fantastic !I sure hope we can tweak things to get decent frame rates (even if if it takes a few driver patches or MS patches!)

[Guest cwright]

>And while the low level scenery--over an urban area for example--is a vast improvement over FS 2000, when compared to reality it's not very close for me at the moment.Paul, I think Microsoft designed the textures to look good from medium altitudes. Unfortunately, when you fly lower (as I usually do) you quickly realise that many of the textures are covered by black splotches, which is *totally* unreal. This applies to FS2002 and FS2004 screenshots look the same (I don't have FS2004 yet). I've been so disappointed by those ugly black splotches that I've thought of trying to make my own textures for bush flying. Maybe I will try a few experiments.... Best regards, Chris Wright

[nudata 10]

You will be limited by the 4.8 meter per PIXEL. Terefore, a texture rendered tree is not possible unless it is gigantic - thus Autogen. Below 1000ft AGL things get murky. Nothing you can do about it. Has always been that way.I do agree that the NEXT version should address this and offer 1 meter per pixel as an option. By that time 2gb PCs will be obsolete and the video cards will have the same computing power hi-end PCs do today.Dick KLBE

[Guest JC2]

>I am one of those nasty people>that think FS2004 is just a patch for FS2002 that Microsoft>decided to charge us for. Good luck to everyone no matter>which version you choose to fly.>If I were you, I would wait until you try it yourself before you criticize Microsoft, especially since a Microsoft employee is giving up part of their allotted company store credit to purchase a copy for you! :)Jim