Sign in to follow this  
Mace

What FS11 could look like...

Recommended Posts

I'm not used to post this kind of message, but I've been blast away by Bandai/Namco.I've downloaded the demo on my X360 and I can tell you it has all it should look like on DX9 type hardware... Dynamic HDR, realistic light scatering (missing in FS for a long time), incredible autogen (trees and buildings), lots of terrain (I know, less than FS but still...), realistic looking tile based texture (I find FSX look like a technical demo patchwork personally, not something like artistically crafted by an artistic director - I know I'll be flamed with this one LOL).http://www.acecombatsix.com/Again, I know perfectly well we are not talking about the same thing (same old same apple and oranges, combat arcade sim and real civilian flight simulator, etc...) Nevertheless, if only this could give some inspirations, for those with X360, download the small demo (300MB) and try it out. I've been trying avoiding missiles just to low level flight to see the textures and the polygons up close LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I really agree that I hope that by the time we get to later version of FS that hardware has moved forward enough to allow enough headroom to give us graphics like this and still have realistic flight simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>http://www.acecombatsix.com/>>Again, I know perfectly well we are not talking about the same>thing (same old same apple and oranges, combat arcade sim and>real civilian flight simulator, etc...) Nevertheless, if onlyYes indeed stunning graphics and environment :-)Andr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the pacific nature of my main vocation (priest), I've no real interest in combat flightsims, but I will going on record as saying that the graphics and lighting are outstanding!The video trailers have made that abundantly clear! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the XBox 360? What's in it that a computer can't have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>the XBox 360? What's in it that a computer can't have?Oh, nothing. I wasn't saying that at all.I was just pointing out that programs like Ace Combat have very simple arcade-style flight models.As they say in the 1UP preview:"Isaki also talked about how the team approaches the balance necessary to make it feel like you are flying all these sophisticated aircraft while keeping it a game that you can play without hours and hours of practice. He noted that no one thing makes it work. Instead, it's a combination of everything working together to keep you suspended in the game world. For instance, from going up in real planes they picked up on how much buffeting the wind can cause, and how loud it can be rushing by the canopy. When they worked these effects into the game it added another touch, but they didn't hit you with crippling crosswinds that would be overly difficult to fly through. Add to that the dynamic fight going on all around, with radio chatter reflecting your raids and you quickly get wrapped up in it all."So they have all their eggs in the graphics and sound baskets, and not in building a super-accurate depiction of flight. That takes a lot of extra processing that takes away from making it look that good.I don't doubt that if ACES was programming specifically for one hardware set (the 360) and didn't have to worry about things like crosswinds or real-world data coming into the sim, they could make something comparable.I was simply saying that I hope that by FS11, hardware is good enough so that we can get what we get now from FSX, plus graphics like Ace Combat 6. I'd be happy with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it more and more difficult to believe that simulating an aircraft is such a straining task with today's computer technology that graphical features generations old cannot be implemented. The hardware is here, the computer I'm typing on is more powerful than the Xbox in my living room. I know it's a different animal altogether, with having to have Windows running in the background, millions of different possible hardware/software configurations etc but even with that I simply don't think this a "hardware hasn't cought up" issue. I can't help but feel that FS has become a complicated mess of previous versions and backwards compatability fixes with "new" features like bloom just sort of jammed into this big pile of mush. Heck, look at what the OP, JeanLuc is doing with the AXP A320. From what it sounds like he's created a simulation of a very complex modern airliner and made it so the performance is very close to that of the default 172. And from what I understand how it works, he did that by moving the simulation part out of FS and into a separate entity. Now, using the same hardware, with just the right amount of ingenuity I would be able run the sim that gets, let's say 24 FPS with the PMDG 747 to 60 or 70 FPS with the same settings. And all of that is because of efficient programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is exactly how I feel what has happened over the years with MSFS; just keep jamming stuff into a very old engine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the one hardware set. But I have a hard time believing that the difference between AceCombat's flight modeling and FSX's is greater in terms of computing power than the difference between the graphics... I mean, graphics have always been our main hog.My guess is that the flyable area is restricted. Although with jet fighters...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>the one hardware set. But I have a hard time believing that>the difference between AceCombat's flight modeling and FSX's>is greater in terms of computing power than the difference>between the graphics... I mean, graphics have always been our>main hog.>My guess is that the flyable area is restricted. Although with>jet fighters...There are 15 "arenas" with 100 square km operational areas. They are handbuilt, of course, and loaded ahead of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brian,are you sure about the 100 sq km number? That would be a circle with a radius of less than 6km/3.5mi. Sounds like flying a fighter jet in a phone booth? ;-)Cheers, Holger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi Brian,>>are you sure about the 100 sq km number? That would be a>circle with a radius of less than 6km/3.5mi. Sounds like>flying a fighter jet in a phone booth? ;-)>>Cheers, HolgerI was pulling it from http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3162962"That will be important because this Ace Combat also significantly enlarges the game both in geographical area and the amount going on at any point in the battle. Each of the 15 singleplayer stages come in at around 100 square kilometers of operational area. To further emphasize the sense of being a part in a larger battle, the pre-flight briefing lays out multiple potential objectives. As you tackle them the conflict steadily evolves in direct relationship to your actions. Depending on how the battle flows you may even receive distress calls from units in trouble which you then must decide whether to veer away from your current task to help them or not."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just taking my best guess at it. I could be completely wrong. It could be just that outdated methods have finally caught up with the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a real wake up call to MS because this is really how FSX DX10 should look like. Its time to stop making excuses about FSX because this is what todays hardware can do. You can no longer say "but it's a flight simulator!". You can no longer say "but we do the whole world!", or "we do real flight models!", or just blame it on the hardware. It doesn't cut it any more. The fact is the FSX graphics engine is junk and its pointless to keep hacking it! So, will there be a new graphics engine in FS11? Of course not! It's too much work, too bigger "risk", and it just won't happen. So it will be another hackfest.The other thread with the FS11 wish list had some interesting comments and this one by Orlaam is really quite amusing.> Seriously, why do so many people ask for the kinds of things that> computers won't be able to render for years? You have a fairly> basic implementation of ATC, terrain, autogen, and weather, yet you> want bugs, grass, roads you can drive on (?? seriously, come> on...), human models!, perfect real world lighting, and God knows> what else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the ACES were part of this team...as for as the development is concerned. I had done the whole Ace Combat 4 from beginning to end in Playstation II. My nephew had rented this from Blockbuster during a weekend and we played together and I loved it. I went an got a whole Playstation II just for Ace Combat 4. NAMCO is an independent company who produces amazing stuff. XBOX was withiut Ace Combat for so long. They finally got an exclusive deal for Ace Combat 6 with NAMCO. But its probably for a year so before they would put it for Play Station III...I would thinkEven Ace Combat 4 was amazing. The whole production... It had a narrative...a story behind everything, It could have been real corny..but they actually did a great job.. it was like a well made movie.Mannyhttp://www.acecombatsix.com/?l=poll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this