FSX VS Fs2004 Default Terrain

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

ChrisI thought you would be more concerned with the weather :-)Historically MS until FS2004 Ignored the sky preferring to concentrate on the ground.If frame rates were suffering then it was the Sky that had to pay.They call FSX a "living world" well to me that includes the most important BIT without which there would be no flight and that Bit is the Sky.I am concerned that we dont just look at Candy but that MS really go to town on giving us an invironment to fly in which is real, unpredictable and dangerous.We need a dynamic sky and a living moving sky reading from real world pressure systems and frontal systems.ASV6 is stunning and very beautiful. I cannot wait to see what you will do with FSX if MS create the structure for you to work onPeter

[B777ER 2,484]

Chris,Great side-by-side comparison. It turns out there is no comparison. The default FSX looks like FS9 with BEV, UT and FS Genisis. MS has really done a good job. I am pretty sure they did the whole world this way as well in spite of Michael J.'s pessimistic outlook (which he always has on every subj). Thanks for the screenies.

[michal 44]

>I am pretty sure they>did the whole world this way as well in spite of Michael J.'s>pessimistic outlook (which he always has on every subj).Regardles whether I am a pessimist or optimist I think you will ultimately be very disappointed if you think the whole world will be rendered with the same high accuracy as USA. But it is good to be such an optimist. ;)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[scott967 62]

No doubt the whole world will be better, but there will be special areas highlighting the full capability (just like has been done in past releases). Then, with a decent SDK the full effect can be duplicated by 3rd party developers. Hopefully, the SDKs won't be long in coming like they were in FS9. Developers had to experiment using FS2k2 SDKs to see what happened in FS9. Both scenery and aircraft.scott s..

[brucewtb 247]

Maybe I am a whiner and a complainer but these screenshots seem to indicate tha FSX will take the default scenery to a similar level 3rd party developers have already reached in FS9 nothing more nothing less, certainly no revolutionary change. Folks who just fly default FS9 aircraft over default terrain in FS9 will clearly see a change in FSX, but others who have installed many of the 3rd party addons available for FS9 may not see much difference with the new release.Bruceb

[Chris Willis 8]

HI Peter,"I thought you would be more concerned with the weather Historically MS until FS2004 Ignored the sky preferring to concentrate on the ground."Hi Peter, In my case, it's anything that's will increase realism on all department, (flight dynamicweather are not enought. The weather is much better now then earliers days. I was concerned for weather from fs2002, but there was a major difference from fs2004, still some things need to be improved on "bugs". But for weather "eyes candy", the frame rate is the problem like usual.Like every version Msfs will not be liked for everyone and even without been buy it or tested before, many change their mine after and like it. In my case, I will never make final conclusion without never tested a finished product and never seen everything new included and new capability added.Remember many told fs2004 is the same like fs2002 except the weather. See how the new capability was available, Remove all Ms capability and there will be less talk about any addons. The addon's make the sim or Msfs enginenew capability make the new sim posibility?If I remember, users from avsim, flight sim and simflight, are not even 1% of the sales?. how many users know/use addons? How much of the users overall buy addons?User's can still use default Fly, Fu and Default X-plane without addons. ;-)ThanksChris Willishttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6...development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg

[Guest Cardifman]

I wonder how many versions of FSX there will be?There could be just one. Or... there could be different versions for different regions. This way they could have better resolutions and mesh for that particular region while keeping the size of the software reduced. i.e The Europe version would have higher resolution and mesh for that area than the rest of the world...And a USA version would be the opposite etc.Pause for thought.FSX is looking fantastic I think. Rhydian

[Guest]

yes, you are a whiner then ;)Remember that 99% of users don't have all those addons. Microsoft isn't in business to please only a few powerusers, in fact if it weren't for the rest of their customers there would be no product for us.An improvement like this in the default means that addons can add even more.Most likely you'll be complaining a few weeks after you jump through hoops to be the first to get FSX (after of course claiming you're never going to get it around this time) that it's not good enough and has very poor visuals when you're now saying how magnificent those same visuals (or worse) are with all your addons in FS2004.Pathetic isn't it, such attitudes? Yet that's exactly what I'm seeing time and again in this community.

[Guest pixelpoke_from_MSFT]

"Did you read Jason's (Pixelpoke) blog? He states quite clearly that all the images they released represent the early stages of development.Secondly, I doubt very much if any FS team member is allowed to confirm what you are asking.Cal (CYXX)"Well maybe I didn't state it clearly enough... :)What I was trying to get across was the notion that the screens represent a spectrum. *Some* screens are from a while ago, some are as recent as this week. I tried to say this as well; sure we have lots more work to do, but there's a lot there that's pretty complete. (if I didn't get that across, remember: I'm an artist, not a writer...)Cheers,jason{EDIT}I added Cal's quote so people would get what I was talking about...

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

JasonWhat is there is stunning but its whats not there that is intriguing.Like we cannot see the flight modelling and any changes or we cannot see how FSX deals with the Sky (my favourite topic :-)Creating a living world means the Sky too and I am really hoping you have or are going to move to dynamic pressure systems and fronts with all the hazards the weather holds?I dont expect an answer just making a point :-)All the best and great work to datePeter

[Guest Dasher7]

Hi allPURE SPECULATION :Eric wrote that "The default FSX looks like FS9 with BEV, UT and FS Genisis." And that to him was excellent. I agree, it would be a major step for anyone who flies GA planes, and those at higher altitudes will notice it too. Flying with maps in one hand would heighten the general immersion factor and VFR navigation and the general feeling of realism, not least. (I own neither BEV, UT but freeware FSGenisis not that I'd mind having it). The feeling of continuity on a crosscountry flight would be fantastic and I'm convinced it will be so. For the US.For the rest of the world I expect the same texture enhancements (and of course the enhanced autogen layout) as for the US, and in most areas a better mesh, but not at a very high resolution. For a few areas of the globe I expect roads etc from digital data of a quality like that of the US. It should be significantly better than fs9. I don't expect more than that worldwide.To expect more than this is unrealistic, I think. Aquiring data on the US is easy, - sometimes the word is that various organisations (governmental) compete to produce the best data, for free I might add (granted, sometimes only free for personal use!). In other parts of the world this digital data is "offered" at a (often very high) price. That is one of the reasons why a scenery like Switzerland Professional is so pricey, - or, maybe those from the US that do the same are just incredibly cheap, depending on how you see it. But this is certainly a matter of envy to eg. European scenery producers.What is more, north of 60 degrees latitude and south of -60 srtm data is not available, I'm a bit concerned what they'll worldwide in those latitudes.Looking forward,Dasher7

[Guest barturtle]

In case anyone wants to check out one of the other screenshots in their current sim, that spire that shows up in a couple of shots is in Berlin. EDDT, active runway, you can see it while on the ground to the right

[Guest alex333]

>Great side-by-side comparison. It turns out there is no>comparison. The default FSX looks like FS9 with BEV, UT and FS>Genisis. MS has really done a good job. [...]>Thanks for the screenies.Just what I was thinking.There is one point to make for and from those who cannot afford all these beautiful add-ons that exist around the world. Let's just add the sums for those three add-ons mentioned above. They will amount to about 100 bucks, give or take. And that is only for the US part of the world with no improvement to the European part yet, which, being from Germany, is the most interesting to me.What will fsx cost itself? Maybe half of those 100 bucks? (I might add that flightsim equipment prices may vary from what most of you are used to.) And that is without any add-on airport, plane, city, environment program like FE or AS6.Yes, of course, I hear you... What about the new hardware which might be needed to run the sim properly? There will be a tough decision to be made for many of us (I am in the lucky position to have to invest in new hardware anyway, regardless of fsx. But now I think I will wait a little longer with my old system...)But - and this is the most crucial point - you can only compare default fs9 to default fsx. This is where the improvement lies, as you can clearly tell from Chris' Screenshots. Maybe it's not a revolution, but IMHO it's still a big improvement. This leaves everybody with the decision to carry on with fs9 + all those beautiful add-ons, or to switch to fsx. None one is being forced to buy the new product. But give the new sim a year or so on the market with many new add-ons exploring the new possibilities given. This *will* be the point, when most users *will* switch to fsx, even if they are still pessimistic about what's to come, because that is when they will be able to compare fs9+add-ons to fsx+add-ons.If there weren't any improvements to things like panels, ATC, AI traffic, weather engine etc., I think it would be ok to complain. But no-one knows yet, right? For myself, I can only judge from what I see. And this is mostly the terrain part of the sim, which seems very promising to me :)GreetingsAlex

[Guest SpectroPro]

>>Imagine if>>these data improvement are for the entire FSX world!! >>Chris, this is unlikely for the whole world. The elevation>data alone of this accuracy would fill up the whole>(double-sided) DVD and more. I think the game will comne on a>single DVD, right? If this is the case around 6 GB would be>the limit.>>Michael J.I actually hope they make it 2 or 3 dvd's. Allow people that CAN run it on new incredi-systems to have that opportunity. Quit building for the least common denominator and at least make a version that people who save for 2 years to buy a supersystem just for flight sim have something to install to make the new system cry!!!!People with wimp systems can use 1 dvd, and people that want more have that opportunity. I have saved for 2 years to buy a new system for fsX. I don't even care if it costs 100-200 bucks. A bit high, but you know what, I use it every day, sometimes (weekends mostly) 4-10 hours in a day.... It's worth it to me, and to many others...I will be very surprised if it is only one one dvd.. And hey, if I have to invest in a double sided dvd player to use it, then everyone else should have to install several grand in graphics cards, memory, etc... 8)

[Christopher Low 5,332]

I agree. There is no reason why it shouldn't ship on multiple DVDs......unless the cost of DVD discs has increased by 500% when I wasn't looking :-)Chris Low.