Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest Surge

FSX Screenshot vs. Fs9 screenshot

Recommended Posts

Guest Andre_Hedegaard

Another screenshot comparing FSX to FS9.Taken in the Seattle area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tmloser

Ugly resolution and so on, but the reflection in the FS X screenshot is AWESOME! :) I also like the realistic hazy look in the distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andre_Hedegaard

I admit, I hadn't noticed the haze until you mentioned it and yes I'd have to agree with you as well, its a great improvement over FS9.In general when looking only at fsx screenshots you don't have much to compare, but when viewing side by side, the milestone that fsx will be, is coming just that much closer to fulfillment.I'm hoping for a video trailer in the future, but I'm happy too with the way things are and even having some of the team creating bloggs and replying here is already a 'milestone' in its own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I notice is the ugly "stripes" in the sky scraper textures of fs9, (caused by mip-mapping I believe). Is that issue dealt with in FSX or is it just a case of better configuration in the FSX shot compared with the fs9 one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tmloser

Yes, that's true: the FS9 pic isn't really the best I've seen: clearly no FSAA and indeed awfull stripes. My FS9 looks a lot better! And FS9 can also look quit hazy if you want to. So the comparison isn't really fair. But still, the reflections in the FS X shot... very nice! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andre_Hedegaard

Actually, there is FSAA, with triple buffering, everything maxed out, at 1024x768 using a FX5500 gfx card. (which I know isn't serious gear)The JPG file has to remain under 150KB and perhaps I overly compressed it, creating such a terrible screenshot, luckily for me, I hadn't planned to enter this into the screenshot competition.What is more important to me though, is that when FSX is released I'll naturally be buying probably 2 of the newest Nvidia cards, hooked in SLI and so I will notice the difference.Whomever are using BEV, FsGenesis, Activesky etc, I'm sure you'll see improvements too, though probably not as extreme as I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex333

But the water reflections really add something to the picture, and the gruond textures look better, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TVM

>Well fs2004 doesn't look that bad either.It certainly doesn't. I like your water. Which water textures do you use, oktorn777?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Foxtrot 125 Tango

>Here's the same comparison of MY installment of fs2004 and>fsx>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/141829.jpg>>Well fs2004 doesn't look that bad either.>cheers, CG Agreed! Those screenshots of FS 2004 look pretty good with the 3rd party enhancements. Given that, can you just imagine what 3rd party enhancements could do for FSX?!Regards,Mark.:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tomlin

Well, the thing I notice is that the buildings in the FS9 shot (the two sports complexes) are much closer together than in the FSX shot. Ive always suspected some gross errors in regards to this. A good example is that at KATL, the terminals seems WAY too close together. At the real airport, there is more than enough room for two aircraft to taxi past each other without hitting aircraft parked at gates. There's not much room for this at the default KATL. Im sure there's other places like this too. Also, the textures for the FSX shot show buildings/roads, etc behind the sport complexes, where as the FS9 shot shows somthing of a park, or desert looking texture. Just some thoughts,ET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andre_Hedegaard

That *is* a nice installment of FS9 you have, however, you should be comparing DEFAULT FS9 to DEFAULT FSX to get the "improvement" factor.In this case, you can't really compare apples to bio-altered apples.After FSX, how many years will it be before a new version surfaces? Perhaps 2-4years minimum (closer to 5 I suspect) and in that time, how many add-ons will greatly enhance FSX, that after those 2-4 odd years, FSX won't even be looking like FSX anymore?Look a bit into the future from here, if someone asked you to compare FS5 to FS98, you probably wouldn't be taking screenshots comparing a steroid-pumped FS5 to default FS98?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest twsimfan

Andre,The building distorion is caused by having your "MIP Mapping" set too high for your graphics card. I'm using a 9800 Pro set at 1280X1024 and I get the same effect if I go higher than 4 on this setting. Your older card may require and even lower setting but I don't think so... I think I used 4 with my old 5500 but to be honest it has been a while. :)Go to the Display settings hardware tab and set mip mapping down to 4 and those buildings should look a lot less psycadellic. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with all the enhancements to FS9 the FSX shot looks way closer to how the real world looks (IMHO).I am however, slightly concerned about the tunnel the ship appears to be entering!I am also very happy the ACES guys are out of the closet... we are all passionate about FS here, and it's great to be able to discus and debate with the dev team.Thanks,Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tdragger

>Is that a elevated freeway next to water in FSX scene? would>be awesome!It is for now. We're all waiting for the next earthquake...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

how long though until someone complains that it's "blurry and completely unrealistic"? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andre_Hedegaard

>Andre,>>The building distorion is caused by having your "MIP Mapping">set too high for your graphics card. I'm using a 9800 Pro set>at 1280X1024 and I get the same effect if I go higher than 4>on this setting. Your older card may require and even lower>setting but I don't think so... I think I used 4 with my old>5500 but to be honest it has been a while. :)>>Go to the Display settings hardware tab and set mip mapping>down to 4 and those buildings should look a lot less>psycadellic. ;)Hi Tom,Thanks for the tip & info :)That worked really well for the buildings by adjusting the mipmapping settings, however, the rest of the scenery took a big knock :( As seen by these screenshots.Above:Mipmapping=8Below:Mipmapping=4http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/141965.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TVM

Andre, try setting Mip-mapping to 5. That works well for me. The buildings aren't blurry, and the details in the surrounding scenery looks nice too.Remember to set AA to 4x or more, and AF to 8x or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't look right at all. I have mine set to 4 and the textures don't look anything like your second picture! What video card do you have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pixelpoke_from_MSFT

>Well, the thing I notice is that the buildings in the FS9>shot (the two sports complexes) are much closer together than>in the FSX shot. Ive always suspected some gross errors in>regards to this. A good example is that at KATL, the terminals>seems WAY too close together. At the real airport, there is>more than enough room for two aircraft to taxi past each other>without hitting aircraft parked at gates. There's not much>room for this at the default KATL. Im sure there's other>places like this too. Also, the textures for the FSX shot show>buildings/roads, etc behind the sport complexes, where as the>FS9 shot shows somthing of a park, or desert looking texture.>>>Just some thoughts,>>ETThe shot above has an aerial image below it, which allowed us to more accurately place Qwest Field and Safeco field, and leave room for the Qwest parking garage... :)Cheers,Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...