I was wondering if detail at the airports in FSX will come close to the detail in the full flight simulator program from CAE called "Tropos"? I know i'm comparing a multi-million dollar full flight simulator to pc software but just wondering how close the detail will get to something like Tropos? Thanks.

Sure hope so! If I knew something about programming I would probably join the fs team myself and make sure this would happen.

>I was wondering if detail at the airports in FSX will come>close to the detail in the full flight simulator program from>CAE called "Tropos"? I know i'm comparing a multi-million>dollar full flight simulator to pc software but just wondering>how close the detail will get to something like Tropos?>Thanks.You know, some months back most people figured we wouldn't have anything like that until many years from now. From the FSX preview shots and video snippets, I think you will all be surprised that FSX looks to exceed what we thought wouldn't happen for many years!Take another look now: http://www.cae.com/www2004/Video_Gallery/TroposHIGH320.wmvPretty cool eh? :-jumpy Carmine http://forums.avsim.net/images/wave.gifhttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7118/phoenixtp8mg.jpg

Pretty cool there. It also would be nice if fs would dump the fake airlines and put the real carriers in like CAE did.

It comes down to licensing. WIll the add on stuff we have access to, it's easy to change repaints and callsigns.See the AA fiasco of a few years back. Freeware is OK, payware is not. FS is most definately freeware.Plus with ficticious airlines, you can have 3 airlines that can cover the world with everything from a DHC8 to MD80, to 744. OK by me.Tim

WOW, saw that video for the first time and boy would I love those graphics on flight sim. Of coarse we would all need a super rig to run it.Oh well,Bill

And there is no need for the FS team to waste time on making a vast fleet of jetliners for the AI. The job has already been done by third parties, and there are both freeware and payware alternatives available.-

If another developer came come up with Tropos I'd leave Microsoft and their upcoming incarnation in the dust. Easily.Now, would it be that difficult for FSX to implement some of those great runway effects - such as blowing snow (or rain) - something already which X-Plane has (blowing snow that is), and those frosted runways? No it wouldn't.

"No it wouldn't."How do you know??!! Man, there are some wild ideas out there from people not associated with MSFS that have all the answers. Would these features be nice, yes, do we 'think" it's possible due to other titles doing it, yes. I still wonder why we can't have landable moving ship decks like in CFS2, (which is an MS product and 5 years old), but I don't claim to know how it's done and demand they do it or I'll pack up my toys and leave.Maybe I am just looking at the big picture, we all had doubts that we would even get a new FS and now it is reality, and looks to have some great (and maybe some not so great) features.Regardless of what features you think it should or should not have, these guys are taking a step forward and actually posting on the net, letting us know who they are and being forthright with some info. Remember not to long ago, when it was pure speculation on features? With some of the idiotic comments here, in their blogs and on other forums, I'd shelve the product and move on to other projects. I tend to think that part of the features we use and love now came from their passion for the product.Yes, I realise they are a business and we are the consumers, BUT this is also a community. I have made some amazing friends and contacts over the years, all because of this product produced by MS. I strongly feel that the communication we now have with some of the FS team is a big step in making the sim into what we eventually all want, so why not try being constructive and just a tad bit supportive.I guess waiting till the title is released to start dogging it and them would be to much for some.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Regardless of what features you think it should or should not have, these guys are taking a step forward and actually posting on the net, letting us know who they are and being forthright with some info. Remember not to long ago, when it was pure speculation on features? With some of the idiotic comments here, in their blogs and on other forums, I'd shelve the product and move on to other projects. I tend to think that part of the features we use and love now came from their passion for the product.I could care less how much they work and how dedicated they are and whether or not they post to this site or any other for that matter. I'm the guy who forks over the money. Unless you want to pay the next copy for me. In addition, I have every right, hope, desire, expectation that the programmers will use the best programming techniques available. If they don't than as a consumer I hope someone else will come along and fill that gap. And I don't know where this meek and mild and let's not offend MS nonsense comes from. I repeat, as a consumer I want the best product out there and as long as there is a forum to do so I'll put my expectations and requests on the table just like I'll fork over the money to pay for it and to upgrade my computer accordingly. It's after all, a win-win situation for everyone around. Otherwise we may as well go back to Bruce Artwick's original version and return to a 286, 386, 486....

Hi there I've done some work on a commerical simulator and you might be surprized to learn what you get for several million dollars and up when it comes to outside visuals. Many of the things you see in that video are do-able now in real time with a number of realtime gammeing engines from the likes of Id software and others, things like phong shading bump mapping etc. It's how well things like the physics are handled by the gammeing engine that really matter. If you think about it CAE does not have to draw a cockpit and all the guages either(but they do however have to model 6 degrees of motion in real time) Like I said much of what you see in that video is and has been done in other games. The problem is Flightsim is not like any other game because of all the math that has to be done on ones CPU to model things like flight dynamics and weather with as much fedelity as is possable with the available hardware I beleve from what I've read that FSx will be able to give you much of what you want. The ice on the runway could be done with either a bump map or a "simple" displacement map. The Phong shader should also be do-able as well since Direct 3d9xx allows all three to be included in a games rendering engine already. It's just until now our harware has not been uo to the task of doing both the huge amount of math involved in the weather and flight dynamics plus handleing things like guages as well. When you add very high detail landscapes and auto-gen plus custom meshes(for all those hi-res objects that we like to see in our scenery). Well you get the picture. It's a HUGE amount of data that must be handled and operated on with often very complex math. But it now seems that several things are comming together at the same time (hardware and software wise)so that we should get both better physics and better eye candy to boot.So hold on to your hats I think we are all in for a real treat. Dan Martin

>Hi there I've done some work on a commerical simulator and>you might be surprized to learn what you get for several>million dollars and up when it comes to outside visuals. Many>of the things you see in that video are do-able now in real>time with a number of realtime gammeing engines from the likes>of Id software and others, things like phong shading bump>mapping etc. It's how well things like the physics are handled>by the gammeing engine that really matter. If you think about>it CAE does not have to draw a cockpit and all the guages>either(but they do however have to model 6 degrees of motion>in real time) Like I said much of what you see in that video>is and has been done in other games. The problem is Flightsim>is not like any other game because of all the math that has to>be done on ones CPU to model things like flight dynamics and>weather with as much fedelity as is possable with the>available hardware I beleve from what I've read that FSx will>be able to give you much of what you want. The ice on the>runway could be done with either a bump map or a "simple">displacement map. The Phong shader should also be do-able as>well since Direct 3d9xx allows all three to be included in a>games rendering engine already. It's just until now our>harware has not been uo to the task of doing both the huge>amount of math involved in the weather and flight dynamics>plus handleing things like guages as well. When you add very>high detail landscapes and auto-gen plus custom meshes(for all>those hi-res objects that we like to see in our scenery). Well>you get the picture. It's a HUGE amount of data that must be>handled and operated on with often very complex math. But it>now seems that several things are comming together at the same>time (hardware and software wise)so that we should get both>better physics and better eye candy to boot.>So hold on to your hats I think we are all in for a real>treat.>> Dan MartinInteresting. Correct me if im wrong but with a real flight simulator you don't have to detail the whole world but only the airports that your flying in and out of? I guess a real flight sim is a more of a tool and not a game. I guess FS could have added more complex detail to select airports and cities in the FS world and kept the rest of the FS world bare. At the end of the day its game not not a flight sim tool which most of us would love it to be. I'm pretty sure that Micosoft can pull off etail like what we've seen in Tropos but the question is are we willing to pay the price for all the hardware upgrades we would have to make for all that complex scenery? I think most of us will upgrade for FSX (i sure am) and I think MS knows that most die hard simmers will go out and spend the money on upgrades which most of us have for every FS title that has come out. I know hardcore simmers don't make the majority but why not add the most detail possible which can be handled with current hardware? If your going spend the money on upgrades why not have software which takes full advantage of all the new goodies such as SLI, dual core chips and 512mb vc's? I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that the FS teams spends more time on the airports and models then on other eye candy. I guess its a tug of war because you have people who want massive eye candy over complex airports. Nothing's wrong with eye candy but FS is a flight simulator and not Grand Theft Auto.

Hey guys: Did you notice the A380 doesn't flare correctly in that video???Cheers,MAB

You are right in reguards to how much of the world would be simulated for any given customer remember a level D simulator has to do a very good job of simulating ones sence of movement as well ( 6 degrees of movement etc) so that the visuals are only part of the picture and governments(FAA,CAA,etc) are VERY picky on how everything comes togethereverything and I mean everything must be "up to specs". As to what's in the simulator's visual database the routes are in there as well as any airports that the Airline has route aproval for so yes the "lay of the land" is often done as well. But my original post was about what can be done in the next version of FS (indeed what's do-able now)that's why I talked about things like bump mapping, Phong shadeing and displacement mapping as they are all doable now with D3D9x they of course have to coded into the rendering engine's code that's all. For you see many people think you will need some sort of super machine to run FSx and I beleve you won't have to. Now I am not saying you will get great frame rates with everything maxed out with an old clunker but it seems that much more of the rendering code will run on your card were it belongs now that most cards can do most of above visual tricks in hardware. thats' what things like pixel piplines and vertex shader are for. Dan Martin

Sounds good Dan. Can't wait. Of course there can always be an option to "turn off" detail, as it were, commensurate with the type of system you have.