Why is MS still using 2D Clouds?

[dmaher 0]

Yes Flight is just enhancing (slightly) the existing FSX 3D engine, Flight=yawn.This is 2011, look what a 2 man indie team can do... Outerra http://outerra.com/

Yawn, because you’re not saying what you want but how you want it done.Worst you’re talking about engineering like a marketer.There's no solution in simply starting over.The solutions come out of good engineering...that's all you really want.And I'm a big fan of Outerra, but there's maybe a dozen big systems that would need to be added before it could be compared to FSX-Xplane. You're comparing a Miata to a semi. Try hanging out there and asking them to implement all the missing FS systems. Then we'll make an honest comparison.

[MatthewS 761]

because this harping on is the engine this, or is the engine that - its boring.hence the "yawn".could we not try to tear it down at least until its published?

MS could end this speculation very easily by telling us whether its a new 3D engine or not. Of course they wont because the Flight effort is really all about the Flight Store and not about reinventing the Flight-Sim as we know it.All the evidence we have seen leads us to conclude that Flight is using a variant of the FSX 3D engine and not a new 3D engine.The screenshots and movies released by MS show us a 3D engine at an advanced stage of completion. If this was a new 3D engine we would expect it to look quite different to FSX but it doesn't. It's not reasonable to believe that a new team would develop a new engine that looks identical to the FSX engine. Thus we can only conclude that Flight is using the FSX engine, with minor enhancements.

[PhilTaylor 45]

MS could end this speculation very easily by telling us whether its a new 3D engine or not. Of course they wont because the Flight effort is really all about the Flight Store and not about reinventing the Flight-Sim as we know it.All the evidence we have seen leads us to conclude that Flight is using a variant of the FSX 3D engine and not a new 3D engine.The screenshots and movies released by MS show us a 3D engine at an advanced stage of completion. If this was a new 3D engine we would expect it to look quite different to FSX but it doesn't. It's not reasonable to believe that a new team would develop a new engine that looks identical to the FSX engine. Thus we can only conclude that Flight is using the FSX engine, with minor enhancements.

are you done for the day?

[MatthewS 761]

are you done for the day?

From the screenshot/movie evidence can you tell us whether you think 1) Flight is more likely using a new 3D engine.or2) Flight is more likely using an enhanced FSX 3D engine. and why?

[PhilTaylor 45]

From the screenshot/movie evidence can you tell us whether you think 1) Flight is more likely using a new 3D engine.or2) Flight is more likely using an enhanced FSX 3D engine. and why?

yawn.the better questions are:1) is it fun?2) does it perform decently out of the box?3) are there enough new features and extensibility to make it fun for 3+ years?if those are true, who cares if the Oompah Loompahs illuminate the pixels by hand.

[MatthewS 761]

yawn.the better questions are:1) is it fun?2) does it perform decently out of the box?3) are there enough new features and extensibility to make it fun for 3+ years?if those are true, who cares if the Oompah Loompahs illuminate the pixels by hand.

You side step my question because presumably you can't give any reasons as to why the screenshot/video evidence suggests it is a new 3D engine and not an enhanced FSX engine.

if those are true, who cares if the Oompah Loompahs illuminate the pixels by hand.

Because if Flight uses an slightly enhanced FSX 3D engine then its most likely going to be handicapped in the same way as FSX, ie no cloud shadows, oversized autogen houses, 'bluries', bad performance, etc

[Avantime 81]

Well if you guys think that 3D tessellation isn't possible with Flight then how about stitching multiple textures to each cloud to create a 3D illusion, and limiting the 'draw distance' for those clouds (e.g. 2D for the distant clouds) to minimize the FPS hit? Also a flat horizontal cloud texture for broken/overcast skies + a gradual visibility change effect would be great.Perhaps an tool should be made in the SDK to allow 3rd party addon developers to stitch their own addon clouds and sell it in the inevitable 'MS Flight store' like addon aircraft and scenery.

[frankla 45]

1) Flight's clouds look identical to FSX/FS9 clouds. 2) It's very unlikely that a new 3D engine would use the same Niniane Wang cloud tech (her tech is circa April 2004, at bottom of your linked URL) and thus clouds in a new engine would not look identical to FSX/FS9 clouds.From 1) and 2) we can assert that Flight is using an enhanced FSX engine and is not using a new 3D engine.

You and Alain seem to be so invested in repeating your confidence that Flight is just an enhanced FSX to the point of arguing with the head developer of FSX. Phil (the person you are arguing with above) was hired to lead the ACES team to extract as much performance out of FSX by creating SP1 the SP2. If MS now comes with a FSX enhancement to speed up FS flight to run on ordinary computers as they claim, then you are arguing that Phill and entire ACES could not do what the new team is doing now. I don't think so. To run on the run of the mill systems, Flight needs to be truly multithreaded. (We all know clock speeds have not gone up). To create a multithreaded Flight, the engine needs to be redone. So please stop this unsolicitated opinion that you two repeat over and over again in so many threads . Lets just agree to disagree.

[MatthewS 761]

And I'm a big fan of Outerra, but there's maybe a dozen big systems that would need to be added before it could be compared to FSX-Xplane. You're comparing a Miata to a semi. Try hanging out there and asking them to implement all the missing FS systems. Then we'll make an honest comparison.

I'm only talking about the 3D engine, and not other flight related systems such as AI/ATC. Outerra blows FSX away with regard to visuals. We've not seen weather in Outerra yet but based on the exceptional work so far I think we will see an amazing weather implementation in Outerra.

[dmaher 0]

Because if Flight uses an slightly enhanced FSX 3D engine then its most likely going to be handicapped in the same way as FSX, ie no cloud shadows, oversized autogen houses, 'bluries', bad performance, etc

Again Matthew, neither requires a new engine.Both are tasks we can reasonable expect are being looked into.And BTW oversized autogen is an art bug.It has absolutely nothing to do with a single programmer.Edit, Sorry Matthew, you're right that 'bluries' and 'performance' are the engine - in part.But even 'bluries' come out of improper display settings.If you're not over taxing the sim you don't get them.This display degradation; “It’s not a bug it’s a feature” :(

[frankla 45]

Don't you think you are making a fool of yourself by arguing with, Phil Taylor an Intel Software engineer, ex development lead of FSX and a top notch industry graphics engineer? Stop.

[MatthewS 761]

You and Alain seem to be so invested in repeating your confidence that Flight is just an enhanced FSX to the point of arguing with the head developer of FSX. Phil (the person you are arguing with above) was hired to lead the ACES team to extract as much performance out of FSX by creating SP1 the SP2. If MS now comes with a FSX enhancement to speed up FS flight to run on ordinary computers as they claim, then you are arguing that Phill and entire ACES could not do what the new team is doing now. I don't think so. To run on the run of the mill systems, Flight needs to be truly multithreaded. (We all know clock speeds have not gone up). To create a multithreaded Flight, the engine needs to be redone. So please stop this unsolicitated opinion that you two repeat over and over again in so many threads . Lets just agree to disagree.

I present evidence as to why Flight is using the FSX 3d engine. Nobody else has presented any evidence as to why Flight is using a new 3d engine (even Phil former ACES PM can't offer any evidence).I think the conclusion is obvious. Some people just cant accept it.

Again Matthew, neither requires a new engine.Both are tasks we can reasonable expect are being looked into.

If these things are fixed in an enhanced FSX engine then I will be very happy.

And BTW oversized autogen is an art bug.It has absolutely nothing to do with a single programmer.

Not according to ORBX. The height of autogen houses determined by the engine. Its why we see double storey houses the size of warehouses. If it was possible for ORBX to size houses correctly they would do it.

Don't you think you are making a fool of yourself by arguing with, Phil Taylor an Intel Software engineer, ex development lead of FSX and a top notch industry graphics engineer? Stop.

Then Phil would be well qualified to answer my previous question. From the screenshot/movie evidence why is Flight using a new 3d engine and not an FSX engine variant?IMHO Phil knows that Flight is reusing the FSX 3d engine. Which is why he doesn't want to comment.

[Chock 17,769]

If you think that conclusion is obvious, I hope you never end up on a jury.Al

[MatthewS 761]

If you think that conclusion is obvious, I hope you never end up on a jury.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary there is no other conclusion to be made.

[Guest jahman]

Frankly, I don't give a rats bee hind if Flight has new this or new that. I'll even take it one step further: As long as Flight fixes *all* the bugs in FSX and gives me solid 30 FPS in KLAX, and does so without requiring me to purchase the most expensive CPU and video card when it is released, I'm a happy camper. And I don't care how they do it either, and I even don't care if Flight is FSX SP4 in disguise.Actually I would even prefer it were, to guarantee compatibility with the loads of scenery and wonderful aircraft I have purchased over the years and that I would be more than happy with if I could get decent frame rates and not have CTDs along the way (or if I did, that Flight could assist in identifying the offending add-on so I could zap it foerever into binary oblivion.)So there. Oh, and you can quote me (PhilT: Please do, you would make my day! I am so totally grateful to you and your team for so many hours of unashamedly blissful flying with FSX!)Cheers,- jahman.