What FS11 could look like...

[Guest wyoming]

15 areas of 100 Km2, that's one square of 150x150 km.

[Guest DC-9]

The hardware isn't much the problem, it's the graphics engine as well as which platform it runs off of. Vollumetric fog/clouds for instance have been around for close to 10 years now. Fly! had awesome clouds and fog in it, and it wasn't a system drain due to the platform it ran on. FS's scenery engine is way behind in terms of what can be done; it's basically just a modified FS2K2 engine with some differences. The funny thing is, like I said, vollumetric fog/clouds were even around before that.

[Holger 0]

Hi there,interesting math, "wyoming": 15 times 100 sq km is 1,500 sq km, or a square of ~38.7x38.7km! 150km x150km are 22,500 sq km, not quite the same ;-)Anyhow, I wonder whether they mean 100km x 100km (10,000 sq km), which would make much more sense for combat arenas. It's not uncommon for people to confuse 100 square kilometers with 100 kilometers squared.For comparsion, our detailed GlacierBay v2 package covers 90,000 sq km, not that I'd want anyone to fight battles there ;-)Cheers, Holger

[Holger 0]

Hey there wingnut,would you mind explaining to me why coverage area would NOT be a factor in comparing these kinds of applications?Cheers, Holger

[Guest]

> would you mind explaining to me why coverage area would NOT be a> factor in comparing these kinds of applications?No problem. Whether the coverage area is 150 square kilometres, 1,000 square kilometres or 10,000 square kilometres, it should not be a factor. That is the content, and it should not have a limit. If you look at a modern graphics engine such as Cryengine, the graphics content is streamed in by the application as necessary (and not "pre-loaded"). Flight simulator has the advantage that it runs on PC only. So memory can be increased and is not limited as it is on consoles.

[Guest wyoming]

The usual, for me, square error... Yes, 40 Km seems a little tight.

[Holger 0]

Hi there,thanks, but isn't FS content streamed in as well? Also, with extended ground textures set to maximum, FS loads ~20,000 tiles of 1.4 sq km each, i.e, 28,800 sq km. Mesh (plus basic terrain textures) is loaded at a much wider circle (albeit at low LOD) while autogen is loaded in a much smaller circle (with the lovely "popping" in FSX). If autogen is loaded in a 6-km radius with up to 6000 items per tile we're talking >250,000 objects in the viewshed of the pilot. I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement, I'm sure there is, but I believe that people often underestimate the sheer amount of data that a flight simulator of the scope of FS has to dynamically load, hold, and drop at any given moment.Cheers, Holger

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Holger,yes you are right, there are many polygons and objects loaded in FS. But in fact, how many objects do Ace Combat also loads at once too? how many polygons do a game like Rainbow 6 Vegas loads as well at once?I also like the comparision with Crysis engine (or any engine, but take this one in particular). What do you see in Crysis? a limited distance mountain (say 3-4km away), with grass near you, trees near and farther away, water reflection everywere and a number of items/objects. Now imagine the scale is different: the mountain (the same on the screen) is now a virtual mountain at 100km. The grass blades are small houses, and the trees are trees (just scale them down on the screen to match). What do you get? the same amount of objects and polygons, only in the first case it was a 4 km away sight, and in the second case, it is an as much detailed (imagine all blades of grass turned to houses - autogen) sight but representing the visible surface on earth around you (100 km away in this example). In my opinion, the Crysis engine, or any engine, can render the whole world, with as much complexity as a limited world they are usualy used for, it is just a matter of scale: object scale and texture scale (to some extent). And I have no doubt that these engines are way faster and better than the one used in FS. If not done already, you can see some videos or read some texts of J. Carmack and how he explains the optmizations they went through in the first Quake engine for example, you can also download Quake II and III source code from the ID website. It tells a lot about efficiency in the rendering pipeline. It seems with FSX SP2 we are going in a good direction though. Only a few years later than most other game software houses like Ubisoft or Bandai :-)Hope this helps!

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Brian,the sole and only bottleneck in any game: graphics and the rendering pipeline. If you look closely at the public information about the SP1 and the SP2, you can see than significant gains of performance in FSX are achieved only thanks to enhancing/improving/extending batch processing of 3D objects, as well as several other key optimisations between the software and the 3D API, plus a couple inner algorithms optimizations.In fact, if you have had the chance to view Beckman's video on game physics, he explains the physics behind FS (and tells they are 10 times less complex than car simulation), and shows how they are basically not computationaly expensive nowadays.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

I don't disagree with any of your points in particular, I just wanted to point a few things out:In my opinion, the Crysis engine, or>any engine, can render the whole world, with as much>complexity as a limited world they are usualy used for, it is>just a matter of scale: object scale and texture scale (to>some extent). That's not really true, for a couple of reasons. Currently, Flight Simulator renders a round earth model, and engines like Crytek 2 or Source or Unreal 3 load levels, and a lot of their efficiencies come from their preloading and caching of objects. From the Source SDK FAQ:The maximum map size is currently set at +/-16384 units (16x the horizontal area of Half-Life 1, 64x overall volume).Mods can choose their own unit scale for the world. For example, 1 unit could be made to be equal to 1 foot, or to 1/10 of an inch. Physics will be adjusted accordingly, but collisions are only guaranteed to be accurate to 1/32nd of a unit.So there is a maximum size to the levels. If it was just a scale issue, then realistically, maps or levels could be of infinite size. But the truth is, in any of these graphically intense games, you hit a loading screen at regular intervals. If it was just streaming in the info as needed, the games could be designed as one seamless level without any additional loading screens or levels. However, a good deal of preloading and caching is done to optimize the engine's performance.On top of this, I know that with the Source engine powering HL2, and previous games like the Quake series that you mentioned, when you build a level with the level editor, there is a step where lightmaps are generated for the level to determine the lighting on static textures. This is something that is done real time in Flight Sim, and updated for the changing position of the sun. >And I have no doubt that these engines are way>faster and better than the one used in FS. If not done>already, you can see some videos or read some texts of J.>Carmack and how he explains the optmizations they went through>in the first Quake engine for example, you can also download>Quake II and III source code from the ID website. It tells a>lot about efficiency in the rendering pipeline. It seems with>FSX SP2 we are going in a good direction though. Only a few>years later than most other game software houses like Ubisoft>or Bandai :-)>>Hope this helps!>I don't disagree that First Person shooter engines are more efficient at what they do. I am also in favor of a rewrite of the graphics engine in Flight Sim to support up and coming dx10 features. I am pretty forward-looking when it comes to computer games, and I am always look at the next thing, so sure I want FS11 to perform better and look nicer.But the straight comparison of saying "ACES are incompetent because Crysis has better looking trees" is not an apples to apples thing. I understand the similarities, and yes, I actually learned C++ by modifying the Quake 2 code. So I respect the skill it takes to produce AAA games and I am studying 3D graphics right now so that I can do things like that. However, as a guy who has been playing first person shooters since 1994 and as someone who has been picking apart the AI system in FSX, I feel I have a strong platform to work from when making these assumptions. And the final analysis from me is that most games dedicate about 90% of the workload produced into graphics rendering and 10% into game logic, physics, AI and other features, while with flight simulator, I believe it is closer to 60/40%. I've done a lot of tests with trying to my own copy of FSX more efficient, and a lot of times beefing up the weather or adding more AI or road traffic puts more of a hit on my system than straight graphics improvement. From that, I draw the conclusion that a large portion of the processing power needed for FSX is in the simulation and game logic aspects, moreso than in other games on the market.That's just my analysis of things. As you've said, I agree with you that a brand new engine like Crytek 2 or Unreal 3 is more efficient at what it does than the continually upgraded Flight Sim engine. I also agree that for future versions, FSX should dedicate more to rebuilding the engine for a modern architecture. But I also believe that to suggest that Flight Simulator should do what it does in the way of simulation and real world data and also look like the latest first-person shooter is not practical at all, even if the engine was rewritten from scratch.Then again, the final course in my studies will have me building a basic modern game engine as a demo piece to show prospective employers, so maybe I'll put my money where my mouth is and make it a flight simulator.

[Guest DC-9]

If it was so streamlined, it would be able to do what it does, and have room for more. As I have stated, and others have stated as well, it's not the hardware that's the problem, it's the graphics API as well as being such an old scenery engine. You don't have to take my word for it, but a FFS utilizes virtually the same hardware we have to run FS, and it is capable of doing just as much, plus what FS can do, and it runs smooth as silk. Why? It's because it utilizes a much more powerful and capable graphics API (OpenGL), which has been around for quite sometime. The way I see it is, DX is not built for this type of application. MS is 'trying to reinvent the wheel' so to speak. Basically, what I'm saying here is, why turn your back on proven technology that's built for these types of applications? It makes no sense. If it's not broken, don't fix it... I've never seen a FFS IG (Image Generator) running DX for obvious reasons; it's an inferior graphics API which runs dramatically slower. Now, to go a step further, it's my belief why MS won't use an OpenGL API is due to the fact it would open up and run things much better, and people wouldn't upgrade any of their hardware; keep in mind, our hardware can do much much more than what people want to believe here. It's not the speed of the hardware people, it's the API which is the bottleneck. In essence, it's 'milking the golden cow'. They want to keep selling computer hardware, so they're limiting what the API can do to make it 'look' like the hardware isn't capable of it, just to make more graphics cards labeled 'DX10' and sell more processors. If you really want to call it a 'conspiracy theory', go ahead, maybe it's not the correct term, but this is directly in collaboration between hardware manufactures and MS. Think about it... Ever see FFS IG's being upgraded in processor or graphics cards? As I stated, a good example is Fly!, it had vollumetric fog and clouds. That was back in 1999. That's 9 years ago, and the hardware was capable of it then, so, why not now? I don't buy it people... The hardware is plenty good enough, and for people to go out and continue to spend their money buy DX10 graphics cards, etc., is utterly foolish. I for one won't be buying it. I think it's a waste of money, as is Vista. I'm highly considering just switching to X-Plane as I'm getting fed up with the run-around we continue to hear 'your hardware isn't fast enough', or as put here, 'the sheer amount of data that a flight simulator of the scope of FS has to dynamically load'. It has nothing to do with that per say. The problem is very real to me, MS is purely limiting our performance to push hardware sales, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them getting some type of 'kick back' such as what the drug companies do for physicians for prescribing their medications. Just my 2-cents, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I just don't think people are really getting the benefit for the money they've already spent.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Very good points Brian."But the straight comparison of saying "ACES are incompetent because Crysis has better looking trees" is not an apples to apples thing" this is not what I was trying to say and I'm sorry if it read this way.The only thing I was trying to say is that there seems to be good looking and efficient 3d engines out there and I'm really wondering to what extent the "you can't use a FPS engine for flight sim" really stands nowadays, or, said otherwise, to what extent the ACE team could benefit a much better experience if only they could license readily available 3d engines instead of doing their own. Even more so if their core target is the gaming crowd, and not the Avsim readers, for which visuals and special effects at 60 FPS is key factor in the experience, much more than accurate flight dynamics and refuelling ops.Now, this Bandai title is just gorgeous, and I can't wait flying flight sim in this visual and fluid experience.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi DC-9,"MS is purely limiting our performance to push hardware sales"don't you think this could not be the cause of the issue, but the effect instead? I mean, they maybe not are limiting the performance to push hardware sales, maybe hardware sales are pushed because their sofware is not optimaly optmized? quite an open subject isn't it, eventhough we can all agree they are optimizing a lot (see SP1 and SP2 coming in soon).As for OpenGL, besides any API consideration in terms of performance, I think Microsoft uses Direct X only because it is a Microsoft API. Sometimes, developpers are bound to corporate policies and licensing restrictions can apply.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>Just my 2-cents, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.That is a lot of heavy accusations for 2-cents :(

[Guest weeniemcween]

Well I just tried the Ace Combat 6 demo and I agree it is graphically very impressive. I wish they had made the flight model a little more sophisticated-honestly it's pretty boring-but what stands is to be expected from an arcade game. The virtual cockpit is pretty basic, with nothing besides the hud and map pop ups, so I suppose it's tantamount to the majority of default fsx aircraft. The Acceleration F/A-18 is much nicer looking inside. But jean luc is essentially right, the lighting engine is quite noticeably better than that in FSX, the terrain is pretty, the autogen (if one can really call it that) is scaled properly, and the frame rates are very smooth. The demo level is pretty large and I got up to about 40,000 feet before dive bombing, where the detail was most apparent. There are cloud shadows but I couldn't tell if they were dynamic.It certainly appears to be the case that the FSX (lighting) engine is outdated. I hope ACES is at least considering creating a new one or buying the license for one along the lines of Windlight, as so many companies have with Unreal Engine 3 for instance. The other thing is perhaps the fs environment should be scaled down to areas where there is much relevant data available. It's already so western-centric, in terms of mesh and texturing and aircraft for example, and the overwhelming number of scenery add ons for fs2004 were in North America and Europe. I think people living in the rest of the world would be willing to sacrifice very very generic detail in their own region for higher detail in another. After all, I spend a lot of time flying in areas I've never been to in North America, so I don't see it as being all that different considering fs isn't a culture sim except in the obvious contexts. EDIT: Or as an alternative it would be excellent, given the number of GA flyers here for performance and other reasons, if ACES added some areas like flightscenery portland, with a few detailed airports and photoscenery in close proximity. Ideally and following the Acceleration precedent, they'd contract Vauchez, Goldstein, Womack, Sandmann, etc.