The State of Computer Graphics

[HiFlyer 9,436]

Edit: Srry mods, meant to put this in hanger chat!

 

Below I have linked two graphics demos done in realtime on modern hardware. The first was done with the Unreal Engine 4 run apparently with a single Nvidia 680.

 

The second, equally impressive demo (maybe more-so) is run on unknown hardware, but is also a realtime demo. I keep wondering why, even as the rest of the computer gaming universe races ahead towards near photo-realism, the Simulation market, which was once on the cutting edge of new graphics, is falling further and further behind. (years behind) and falling even further as we speak.

 

I hear people talking derisively of "mere eye-candy" and once upon a time there were detailed explanations of why game-graphics done with limited viewing distances where not a good comparison. Maybe that was true years and years ago, but modern war sims are proving this is no longer the case, even as hard-core simulators stagnate visually. I wonder why this is?

 

http://www.geforce.c...-time-graphics/

 

http://www.siliconer...tasy-tech-demo/

 

 

[dons99 0]

Obviously you never flew out of (ORBX)Stewart B.C.. Just one simple example. Don

[HiFlyer 9,436]

Orbx does very very well in certain scenery's, but even that is a case of leveraging the best of old technology with some new tricks. A close look shows that you can only put so much new paint over an old house. The efficiency's and effects to be found in DX11 or in hardware enabling things like tessellation, light scattering, fluid dynamics, instancing, volumetric lighting etc......

 

Its just not there. Its not there in any modern "serious" Sim except in embryonic forms.

 

Things used to take things "over the top" as far as immersion and that "You-are-there" feeling.

[winjimon 6]

To keep a long explanation at bay, here's the main reasons you don't see state of the art graphics in sims:

 

1) Producing both quantity and quality of art assets required is very expensive in both time and money.

 

2) The average player/user does not have the latest computer equipment to enjoy the high quality visuals at interactive frame rates. Targeting both low and high spec hardware is a challenge both technically and financially.

 

I think Flight was on the right track with good visuals, using many of the current graphical techniques, while running well or scaling back for older or lower spec hardware. Adding content over time (aircraft, terrain, etc.) is a reasonable thing to do due to the time and cost of content creation. I'll avoid the discussion of what went wrong, but as a casual simmer these days, I know that only by owning all the content currently available did I enjoy the game enough to want more, as well as appreciate it's future potential.

[Swofford 155]

I'd love to have AeroFly visuals with FSX coverage night and seasonal textures.

[HiFlyer 9,436]

To keep a long explanation at bay, here's the main reasons you don't see state of the art graphics in sims:

 

1) Producing both quantity and quality of art assets required is very expensive in both time and money.

 

2) The average player/user does not have the latest computer equipment to enjoy the high quality visuals at interactive frame rates. Targeting both low and high spec hardware is a challenge both technically and financially.

 

I think Flight was on the right track with good visuals, using many of the current graphical techniques, while running well or scaling back for older or lower spec hardware. Adding content over time (aircraft, terrain, etc.) is a reasonable thing to do due to the time and cost of content creation. I'll avoid the discussion of what went wrong, but as a casual simmer these days, I know that only by owning all the content currently available did I enjoy the game enough to want more, as well as appreciate it's future potential.

 

That's logical, but I think that with so much of the burden switching to the gpu, its possible to "scale up" graphics nowadays much more easily than when you needed a whole new system/processor to do that. At the same time, a lot of powerful effects that are fairly light on the graphics budget are available now, and I don't think you have to throw the whole kitchen sink at a sim to have a large impact.

 

It might actually be less hard on peoples machines if these technology's are taken advantage of in the right way; for instance, tesselation offers a possible savings in bandwidth and memory because when done right you can get a detailed appearance from what might actually be a fairly low-detailed model. (I actually always thought that Flight was gonna spring tessellation on us eventually, even if it took a year or two) very detailed mountainous terrain is a no-brainer for that, but there are other uses as well.

 

[DreadMetis 5]

I know there are good engines for simming, but I don't really understand WHY the flight simming market uses theses engines only for war purposes ?

There is a very big racing car community that is still pushing the boundaries of car simming to new engines (like folding tyres or real DX10/11 engines),

I've also understood that simulating real-like physics, besides good graphics, is very consuming as long as the equations are not simplified enough for everyone's computer. Look at the weather reports supercomputer's size...

 

From my point of view, the big reason why we don't see same evolution on flight simming is the way it's proposed to people. It seems the main audience is more appealed to FPS and shooting...

 

I hope for an appealing flight simulator that would be "fun" enough to touch this public without the demagogy of shooting games, and so get the funds raised to involve even better realism AND new generation graphics !

[188AHC 2,141]

I think this topic is applicable to Flight also. As far as flight sims go, Flight's graphics and rendering was as good as I've seen. I still fly both FSX and Flight almost daily, and the difference between the two is very obvious. In addition, the authors of Flight managed to increase the realism through graphics and still keep the framerates much higher than previous sims.

 

If you wish, I can move this to Hangar Chat, but since it also applies to Flight, I can leave it here. Let me know.

 

The only thing I request is that the discussions relate to how new graphics capabiliities might impact our hobby, how they relate to Flight, and to not get into debates about one game or the other.

 

Thanks.

[HiFlyer 9,436]

I think this topic is applicable to Flight also. As far as flight sims go, Flight's graphics and rendering was as good as I've seen. I still fly both FSX and Flight almost daily, and the difference between the two is very obvious. In addition, the authors of Flight managed to increase the realism through graphics and still keep the framerates much higher than previous sims.

 

If you wish, I can move this to Hangar Chat, but since it also applies to Flight, I can leave it here. Let me know.

 

The only thing I request is that the discussions relate to how new graphics capabiliities might impact our hobby, how they relate to Flight, and to not get into debates about one game or the other.

 

Thanks.

 

Here is fine with me if it fits.

[HiFlyer 9,436]

I know there are good engines for simming, but I don't really understand WHY the flight simming market uses theses engines only for war purposes ?

There is a very big racing car community that is still pushing the boundaries of car simming to new engines (like folding tyres or real DX10/11 engines),

I've also understood that simulating real-like physics, besides good graphics, is very consuming as long as the equations are not simplified enough for everyone's computer. Look at the weather reports supercomputer's size...

 

From my point of view, the big reason why we don't see same evolution on flight simming is the way it's proposed to people. It seems the main audience is more appealed to FPS and shooting...

 

I hope for an appealing flight simulator that would be "fun" enough to touch this public without the demagogy of shooting games, and so get the funds raised to involve even better realism AND new generation graphics !

 

As a gamer, aware of how far modern graphics have come, I am always thinking "if only!" when I play our current offerings. I appreciate the accurate weather and the flight models and all the work put into them, but almost as much, I miss the incredible sense of total immersion that is becoming so much a part of modern gaming. I miss the awesome textures. I miss the God-rays, the impressive particle effects, the post processing, the DX11 water, the depth of field, the motion blur.....

 

I don't think "Serious" flight sims at this point will ever return to the new technology showcases they once were, but at the same time I can't see how the hobby grows when new people are treated to graphics that remind them almost of pong, relative to what they are now accustomed to.

 

Imagine what you could do with even partial subsets of really modern graphics technology!

 

Or don't Imagine. Take a look at battlefield 3. And while looking, keep in mind that this game is a first person shooter. The flying parts are throwaways!! Imagine these visuals coupled with a good flight model in a civilian sim.

 

These are not theoretical effects. They are out there now, but....... they never show up here.

 

[Air1 136]

That is pretty darn amazing stuff. Just imagine the possibilities. Maybe someday, but I won't hold my breath.

[HiFlyer 9,436]

That is pretty darn amazing stuff. Just imagine the possibilities. Maybe someday, but I won't hold my breath.

 

No. I wouldn't either. I don't think the resources are available anymore, and the community as a whole might not be inclined to use what resources there are to even try to get there when the focus has been elsewhere for so long. But there are things within reason that can be done to begin inching along the path before we fall so far behind a receding mark that the whole hobby becomes a relic, visually.

 

Water is only a matter of shaders in some circumstances, as are many other affects accessible by aggressively tapping into the abilities of modern graphics cards. As our current sims reach the apogee of their lifetimes, when considering possible new sims, I want to weigh in for moving all parts of the hobby forwards.

[fsxkitty 62]

When Flight was under development, I was really hoping and thinking that it would be completely DX11.

 

Have you guys seen the DX11 water demo? If not, here it is:

 

That is the kind of graphics quality that I was not only hoping for, but also expecting for Flight.

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

DX11 and, for that matter, DX10, was not implemented in Flight simply because the user base at the time of development would not support them. Just a year ago, half the world's PCs were still running Windows XP, and this means necessarily DX9. Even today, fully a third of the world's computers (not counting Macs and workstations of course) are still running Windows XP.

 

Implementing DX10 would have meant cutting out half the potential market from the start. No getting around that.

 

Best regards.

Luis

[SpiritFlyer 987]

I didn't realize just how far graphics had developed.

 

There will come a time when a flight simulation platform will offer this, and far more. The question is...when?

 

Kind regards,