FSX Screenshot vs. Fs9 screenshot

[Guest Andre_Hedegaard]

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

[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.

[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.

[moggel 0]

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?

[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! :)

[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.

[oktorn777 0]

Here's the same comparison of MY installment of fs2004 and fsxhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/141829.jpgWell fs2004 doesn't look that bad either.cheers, CG

[Guest alex333]

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

[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?

[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.:(

[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

[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?

[Guest Arbiter]

It seems to me the sense of scale is much better in FSX. If you note the size of the stadiums compaired to the wharf in front it stands out pretty well.http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sll=37.062...97,0.028582&t=k

[B777ER 2,486]

Yes, the landclass and scale of things in FSX looks to be MUCH improved.

[frankla 44]

Is that a elevated freeway next to water in FSX scene? would be awesome!