FS11: Has development started?

[Klinn 0]

>....It is hard>at times to taxi around a runway, and see dismally low>textures on buildings, and the trees that continue to make my>head hurt. I know there are tons of them, all over the place,>but the trees just have never looked right to me. The ground>textures have gotten much better thanks to the high res. And,>the aircraft textures are crisp and clear. It is just the way>that the sim struggles to move around images and graphics>(fps) that are not exactly "cutting edge."That's why I'm curious to see how the new Train Sim works out. It's not like you're flying at 3000 ft, you're always right there at ground level, looking at the buildings etc close up. More detail, both in the textures and the complexity of the object meshes themselves, will be needed to keep up with today's expectations. Can the underlying sim engine handle that? Can't wait to see some screenshots.BTW, I still think ACES should create a driving sim too, then package the whole works up as "Trains, Planes, and Automobiles". :D

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>Why would it?>>FSX is not the only software I run for enjoyment on my box,>and I'm sure many people around here are the same. It is hard>at times to taxi around a runway, and see dismally low>textures on buildings, and the trees that continue to make my>head hurt. I know there are tons of them, all over the place,>but the trees just have never looked right to me. The ground>textures have gotten much better thanks to the high res. And,>the aircraft textures are crisp and clear. It is just the way>that the sim struggles to move around images and graphics>(fps) that are not exactly "cutting edge." Crysis, and others>are going a different route (super realistic imagery), and I>do not want to start a first person shooter analysis vs.>Flight Sims. However..he does have a point when he says>starting from scratch might be the way to go, I have to agree.> Otherwise we will always have bits of the old sims, patched>over with some new design/features. >>If anything at all, I would at least rest a little easier>knowing...or hoping/thinking that the code is at least>somewhat less bloated after a complete rewrite....?? maybe... >>>my humble opinion.....>>and yes...I love this sim - even at the occasional or>consistent 15fps.>>Danon O.I should have clarified. The Crysis comparison is what baffles me. And you are correct not to want to get into a FPS/Simulator debate because it is what makes my head hurt. I remember when FarCry came out and everyone was going crazy about the graphics. One of the big things was the flyover of the island, in which they lauded the draw distance...wait for it...of up to 1 Mile! Herein lies the rub. Can you imagine how FSX would look from 40,000ft if the detailed area was 1 square mile of land? I mean the minimum cloud draw distance is sixty times that. You can have 2048x2048 textures on everything, but that is going to limit the number of things you can put on the screen. In Crysis, which I admit is a brilliantly designed engine from the looks of it, the area of detail is not sufficient for a flight simulator. It's just not. Tack on top of that the fact that the levels are pre-crafted geometry, not terrain built on the fly from insane amounts of data, there's no auto generated geometry (maybe the trees, but I think the placement is still controlled) and they aren't simulating a flight model. Top it all off with the fact that I saw a gameplay trailer taken with a handheld camera of Crysis the other day, and it had stutters and framerate issues. So even at that tiny fraction of the viewable distance of a good flight sim, it struggled to keep up. I think if you do the math, you see that Crysis is not a good measure of comparison for FSX.

[dokelly07 0]

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

The Autogen structures will never look as good as similar objects in Crysis because there are hundreds or sometimes thousands of them. Autogen already sucks a fair amount of CPU cycles...if you used Crysis level Autogen objects, it would slow to a crawl. Also, Autogen has to dynamically create the correct objects in the correct places anywhere in the world. As NotASenator (I have to know...why that handle?) mentioned, most (or all) objects in Crysis are prepositioned.And rewriting code is not always the best thing to do. If you tight code that has been refined over time, rewriting it can introduce new bugs and performance issues. From all the things they changed in FSX, they probably already rewrote or heavily changed a lot of code. You don't want to throw all that work out the window. So you pick and choose which pieces are up to snuff, and which need modifications or rewrites.The terrain does look fantastic, especially with a good landclass.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>As NotASenator (I have to know...why that handle?) mentioned,I live in Washington, D.C. at the moment, and it seems, at times, that I'm the only person around who's not a politician. :(

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

That's good. Hey, while I got you, I've asked this in the Help forum twice, and messaged three admins about it. No one answers. I can't find it in the FAQ, either. What are the rules about links in signatures? Can one link to their personal website?Thanks, and sorry for interjecting this off topic question.

[Guest jshyluk]

To get back to the original topic a bit...The ACES team were featured guests at the last Avsim Convention in Washington. They did speak at length about the FSX development process. If memory serves, some time before that, there was discussion that MSFS would pull the plug at FS9! I am glad that things turned around to the point where we do have FSX.Also, if memory serves, ACES spoke of a commitment to at least two more iterations of MSFS past FSX. I'm not trying to make an official statement, as I wasn't taking any notes at the Con, I'm just going by my own recollection of events. As a guess, I would think that FS11 would probably be something of a refinement on FSX, and less a paradigm shift in technology like FSX is over FS9. That seems to fit a pattern that I see: MSFS makes a tech leap, then the next one makes refinements, lather, rinse, repeat. As for calling for a total rewrite of the sim engine, no doubt that ACES has thought of that. The traditional commitment to MSFS is to make it backwards compatable to at least the prior version. Should they break that tradition? If I was in charge of the production funds for developing MSFS, then that would be a question where I would want more information on hand before I came up with an answer. So far, though, the answer has been, no, let's stick with what we've got so far.To demand that MSFS needs to rewrite their sim engine, and yet have no responsibility in the development process is akin to demanding that the GM should fire the team's star pitcher even though you've never even been to a baseball game in your life. Sure, you should have your opinion, but without any weight of responsibility behind that opinion, you can't expect to be taken seriously, right? I don't want to sound harsh, it's just that asking for a total rewrite, and comparing the process to that of the development of a first-person shooter, that's a big pill to swallow. Again, this is my personal opinion, and may not reflect any official psoition Avsim may have on this matter.Jeff ShylukAvsim Product Reviewer

[Tabs 2,790]

>I should have clarified. The Crysis comparison is what>baffles me. And you are correct not to want to get into a>FPS/Simulator debate because it is what makes my head hurt. >>I remember when FarCry came out and everyone was going crazy>about the graphics. One of the big things was the flyover of>the island, in which they lauded the draw distance...wait for>it...of up to 1 Mile! Herein lies the rub. Can you imagine>how FSX would look from 40,000ft if the detailed area was 1>square mile of land? I mean the minimum cloud draw distance>is sixty times that. You can have 2048x2048 textures on>everything, but that is going to limit the number of things>you can put on the screen. In Crysis, which I admit is a>brilliantly designed engine from the looks of it, the area of>detail is not sufficient for a flight simulator. It's just>not. Tack on top of that the fact that the levels are>pre-crafted geometry, not terrain built on the fly from insane>amounts of data, there's no auto generated geometry (maybe the>trees, but I think the placement is still controlled) and they>aren't simulating a flight model. >>Top it all off with the fact that I saw a gameplay trailer>taken with a handheld camera of Crysis the other day, and it>had stutters and framerate issues. So even at that tiny>fraction of the viewable distance of a good flight sim, it>struggled to keep up. I think if you do the math, you see>that Crysis is not a good measure of comparison for FSX.I think this is a flawed argument - there's something called LOD in game engines. Of course a Crysis-like FS engine isn't going to have first person-shooter type detail across the entire field of view out to the horizon from FL370. But you don't have that sort of detail in real life either - you lose the ability to resolve detail with distance. I think it's entirely possible however for them to create a sim engine that *does* have that kind of detail and fluidity when you're up close. I'm thinking about things like on the ground at the airport, down really low to the ground, etc. There's this huge misnomer that you can't have high detail FPS-type environments just because "FS is the whole world" or something. It doesn't display the whole world at once.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>That's good. >>Hey, while I got you, I've asked this in the Help forum twice,>and messaged three admins about it. No one answers. I can't>find it in the FAQ, either. What are the rules about links in>signatures? Can one link to their personal website?>>Thanks, and sorry for interjecting this off topic question.I don't see why not.Plenty of people do it (including me)Just make sure it's appropriate.

[dokelly07 0]

>To demand that MSFS needs to rewrite their sim engine, and yet have no responsibility in the development process is akin to demanding that the GM should fire the team's star pitcher even though you've never even been to a baseball game in your life. Sure, you should have your opinion, but without any weight of responsibility behind that opinion, you can't expect to be taken seriously, right?Im not sure who that was replying to, but I don't recall anyone "demanding" a rewrite. This was a thread based on speculation, and debate - which is what is going on. Nothing more, nothing else. At the same time, praise of the current state of FSX has been expressed by all parties as well.--off to fly...Danon O.

[Guest jbrians]

>I think this is a flawed argument - there's something called>LOD in game engines. Of course a Crysis-like FS engine isn't>going to have first person-shooter type detail across the>entire field of view out to the horizon from FL370. But you>don't have that sort of detail in real life either - you lose>the ability to resolve detail with distance. I think it's>entirely possible however for them to create a sim engine that>*does* have that kind of detail and fluidity when you're up>close. I'm thinking about things like on the ground at the>airport, down really low to the ground, etc. There's this>huge misnomer that you can't have high detail FPS-type>environments just because "FS is the whole world" or>something. It doesn't display the whole world at once.It doesn't display the whole world at once, but it does display an area hundreds of times the size of a game like Crysis. And since you are above it, rather than down within it, you can see most of it at the same time.There are a lot of games you can play with graphics engines when you can precisely control the environment and restrict view distances to hundreds of meters, rather displaying objects 20 miles away and modeling real world data.That said, we can and certainly will improve on the performance/fidelity ratio shipped in FSX.

[Guest Elvi5]

You desperately need a new engine to move forward. I think you guys have squeezed enough bux from the current engine over the last decade.FSX still has alot of the same feel & functionally of FS98; & that same feel version after version, has got boring. Something fresh & efficient needs to happen at a core level, not just new planes, missions & more bloated features the engine can't handle.Rendering of the whole planet or a large area isn't a good enough excuse anymore. There really shouldn't be that many polygons on screen at 40,000ft, unless your terrain's adaptive subvision is a complete joke.

[LAdamson 240]

>FSX still has alot of the same feel & functionally of FS98; &>that same feel version after version, has got boring.>Something fresh & efficient >needs to happen at a core level, not just new planes, missions>& more bloated features the engine can't handle.Being very "honest" here, :-hah I can not compare FSX, or even FS9 to FS98, at all!I simply did not like FS98, and preferred Pro-pilot by quite a margin. I either had to run FS98 in conjunction with MS's combat sim, or Pacific Northwest scenery to use it at all. FS98 -- stiff and unconvincing flight models that really DID fly on rails!FS98 -- world topography with as much pizazz as a very flat ping pong table top covered with pyramid mountains, and blue lines for rivers; with no depth of course.FS98 -- beautiful "cinder block clouds" ---- very believable :-lol FS98 -- Only a basic beginning of virtual cockpits and animationsFS98 -- Accurate topography, airport, and navigation data-bases,--- simply didn't exist. Very limited in airports too!Nope, this isn't FS98 with just a few enhancements. Not by a long shot; and I think you're really grasping for straws by making this comparison.L.Adamson

[ccaughie 0]

>It doesn't display the whole world at once, but it does>display an area hundreds of times the size of a game like>Crysis. And since you are above it, rather than down within>it, you can see most of it at the same time.I think the perception is that it should be possible to dynamically adjust the level of detail of objects so that you can see individual trees and houses at high detail when you're down close, but when you're high above them they get combined into 2D textures or very simple 3D objects, so that when you're rendering a very large area you don't actually have that many polygons.For example a forest might be shown as individual trees when you're next to it on the ground, but when you're high above it it would be a flattish object whose top surface had a "forest canopy" texture and whose vertical surfaces around the edges had a "row of trees" texture.To a non-programmer, or even to a programmer who has never had to solve this particular kind of problem, this seems like a logical, even obvious, approach. However as a software developer I do know that having an idea and implementing are two very different things, and if this were easy to do I have no doubt that you guys at ACES would have already done it. For example you'd presumably have to create these "combined textures" on the fly (no pun intended) in order for the transitions to be smooth; although this wouldn't have to be done too often, just the logic to figure out _when_ to do it would no doubt take its toll on framerates.

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Trees already have a "canopy" texture. I say this because the trees in the TreeX add-on lack a canopy texture that is in the RTM trees.So maybe there already is some simple canopy texture that is used when you're at 20,000 feet. Or maybe its just used when you fly over the tree from any altitude.Regarding the number of polygons at 40,000...I think the stress occurs from 500 to 6000 feet. There you still can see all (or most) of those Autogen objects. And there has to be some sort of level of detail algorithm going on, because cruising at 40,000 feet gets me more FPS than 4000 feet over a dense area.