Phil, what is your take on WindLight?

[Guest nehuge]

My only complaint about the series since its first version back in the day has always been the daytime lighting. Still looks dark and cartoony IMO. I usually stick to dusk which is beautiful, however, as a result.http://windwardmark.net/products.php?page=...⊂=technology

[moggel 0]

Very impressive!

[Guest]

People keep reposting this link, and while the screenshots look great we've seen this many, many times before. Simple fact is this rendering won't be available to us for a long, long time.

[Guest Id Rather Be Flying]

Not to mention the fact they're using their own library of functions and not DirectX. Never going to happen.

[HUSSAR 272]

>Not to mention the fact they're using their own library of>functions and not DirectX. Never going to happen.>No that is not true in my post earlier you can see that it is functional using Direct 3D (DirectX) technology."While the better the input the better the output, Lang claims the program can work and greatly improve the graphics on nearly any simulator running on OpenGL or Direct3D with minimal installation time."

[DadJokeCinema 145]

This falls right into the same thing as the Crysis mentions all the time. These programs put a majority of processing power into graphics rendering and generally don't leave enough overhead for actually simulating flight.This might be a wonderful tech demo, but so are the 3DMark benchmark demos and other top end technology tests, but they haven't been used in general market products because they don't run on a wide enough range of machines and they don't leave enough room for any sort of complex simulation.When I start hearing about this library being used in other games or simulations or hear it mentioned in the game industry news I read, then I'll give it some credit.

[Guest DC-9]

I'd like to see how it'd run using DX. I guarantee it wouldn't run nearly as smooth and you'd need a lot more horse-power such as multiple dual/quad-core processors.

[MatthewS 761]

>This falls right into the same thing as the Crysis mentions>all the time. These programs put a majority of processing>power into graphics rendering and generally don't leave enough>overhead for actually simulating flight.>Yes, but now we have multi core!I would imagine that calculating how to occlude/scatter light and cast shadows from a sky filled with 3D clouds is very processor intensive. But once all that is calculated its probably trivial for the GPU to render it.So FS11 should do those complex weather calculations on a separate core.Frankly for FS11 I think ACES should forget about single core machines and design FS11 so that it uses multiples cores as much as possible. By the time FS11 arrives quad core will be entry level.With multi core we are beginning a new era in personal computing, the "supercomputer on the desktop" era. Please don't say its all too hard.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

Oh, I certainly hope that we are at that level for FS11. I'm biased in the sense that I put graphics pretty high on my list of priorities for Flight Sim.