This isn

It's all down to a combination of available technology ( to produce the product and then to store it ) and the market ( there has to be a viable market for developers to work in) While we have some great advances in what FSX can look like now, the scale of your ideal is simply to great to become a reality. Maybe in small localised areas, in the same way that the Earth Simulations have team have done the Scilly Isles, but not on any great area, it would simply take up too much space in terms in data.I dont know about you , but with my current set up, I often am able to look out of the cockpit and think "That looks real" Admittedly, the combination of height, scenery and weather etc has to be right, but it often comes together for me. But then, I am using photoscenery... :( Cheers, Mark

While we have some great advances in what FSX can look like now, the scale of your ideal is simply to great to become a reality. Maybe in small localised areas, in the same way that the Earth Simulations have team have done the Scilly Isles, but not on any great area, it would simply take up too much space in terms in data.

That's true for now but in a few years we will probably laugh about are small Tb-disks... I clearly remember buying a 40 Mb hard disk which offered WAY more space than I would ever need (and which costed WAY much more than a 2 Tb-disk costs now!!!)! 20 Gb for a small region may look like an awful lot now, but in a few years something like 200 Gb will probably fit on a very small USB-like stick.

I dont know about you , but with my current set up, I often am able to look out of the cockpit and think "That looks real" Admittedly, the combination of height, scenery and weather etc has to be right, but it often comes together for me. But then, I am using photoscenery... :(

LOL True, specially when it comes to mountains and area's like that! (Specially bare mountains! :( ) There is no denying your screenshots looks awesome!!! But when it comes to cities and so on, realism is still far, far away. Unless you fly at 20.000 ft in an airliner, obviously. But at that height you will never be able to see someone cooking dinner through the kitchenwindow. You really need to fly low and slow for that. :( I should have added that in my OP, I guess, that I am thinking about realism at low altitudes... B) Someone somewhere posted (I forgot who and where, maybe it was you or GabrieleC) that he'd seen scenery being developed (experimental) where houses and so on in photoreal area's could be made 3D somehow. Still not good enough for low flying, but still, it is something I'd like to see. Things like THAT get me excited!

You know its funny, back in the 80's when I was running the first version on a Commodore 64, I was wondering the same things you are wondering now. At the time I never would have though that we would have photoreal ground textures, clouds, let alone downloadable weather. Flight sim has come a long way since then, but it has taken around 30 years to get to where it is now. Although I would believe that technology is moving at a faster pace now than it was then to create games/sims. As far as the things you want, I would agree to some extent that I would like that also, but some I can do without. Like being able to see people in a building moving around and people walking down the street. Frankly when flying a real a/c like a 152/172 I have never really noticed people inside buildings or even on the street, from a legal altitude at least. Maybe people on the airport grounds would be ok and I wouldn't mind if we could get airports that were even more densely packed with equipment, ground crews, etc. Using AES and the default you can get some of these features, but still not what you see in real life.Personally as flight sims advance, the area that I would most likely see get better is the environment/atmospheric dynamic. If we never got more than the photoreal packages, ORBX, and stuff of that nature, I wouldn't be too upset. However even using things like REX and ASE I still crave more realism in regards to how weather changes, clouds form, visiblity changes and effects the lighting conditions, things of that nature.I was on vacation over the weekend in the Miami area and while flying there and back from Dallas I kept looking out the window comparing how the sky and ground look compared to what we have in FSX. I found that I was actually pretty content and happy with where we are now when using photoreal packages or GEX, but it was the weather and atmospheric conditions that still left me wanting more in FSX or the next sim. If we can get those things improved I will be pretty happy. I imagined how cool it would be to be using a sim and see clouds actually form and visibily change depending on the amount of water vapor in the air and the way the sun light can effect it depending on the direction you are looking. No more selecting sky and cloud texture sets because the sim will generate them automatically based on true time/date and weather conditions.It will truely be interesting to see what the next 20-30 years brings up in terms of flight sim. Probably the best way to go would be to have someone develope an actual Earth Sim that can do everything, then it will be up to you to decide how you want to use it by either deciding to sail the oceans, drive the highways, or fly.

Funnily enough, I set up ASE with REX clouds the other day and taxied the Aerosim B777 out to the western end of the runways at Manchester, of which I was using the UK2000 Manchester Extreme version. As I toggled through the external views and got the tower view, it struck me that for just a moment, all of the elements had come together very well, and that particular view did look pretty realistic.The sky seemed very wide and expansive, the clouds looked like they were a long way off out over the Irish Sea, the lights on the aircraft seemed to be very convincing, the tarmac and grass of the airport looked good, and the scenery towards the open plain of the Wirral looked much as it does from that view in real life, fading into the distance. It's not often that something like that happens so convincingly FS to be honest, but it certainly can have its moments.When there is the technology and the software to make views like that happen all the time, we will still probably be yearning for other elements to make things realistic; the smell of jet fuel that permeates an airport, the smell of deicing and hydraulic fluids as we perform a walk around, the wind on our faces, the dust blowing up off the ground, our clothes flapping in the breeze as we walk to the airstairs, condensation rolling down the windows, a tiny fly buzzing around in the cabin, etc.As a young child, I can distinctly remember wishing that flight simulator technology were the kind of thing I could have in my home, and I did not dare to hope that what we sometimes take for granted these days in what FS offers us, would come to pass, so I've no doubt that one day in the future, if we don't blow ourselves up in a silly war, or get flattened by a rogue meteor, then that kind of ultimate realism will be possible, but I doubt I will be around to see (and feel) it. However, some of the younger people who are on Avsim's forums may do so, and that will be great, though I do hope they will still want to climb in the real thing too. You can have completely realistic scenery for your aeroplane, but you'll have to go to the airport to see it.Al

When I think of complete realism I simply think of what I see outside and nothing less (obviously). When I look outside I never think

I was on vacation over the weekend in the Miami area and while flying there and back from Dallas I kept looking out the window comparing how the sky and ground look compared to what we have in FSX. It will truely be interesting to see what the next 20-30 years brings up in terms of flight sim. Probably the best way to go would be to have someone develope an actual Earth Sim that can do everything, then it will be up to you to decide how you want to use it by either deciding to sail the oceans, drive the highways, or fly.

I was in Cancun last month and I tried to make every mental note of the color of the water. As good as the FSX water looks, it still needs a lot of work - perhaps a better worldwide waterclass is all that is needed. Right now I don't think there are enough variations in the water colors. I also agree that the clouds/atmospheric conditions have a way to go. I think the clouds need a lot of work. We have some decent textures right now but we really need volumetric clouds to beabe to replicate the impression of flying through clouds.As far as an Earth Sim, what I got out of the Cascade announcement was they may be creating something like that. I'd love to see it and I hope that is the direction things go in.

I have had the opposite happen actually quite a few times where I was flying along rw and suddenly thought this looks just like fs! For me the greatest lack of reality is still the inside of the cockpit-that is what I notice more than the outside view.Everything is getting closer though and it appears fsx was built with enough future expansion that it can continue to even get closer.

we're closely approaching the limits of physics with regards to Transistor Size. That said - CPU's have gotten very small, and have become very powerful. But it can only go so far on silicon. (11 Nanometers is right about the limit, which we're not expected to hit for another 5-10 years). That said, once we hit the limit.....................well that sucks.the "Next technology" is "Nano-electronics" which works on a basis of Quantum physics, and uses Atoms/Electrons vs. "Transistors". That technology isn't developed yet as to be used in a CPU. Somebody's probably cranking away at it in intel's basement, but the world has yet to see any real foundations in the technology for computers.It's not going to get a whole lot lifelike on Silicone. It will get better - Definitely, but we're fast approaching the limits of Physics for Transistors.Basically this means FSX will get better, but it's a ways off from life-like IMO, and that doesnt help with the problems forementioned.P,S. - Graphically, FSX is piece of Crap - Especially compared with modern Graphic engine capabilities for real time, the trouble is "Rendering 70 miles of "Vegetation, shaddows, this and that". Flight simulator has a long ways to go before it makes me "Feel like I'm really there" (This is in comparison to actually - really being there).Where are the shadows? where's the complex lighting? where's all the buildings, the people on the streets, the cars, the shops.....This is all stuff I get a "Wiff" of when I look out the window in a cherokee taking off from where-ever. It's real life. Will a simulator such as Microsofts, or someone elses ever get to that point. Where it's all done in a fashion to create an extremely believable world?Sure probably. But it's going to take a Long, Long, long time. I've yet to see one un-edited video or picture in any version of any flight simulator which makes me think "Wow, it's just like he's there"

If you want "life like" your best bet is to invest in a home cockpit, but a good one will run you a lot of $$$.

Here's what I see in the flightsim future:You don't view a screen, you put on goggles. So the view includes your peripheral vision. When you turn your head, the view changes accordingly, kind of like with TrackIR. And, of course, the view is 3d! I think that the realism could be breathtaking.

I have had the opposite happen actually quite a few times where I was flying along rw and suddenly thought this looks just like fs! For me the greatest lack of reality is still the inside of the cockpit-that is what I notice more than the outside view.Everything is getting closer though and it appears fsx was built with enough future expansion that it can continue to even get closer.

LOL, even had it happen a few time that I thought; if THAT scenery would be in FSX, everybody would complain that this doesn't look real at all.Especially now with the bright yellow rape fields.I don't think that I've every noticed people on the ground. In fact during my first approaches into O'Hare I didn't even notice how close to the runway the houses are until I was pilot non flying, instead of pilot flying.

If you want "life like" your best bet is to invest in a home cockpit, but a good one will run you a lot of $$$.

I flew a full motion 717 Sim in Long Beach (Alteon) a few years ago. Although the experience was obviously awesome, I can say that FS graphics were much nicer - particularly when in came to ground/airport/traffic scenery. I can understand that they probably purchased a limited software package to save $. I also recall that they could only load scenery for airports in the southwest US.

I just got up from my computer and walked outside. The resolution is great today, lots of depth, clean crisp colors. Oh crap, I'm describing the real world. Grass need cutting, flower beds need weeding, heck, I'm going back inside and fire up fsx. Sorry 'bout the laspe.RayM

Take a peek at my gmax WW2 hangar here (click the thumbnail to see bigger pics):http://www.flightsim.no/ubbthreads/ubbthre...552505#commentsThere are some good night shots there too, but a pity the MS aprons kills realism. They are just horrible.This hangar is a gift to us in Norway, kindly supplied in the timeline 1940-1945 by the germans. My most realistic model so far. Yes, it is a pity the surroundings (FSX) are not-so natural. At least the aprons could be better, more varied, more choices. And it would also be nice to get rid of trees that are so huge they must come from another planet. But fortunately there are so few trees in this area I might replace them with normal size FSX trees, as they do exist in the FSX bgl's.