Sign in to follow this  
Mike T

What FSX-DX10 should have looked like

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Prepair to be told some excuse about how FS renders the whole world with its 10year old engine & can't possibly look like this stunning beauty ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice shots indeed.However, it cannot be compared with the FSX engine, because the other sim/game has only limited coverage and a very finite number of airports, which allows for photo-realistic scenery and super-high quality textures, whereas FSX needs to render the entire world. Also, I doubt that this other sim has any seasonal changes in the textures, which is, well, almost impossible with photo-real satellite imagery. But... I have to say that the screenshots look really awesome.When the time comes when we start thinking of terabytes, instead of gigabytes, then we might see a similar quality MS Flightsim. It's not so much of a question of the engine, because FSX can do the same (well, almost the same) right now with photoreal scenery, but it's more a storage issue (as a comparison X-Plane ships on 7 DVDs and that doesn't even include any seasonal textures).Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS renders the whole world with its 10year old engine & can't possibly look like this stunning beauty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just beat that game last night actually... it is incredibly stunning graphically, but I do think the mission areas are quite small and that to do FS with that sort of detail would take TB upon TB of data... The first step though would definitely be getting FS to actually allow for that level of detail at a decent framrate and then the addon community could take it and run with it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And consider this is all possible on the Xbox 360 which has only 512MB memory as opposed to the 2GB+? the FSX uses. Also XBox 360 has only a DX9 type API and graphics card. It shows how out of date the FS engine really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm thats what my FSX looks like now after the guys at www.fs-gs.com tweaked my system :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we don't have graphics like this in FSX is due to lack of competition in this genre. Why would a company spend thousands upon thousands of hours developing a new graphics engine, and everything else that would go along with that graphics engine, just to compete against themselves and the older version of their game. They won't do it because they don't have to. All they have to do is come out with a new FS that has been moderately updated from the last, slap on a new roman number (or year), and market it as usual. It is as simple as that.Until a company takes on the risk of seriously competing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, we will be stuck with old graphics, old graphics engines, and a thousand excuses as to why Microsoft Flight Simulator can't do things that other game developers are doing all around us.By the way, in MSFS defense, I am not saying that MSFS is a terrible program at all. I love MSFS. I just know it could be much better if it had to compete against another flight sim developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I just know it could>be much better if it had to compete against another flight sim>developer.I think you are dreaming. Some of us 'old enough' do remember times when there was plenty of competition - ProPilot, Flight Unlimited, Fly!2k, etc. and all of them were struggling to satisfy their customers, there were definitely no shoe-ins. People were debating merits, advantages and drawbacks of all of them. If it was really possible to deliver a better simulation and make $$ on it - we would have seen number of competitors by now, since there are none left that by itself speaks volumes.If you think that with a competition MSFS could have been any better - you are dreaming but dreams are healthy. *:-*Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"FS renders the whole world with its 10year old engine & can't possibly look like this stunning beauty."And we are getting dreadfull fps even with the most powerful system money can buy. Meanwhile you can buy a 360 for $400 bucks, less than my watercooling costed, never have to worry about fps or the blurries, and get stunning visuals. If it werent for my level d 767 and a few other great addons I would have given up on this a long time ago... Aces should really thank all the 3rd party vendors out there, thats what keeping me here, not their outdated fs engine that needs hardware (or a cpu, since the gpu doesnt even get warm when I run fsx) 5 years ahead of its time to run.Rant over ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And we are getting dreadfull fps even with the most powerfulsystem money can buy." Please don't presume to speak for all of us. I have a system that runs FSX not only just fine, but perfectly flawless. I use FEX, UT, Scenery Tech, FS Genesis, and AS, and many addon planes, and get consistant FPS of 30, which is what I have it locked at. I have no stutters, blurries, low frame rates, or any of the host of other problems some are complaining of.I also am using none of the 'tweaks' that have been discussed in this and other forums, using stock FSX install with SP1. No I won't be installing SP2, because I have no need to. I have referred to the reason why in another post so I won't here again, but here is my system specs:XP Pro2 Megs RAM8800GTX video cardAMD FX-60 Dual core 2.6Ghz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PPSFA What are your frame rates on an ILS 22 KLGA,in the rain with PMDG 747?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell you because I have heard that plane is a frame rate killer so I dont have it installed. What I can tell you is that I just made that exact flight the other day in multiplayer from KPBI in a 737 and although I don't normally check FPS anymore, I did on that flight to compare to what the guy I was flying with was seeing.My FPS stayed pretty much pegged at 30 for the entire trip ( FL 310 with lots of real time weather), until I turned inbound for 22. At that time it dropped to between 22-25, but still smooth as silk until touchdown. This was in external view zoomed all the way out. In cockpit view it stayed at 30.Edit: OOPS, my bad. It wasn't KLGA it was KJFK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim-Point well taken though I wouldn't know.However I know a couple Rw 747 pilots-one who is trying to take a demotion to a lesser aircraft-that considers punching an autopilot/fmc at 200 ft. per company rules and not hand flying not flying-he has to go do simulator work every month just to stay current-he says he wants to "fly" again and wants a demotion to a lesser aircraft.I mention that not to diminish the fine PMDG aircraft add on-but to point out that that is not necessarily the litmus test for a fine flight Sim-at least for some?!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I installed and was playing LOMAC last night with all the graphics turned up, and whilst it looked quite good FSX actually looks far better (well on my system, anyway) and runs quite well considering LOMAC was actually struggling in certain areas.Oh, and everyone goes on about how good LOMAC's graphics are. Yes it's now about 4 years old but I can assure you it looks adequately dated. FSX really does do a very good job considering the amount of visible world it has to render, and when I fly the new F-18 in Acceleration I'm amazed at the fidelity that is in that aircraft.How about all you wingers get out that copy of FS98 or Flight Unlimited III, and see how far flight simulation has really come, in such a short time.Yeah FSX isn't perfect but those DX10 shots of Combat Aces were really not that much better than FSX with everything turned way up, and don't forget Combat Aces runs on dedicated hardware, the developers didn't have to worry about creating the application for the thousands of different configurations that exist. Oh, and if FSX weren't designed to be backward compatible you'd be winging about how your old aircraft don't work in it.Get a freaking life and stop complaining, enjoy FSX for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The reason we don't have graphics like this in FSX is due to>lack of competition in this genre. Why would a company spend>thousands upon thousands of hours developing a new graphics>engine, and everything else that would go along with that>graphics engine, just to compete against themselves and the>older version of their game. Totally agree, some of the biggest strides taken by the MSFS franchise was during the Pro Pilot and Fly/FlyII era. Unfortunately, until some significant other publishing house ponies up for a rival title, not much else is going to change.It would be great if a military sim developer could make their platform somewhat more open, both for the flight/visual model and scenery/weather/visuals/AI engine areas, then leave it to the third party devs and modders to give us simmers what we are after.Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaCheck out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the "Vectors" You-Tube movies of this title?With my humble setup, I can fly FSX, land the carrier, record all my maneuvers, replay that video ... make cuts with FSRecorder, minimize FSX, open Windows Moviemaker, import all the cuts, and make some awesome videos of my flights in any part of the world with accurate realism.I can then open my browser, check the news to make sure nothing important is happening while I'm playing a game, upload my video to something outside the XBox sandbox, open another tab in my browser, post the link to the video on AVSIM, and enjoy the accolades!How come you can't do that with an X-Box? How come I can't add RAM to my XBox, or a larger hard drive without voiding my warranty?Neat cloud shadows, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful mountain topography in those pics; but I'd have to imagine that a worldwide data-base using that resolution (if available)would be enormous! We're somewhat already there, with a few photo-real areas combined with topography mesh. Would require a depiction of all seasons, though.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>However I know a couple Rw 747 pilots-one who is trying to>take a demotion to a lesser aircraft-that considers punching>an autopilot/fmc at 200 ft. per company rules and not hand>flying not flying-he has to go do simulator work every month>just to stay current-he says he wants to "fly" again and wants>a demotion to a lesser aircraft.>>I mention that not to diminish the fine PMDG aircraft add>on-but to point out that that is not necessarily the litmus>test for a fine flight Sim-at least for some?!>Being in the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association), I've gotten to know many commercial airline pilots who have taken the extra steps, and regularly fly high performance aerobatic type aircraft on the weekends. I suppose this keeps their hand flying skills in check! :-hah In fact, the guy I share a hangar with, is a commercial airline pilot, who has built numerous experimental airplanes, published several aviation books & manuals, and currently owns a Pitt's M-12, which has a large Russian radial on the front, and puts out close to 400 HP.You see, flying those big busses around the sky is just a day job. But then there are those who really like to fly.............after work!:D L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say-I looked at these last night-but wanted to give another look today for a fresh opinion.If this is the new graphics engine I am somewhat underwhelmed.First-everything has a greyish depressing look. While under and in an overcast this may be appropriate-when you break out on top it is a totally different look. Secondly-the clouds look not at all as good as what I get with fsx-especially with fex-far superior. The distant ones have an especially cartoony quality in my opinion. I notice most of these shots are at dawn and dusk-wonder why? I don't find the sky environment great-certainly not am improvement.The city shots-while nicely populated with buildings-the low down shots show a blurry ground texture that reminds me of fs4. The autogen trees in the low down shots look rather primitive-and the buildings the same.I see the same limitation of fsx that above 1000 ft. the autogen is spotty and doesn't blend well with the ground textures.The shots of Italy-the ground textures don't look much different from what we have now-and the autogen buildings in the same way don't really blend in very well.Then of course-I presume one can not improve this with products like megascenery, tileproxy-improved aircraft. I can get much better looks than this with megascenery and fex clouds right now.Performance? Notice most of the shots have the visiblity (especially cities) way down. Are most users aware that fsx defaults visibility to unlimited and that turning it down to what is more commonly found in the world-especially around cities also gives better performance?Of course-still screen shots don't really convey any compare-on fsx or this-one would really have to see them running both side to side.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

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