Sign in to follow this  
Geofa

VC Shadows Video is up

Recommended Posts

Mr. Taylor's weblog has a link to a video of the VC shadows in action, though only in slew mode.Link: http://blogs.msdn.com/sebby1234/archive/20...dowing-vcs.aspxPersonaly, I'm a bit underwhelmed, and for a few good reasons:1. Yeah, they're cool, but from the description of their implementation, it sounds so simple I wonder why they hadn't done it before.(edit: see #3)2. Relating to the whole shadow map thing, I'm suspicious how well they'll work in reduced vis/cloudy situations, having crisp shadows in a cockpit while flying under broken cumulus doesn't sound too appealing, and having the shadow function just turn off/turn back on seems like it would be distracting as ####.3. The author goes right out and says "This could have been in DX9". Dude. Seriously. This is what I get for Vista-DX10?? Shadows that could have been there already if they had the performance issues ironed-out?? Then why not give it to me as a DX9 patch? Oh, what's that, because all you'd have left to sell DX10 is pretty water and tarted-up bloom? Gotcha. I'm not usually one to hop on the 'MS is milking us' bandwagon, but jeez.....I know I'm being overly harsh and critical over just a video, but I guess I was just expecting more. Then again, they're just shadows, so hoping for anything other than 'oh neat' is unreasonable on my part. Having stated my dissapointment, I will now say openly that this IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, and I'm sure under the right conditions will add to the immersiveness of the sim. I remember Phil saying there wasn't anything "for the pilot" scenery wise (meaning in the cockpit) and I think part of it is that they already did such a bang-up job with the VC that no one noticed it anymore, so shadows weren't needed/missed.Now if they were to go in and make some more buttons (or even the expected ones) work properly......... ;)Or am I way off-base?-Josh, the greedy, needy, overly-opinionated hyper-critical guy.Edit: What the....I can't say He**?!?!

Share this post


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

Mr Taylor? I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear himself being addressed so formally! :-hah As regards the point you made at the end, I think that's an American thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a really nice effect. Very good for immersion in the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, after watching the video, I finally understand what they mean about VC shadowing. I thought it was just some shadowing under the gauge bezels and the like...I see now that it is a little more than that.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice effect. But it will delay release of 3rd party aircraft for FSX further. I'm sure many will not have 'visually closed' VCs.Cheers,Noel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a cool effect but I've been playing games for going on a year now that did it in dx9 like Phil says. All in all I am looking forward to the dx10 patch even if its only a shadow of what I expected (no pun intended)It's also a bummer that it will only work with native fsx aircraft since i rarely fly them. Hopefully the aircraft vendors will issue patches but at the rate they are putting out products and patches for fsx I am not holding my breath.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious how difficult it would be to add this to future 3rd party aircraft? I guess it depends on the model being enclosed etc... Hopefully they'll release first and update later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah, had a bit of a chuckle. At least the expansion pack comes with some nice aircraft to use and experience this new effect until 3rd party vendors get to the updates, if they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to note that even though SP2 does not provide all of the features that we all wanted, including all the features that the Aces team wanted too, DX10 (if you have Vista and a DX10 card) does allow more of us to use more of the features that most machines could not use in DX9 mode. Before DX10, I could not use bloom or 2x water, and run the sim well. I am thinking, that with DX10, I should be able to now run them and that to me makes the FS experience richer. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this effect.OK.. I have been debating back and forth if I should go Vista as yet. I think, this adds a lot.The psychological effect of this really adds to the realism. I love it.. Anything like this that does not take FPS away... is good. Period.If we can expect more of such things from DX10 in FX11.... Hello world!:)Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I understand what you're saying, but here's the problem some people (myself included) have with that sentiment:DX10(SP2) has become little more than just that; a second service pack/performance update that adds minimal additional functionality to a product that some people spent copious amounts of money to be able to utilize under Direct X 10. Based on what we've seen, it can be argued that the improvements gained by DX10 rendering are minimal at best, and that at least one of them (cockpit shadows) can be easily instituted in DX9. ACES claims it wasn't included due to performance concerns, and while I believe them, it certainly didn't stop them from including a bloom feature that easily halved many user's FPS, and in ANY case, performance is not such a big issue after SP1 anyway, so there is no excuse not to include it for DX9 functionality now.Now, is it Microsoft's fault that people chose to be early hardware/software adopters in anticipation of a promised product that was not set in stone? No.Do I think that this is part of some corporate scheme to #### us off and take our money?Hardly. FSX is the most impressive piece of simulation software I have ever seen available to the public, and that only becomes more and more true with every subsequent release.Do I think ACES and Microsoft Marketing have been irresponsible, inconsiderate and less-than forthcoming about their development plans, engine capabilities and product functionality?Absolutely. I love FSX. I LOVE FSX. But I hate feeling like I'm being lied to. Either DX10 isn't all it's cracked up to be, or ACES can't figure out how to program for it. Either way, we were lied to. I stand by my accusation that the decision to make cockpit shadows a DX10 only feature after the release of SP1 was a marketing one, not a software develpment one.Just my 2 cents-Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Nice effect. But it will delay release of 3rd party aircraft>for FSX further. I'm sure many will not have 'visually closed'>VCs.>>Cheers,>>Noel.>>Just curious how difficult it would be to add this to future>3rd party aircraft? I guess it depends on the model being>enclosed etc... Hopefully they'll release first and update>later.It's a total rebuild of the VC for us with the 744... we're not going to be doing that, so no delays from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry you feel you are being lied to, but I have not done that to the communuty.In point of fact, adding another feature that wouldnt look good or if it did would be a drag on performance in DX9 would have the community ranting in an entirely different way. And if you read Sebby's site, he says just that. It really was a matter of time with DX10, why is that so hard to believe? And do you need to insult our skills? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to give you 2 cents to replace the two you gave, because it's EXACTLY how I feel about this whole situation. In the 24 years I've been sticking with FS, I really feel that this is the first time that I've even questioned the product whole-heartedly, and haven't been able to shake any doubts I've had. Very well said by you.Gig 'emFTAC 2001, WHOOP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Taylor,We all have a great deal of respect for your efforts with both your product and in communicating with the community, and understand that you must take a high level of personal 'ownership' in the success of FSX.However, please do turn what I said into a personal attack or accusation against you or any other individual on your staff. I never said "Phil Taylor lied to us", I said we were lied to, and I was right.Specifically, I implied that the decision to upgrade to Vista for DX10 functionality was influenced, in great part, by segments such as this one:

in which a member of your parent company made claims that your studio was not able to deliver on. That video was from July 2006, well over a year ago. I think it is completely reasonable to expect that a year is sufficient time for a professional studio employed by the largest software manufacturer on the planet to have an accurate assessment of what will or will not be included in a retail release (SP2/Acceleration). So no, the time excuse doesn't fly. And I am not insulting your skills, or the skills of your team. I am insulting the hubris of your employer to announce features for a product that it's creator (you and your team) had not agreed to. Unless of course you had, in which case please correct me.The fact that bait-and-switch advertising of features and functionality has become a de-facto standard in your industry does not make it acceptable. Respectfully,Josh Morian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know ... its posts like this that make me wonder why Phil Taylor takes time out to respond to a guy with 7 whole posts under his belt and a huge chip on his shoulder.It's one thing to be critical of a particular element of this game if your goal is to pass along feedback to the developers so that the game can be improved in upcoming versions.It's quite another to just insult people by calling them liers, and making unfounded "accusations" ... as you call them ... about the game designers motivations.I don't know Phil Taylor. Never met or spoken or interacted with the man. But, I've read his website, watched him interact with the community primarily on this site, but also others. And I've never come away with the feeling that he was some marketing schmuck trying to separate me from my wallet. He seems like he's generally interested in doing a good job with the product he's tasked with developing. We've all benefitted from that work.I hope the forum moderator just locks this thread down. Finding something you don't like about FSX and having discussion about it is completely appropriate on this forum. Demeaning the ACES team isn't.Kevin D. Greene(Fair Disclosure: I've worked with other members of the ACES team developing missions for FSX: Acceleration.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You know ... its posts like this that make me wonder why Phil>Taylor takes time out to respond to a guy with 7 whole posts>under his belt and a huge chip on his shoulder.>>It's one thing to be critical of a particular element of this>game if your goal is to pass along feedback to the developers>so that the game can be improved in upcoming versions.>>It's quite another to just insult people by calling them>liers, and making unfounded "accusations" ... as you call them>... about the game designers motivations.>>I don't know Phil Taylor. Never met or spoken or interacted>with the man. But, I've read his website, watched him interact>with the community primarily on this site, but also others.>And I've never come away with the feeling that he was some>marketing schmuck trying to separate me from my wallet. He>seems like he's generally interested in doing a good job with>the product he's tasked with developing. We've all benefitted>from that work.>>I hope the forum moderator just locks this thread down.>Finding something you don't like about FSX and having>discussion about it is completely appropriate on this forum.>Demeaning the ACES team isn't.>>Kevin D. Greene>(Fair Disclosure: I've worked with other members of the ACES>team developing missions for FSX: Acceleration.)I think you should look at his 8th post, seems like a more rational (i.e. p.c. for this board) post to me. Simply looks like an observation given our limited knowledge of what really went on between microsoft and aces with regard to pre-marketing this "game," as you put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think where the guy lost me was when he launched into a personal attack, calling ACES liars, saying they're irresponsible, unforthcoming ... impuning their skills as programmers, making unfounded accusations about their motivations.To wit:"Do I think ACES and Microsoft Marketing have been irresponsible, inconsiderate and less-than forthcoming about their development plans, engine capabilities and product functionality?"... But I hate feeling like I'm being lied to."... ACES can't figure out how to program for it. "... I stand by my accusationSo, no, I really didn't read the guy's eighth post. Don't want to read his ninth one either. And I hope his posting priv's are under review.That's inappropriate commentary, and shouldn't be encouraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan,I don't understand.. Are you saying, it would be a complete rebuild to achieve the VC shadow effects for the 747?Hmmm,,,,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DX10 version of FSX will be a disappointment to many. Whatever the merits of DX10/SP2 (and I'll sure there are many) it is clear that it does not live up to the claims made a year ago for a step change in performance and graphics quality. Those who have invested a lot of money in Vista and DX10 graphics cards on the basis of false claims are entitled to feel aggrieved. However, ACES have been attempting to hose down these unrealistic expectations for many months and what has been delivered should not be a surprise to anyone who reads this forum. I'm sure ACES have got the message loud and clear, and we can only hope that MS itself absorbs the lesson. I'm not sure anything more can be achieved, unless those dissatisfied with the outcome have some positive suggestions about what should be done about it... Cheers,Noel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission Guy,Let me be clear: I am in no way, shape or form accusing Mr. Taylor of any wrongdoing or any disshonesty. Nor am I willing to allow this conversation to degrade into personal attacks of any kind.I think if you read my posts more carefully you would see I am not being rude or beligerent, but do feel that after a 1,500 dollar investment I am owed an explanation as to how such a trumpetted technological achievement that is arguably the main selling point for the company's newest, and most expensive operating system could be so, well, unimpressive. I understand the development process is difficult, and I do not think any less of Aces or Phil Taylor. Indeed, I hold their product and their talents in the highest regard. If I had any say in this whatsoever, I would have told them to take all the time they needed to deliver on the capabilities of the API. So my question is this: Whose decision was it to move on from trying to create an impressive Direct X 10 FSX to creating a new iteration of the series completely that by past development cycle estimates won't be released for another two years? It is my intention to make it known to the powers that be that the creation of a product whose new features actually warrant a new release should be more important than adhering to strict development cycles to stay in line with corporate profit projections.Things I would consider as such:-ATC that has accomodations for emergency operations, nationalized accents and/or procedures, and more realistic congestion management.-Better ground/object/building/vehicle collision detection. Float planes do not bounce-More gradual/realistic implementation of wind forces and wind shear.-Better Seasonal Daytime/Nightime lighting, in clear conditions and cloudy conditions, with appropriate shadows or lack thereof.-Better and more gradual visualization of haze layers, including the capacity to see upcoming areas of lower visibility-More detailed/varied volumetric clouds, as well as removal of the billboard turning effect that still occurs.-Better modeling for the different types of precipitation, including their affect on plane performance, runway surface, their movement relative to wind speed and direction, and their ability to reduce visibility through the windscreen.-Plane models that realistically take into consideration plane damage from abuse/misuse/accidents, so that safe operation even under adverse conditions would be much more rewarding.-The ability to render overcast skies in a more realistic way.If that isn't constructive criticism, I don't know what is.-Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: My apologies, I of course meant "Please DO NOT turn"..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Edit: My apologies, I of course meant "Please DO NOT turn"..Well, you're off to quite a start here, aren't you?I'm going to take a shot in the dark and suggest that you didn't read the Terms of Use when you signed up, and ask that you do that now.I think, given the fact that over the course of 2007, you've started a few threads, that you've been around here for a while, and you kind of have an idea of what is allowed and what isn't. This thread is an example of the type of disruptive behavior that makes my job more difficult. You certainly have every right to feel underwhelmed or disappointed with any software you like, and if it relates to Flight Simulator, you can come here and discuss it. But insults directed at anyone, demands for answers on why Microsoft swindled you out of whatever exaggerated amount you put up there, these are the things that differentiate between good and bad threads.You claim that you aren't directing your anger here at anyone on ACES or Phil Taylor specifically, but you keep directing your posts at him, and are accusing the company he is here to represent. When you say that Microsoft is being dishonest, that travels down by proxy.And if you are directing this only at some imaginary smoking man in a dark room at the top of the food chain in Redmond, then this isn't the proper venue for you complaint. If you want to talk about why you aren't impressed with cockpit shadows, then fine. Go ahead. If you want to make demands for explanations that nobody owes you, then this might not be the right place for you. I believe you are here to pick a fight in this thread, and nothing else, and I'm not going to let it continue.And since we're clearing things up, Vista is not the most expensive Microsoft operation system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a Senator, Phil Taylor, Et Al,I honestly and openly apologize if the words I have chosen have come across as inflammatory or derogatory toward any one person who frequents these forums or is considerate enough to represent the company that publishes the software we all use and enjoy. I also apologize if I have violated the terms of use for this forum or website.However, I do believe that it is possible to question the motives and business practices of a corporation without targeting an individual within it, as I have tried to do so here. I have been honest about my complaints, and tried to clearly differentiate my dissatisfaction with the state of affairs from any perceived dissatisfaction of Phil and his team, clearly to no avail. As a purchaser of a product that has been marketed directly to me on false pretenses, I am absolutely entitled to ask for an explanation of those shortcomings. And Mr. Taylor is absolutely entitled to refuse me those answers. Not once did I demand explanation or attack him personally, though you and others seem to think that challenging his contentions is paramount to it.I read these posts because I enjoy flight simulator. I posted here because I had a question I wanted answered, and hoped people were willing to discuss it without the kind of knee-jerk reactions that come when someone suggests that a company may not have the best interest of its customers at heart.If you decide to close this post or remove me because you think I am not trying to engage in meaningful conversation meant to improve flight simulator, you certainly have that right, though you could not be further from the truth. To be honest, I am disappointed in your sensitivity to, and intolerance of a legitimately founded opinion.-Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>So, no, I really didn't read the guy's eighth post. Don't want>to read his ninth one either. And I hope his posting priv's>are under review.>>That's inappropriate commentary, and shouldn't be encouraged.Ohh for gosh sake, let the man say his peace without attacking him because you don't agree with him. We all love the franchise and the product but Josh makes excellent, articulate points and maintains a tone of respect about it. I was one that bought a new pc last december for fsx and the dx10 patch that was supposed to be done by february. The dx10 patch was delayed until november which at the time really chapped my hide but I figured they needed the time to add the new features and I relented. Now to find out they spent an extra year almost on this dx10 patch and didn't really add anything to it other than shadows and a bit of a frame rate increase. Josh makes an excellent point in that why does it take a year extra to finish the dx10 patch only to get a single new feature which has been done in dx9 for over a year now. Phil says they didn't have enough time to add anything more, but the patch was already delayed for almost a year as it is. Just how long does it take to create a single dx10 patch anyway? If it takes this long to add 3 or 4 new features via a single dx10 patch then one does have to wonder what the holdup is? Test drive unlimited does beautiful console shadows in dx9 with high end HDR (not just bloom like fsx) and models the entire island of oahu while doing it. Phil is the man and we all respect and like him, but like it or not he IS the faceman for THE major corporation that invented the technology. If they can't deliver on a few simple godrays and full HDR lighting and shadows in a single patch in over a year's time then something is amiss with this technology or the way that they approached it.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

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