What FSX-DX10 should have looked like

[Mike T 208]

Gert:I think that the door swings both ways. FSX is also not able to do with a FPS can do. The comparison of both of them is simply apples to oranges either way.FSX can't replicate damage to a tree causing it to fall. FSX doesn't allow the player to pick up a box and move it to another location. FSX doesn't allow the player to utilize a pipe, laying on the ground, as a weapon. FSX doesn't allow for the bombing of targets. FSX doesn't allow need to calculate "ragged doll psysics" to display how an object will collapse when it is shot. And the list can go on and on.FSX is not a FPS and FPS's are not FSX. Comparing features of the two are just a waste of time because the focus of each are totally different and each uses its CPU and VPU power to accomplish its set task. As it were, FSX is a DX9 game plain and simple. While it was originally hoped by the Aces team to make it the DX10 Vista flagship title prior to RTM, the reality of the situation is far different. If it were that easy to morph a DX9 title into the "magic screenies" then games that already exist in DX9 formats would not need a total rewrite that took thousands of man hours and year(s) of development (ie, Crysis, etc.) So at the end of the day, the DX10 version of FSX is restricted to upgraded shading and texture mapping and not much else. Anyone who did not see this coming simply didn't understand the reality of the situation. This was never an ACES situation, it was a Vista / DX10 fiasco situation that the ACES team had to work with, and knowing this, I think they did the ABSOLUTE best they could with what they had to work with.Furthermore in the game referenced by the original poster, Ace Combat 6, a lot of things need to be rendered so don't take anything away from that. For instance I would assume that the AC6 will lack hyper realistic cockpit functionality where FSX brings that to the table. In the same instance, AC6 needs to track multiple missle trajectories, damage assessment, crash modeling and the various battle effects on the aircraft where FSX doesn't. FSX models complex and current weather phenomena and AC6 doesn't. But then again AC6 models a massively multiplayer environment with aircraft, battleships and tanks fighting in a realtime battle simulation and all that entails...FSX doesn't.Let's take it a step further. This whole notion that other games don't render a whole world therefore that is why MSFS looks the way it does is simply nonsequitor. The other games don't render an entire world because no one would find each other and the game would be useless. Even if you had 10,000,000 simulaneous users online with the whole world rendered it would take you 14 hours to fly from your base in India to bomb a base in the US and you could not drive your tank from your base in Iowa to the battlefield in Iceland, and moving your carrier group from Norfolk, VA to the hotspot in the Gulf of Oman would take 2 months! And then you would have to find people after you got there over millions of square miles I've payed Battlefield 2 where there were only a few people online and I couldn't find any of them in a map that was only a few square miles in size!There simply is no reason for other titles to render what is rendered in the MSFS world. If there WAS a need to render an entire world, TRUST ME, it would be rendered by other titles. MSFS simply is the only title that NEEDS to model the entire earth. Unfortunately, since FSX has no competition, there is nothing against which to compare.Personally, FSX can be absolutely stunning in certain flight regimes. In the same token, as a heavy iron pusher, at FL350, FSX looks like FS9 but with less performace and more features disabled. So the math doesn't add up for me to make a change. However, the day I decide to move to lower and slower, FSX is the way to go, hands down. So at the end of the day, the argument for or against is moot at this point. If one thinks that Crysis or AC6, etc looks better (and in many cases they do) there is nothing that can be done about it now...nothing more will follow for FSX from Aces. If you think FSX looks great for what it does, that too is the absolute truth and the ACES team has taken it as far as its going to go and have moved on to FS11. Regards,Mike T.

[JSkorna 137]

Excellent post!!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[DadJokeCinema 145]

This is going to be an awfully interesting forum to be in if FS11 comes out, visibility-limited, fewer dynamic weather effects, less support for third party add-ons, hard-limits on AI aircraft, reduced ATC interaction, but running at a clipper pace 60fps on three-year old computers.

[Mike T 208]

Brian:Why would you make that assumption? For instance, in Battlefield 2142, there is an addon (3rd party) that transforms the ENTIRE game world into a Star Wars world. Instead of fighting with conventional weapons all weapons are light sabers and laser blasters. The characters have all been skinned to be storm troopers and rebel soldiers. Helicopers and tanks have been changed to be X-wing fighers and land speeders. This is only one of scores of addons for that title alone.Almost every single popular PC based FPS has litterally thousands of add-ons that can be downloaded (for free mind you) that add new characters, new worlds, new weapons, new targets and even expand the area much larger than the original engine. Even Return to Castle Wolfenstein which is more than 5 years old has an enormous amount of of free add-ons. This is not to even mention "ancient" titles like Falcon 4.0 which, while showing its age, has morphed with so many addons and feature packs that it still has a large following.Then, there is the branch games that are based on the original engines. Quake III, Half Life II, etc all have entire spin-off titles that utilize the base underlying engine. This should ring a bell since there was just a "moon simulator" offering for MSFS that does the same thing that the other titles have been doing for much longer.In reality, the other games have far, far more quality addons available for free or at a very nominal fee (eg $5) than MSFS. Again, as I said in my other post, these are different genres of titles, however, make no mistake that other game communities have as many add-ons as we do.Regards,Mike T.

[michal 44]

>There simply is no reason for other titles to render what is>rendered in the MSFS world. If there WAS a need to render an entire world, TRUST ME, it would be rendered by other titlesYes, it would, everything above is true. BUT very likely it would me a complete rethink of the scenery engine, less detail per square mile, other trade offs, etc. So the fact they don't need to render the whole world works to their advantage and this is the crux of the matter. Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[JSkorna 137]

Some of us are suffering from jet-lag, hence we are not responsible for anything we write.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[DadJokeCinema 145]

Yeah, I know.I make source engine maps in my spare time. I've got a great Portal one I'm making right now.I'm sorry that you wrote that whole big thing, if we were having a conversation I would have cut you off earlier to save you time.While most of that post was sarcasm, the limited third party support meant that there are a number of ways to make it a lot harder for add-on builders to make good content.FPS games, the mods for those replace some models and textures and use the game source to code in some new guns and vehicles. While they do some awesome things with their mods (like a great RTS/Alien Invasion FPS mod on Half-Life 1), they are doing less with more access. Programming the FMS for a Boeing is way more complex than replacing a P-47 model with an X-Wing model, and they are doing it still with limited and controlled access to the game through the API.If all the calls are answered, and ACES spends the next couple of years rewriting the graphics engine into a smooth as silk on any hardware flight sim, how much time do you think will be spent on expanding or even keeping in all of those features?

[Guest Lennyt]

I'd like to see a Xbox, or a game like Crysis-- pull off what FSX does. Only people who believe in fairies believe that's possible..After going on at length about"apples and oranges" comparisons you then do exactly that. A curious bit of argument indeed.

[Donstim 109]

I suspect the "currency" problem has nothing to do with autopilot use policies and more to the relative lack of takeoffs/landings when flying a long haul airplane.At least in FS, we don't have to "punch the autopilot/fmc at 200 ft.," but then again who wants to handfly a 6 hour cruise?Don S.

[GHarrall 494]

I would be happy with the EXACT same feature set of FSX that runs 'smooth as silk'!!Is still don't get the 'FSX renders the whole world' point.....at what point does FSX render the whole world? It certainly isn't doing it at 5,000 feet or even 45,000 feet for that matter. Lets' go into space. Now I can see the whole world. I'm so far up the only visible details are the outlines of coastlines. The detail level required at this altitude is minimal, therefore the processing power at this height should be minimal also.The action is at 40,000 feet and below is it not? FSX certainly does not render the entire earth on one screen at this height.Just out of interest, what point has the round earth model helped? There are still weird things going on at the poles just like there were in the FS9 'flat earth' model.Glenn

[Geofa 108]

I could be wrong-but I think there have to be a certain number of hand flown approaches required-and since company regs require autopilot usage to 200ft. or so, in addition to takeoffs and landings,simulator time is the only way to keep currency.In his case though-outside of the currency-is the wish to fly-not drive an autopilot-and hence his request for a demotion to an aircraft that company rules don't require such usage.I have a very nice autopilot in my plane-but I really don't use it for the same reason. Once I punch it on-I am not flying anymore-but monitoring someone else (George)-kinda like sitting in the right seat. It kinda defeats the whole reason I fly. I do like getting places fast-but really the commercials do that more reliably and most often cheaper-the reason I fly is to fly! I would almost feel guilty filling out my logbook if in fact the autopilot did the flying and not me. Then there is the factor that it actually doesn't do some phases of flying as well as I do (turbulence it tends to dutch roll making my back seat passengers sick-and tracking a nav I can do more precisely, I can fly a better glideslope).I have taken lots of trips longer than 6 hours-and yes I do the majority of them by hand. Every once in a while-if I have to look at charts, or am fatigued-yes I'll turn the autopilot on-but for me that is how I prefer to use it-as a backup.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[StormChaser 3]

>>I'd like to see a Xbox, or a game like Crysis-- pull off>what FSX does. Only people who believe in fairies believe>that's possible..>>After going on at length about"apples and oranges" comparisons>you then do exactly that. A curious bit of argument indeed.>I guess you understand the meaning of that line a bit wrong and pull it out of context. I wrote that exactly for the sake of the argument that it is silly to compare. It's not possible, by design, for either of the 2 to include for example a FSX PMDG 747-- and even if it was possible, they would not be able to do it while maintaining their visual excellence and framerate-- regardless how excellent the 2 are, or seem to be, in their own respect.Regards,Gert

[timest 472]

>tower: PMDG 747 cleared for take-off runway 27, wind 7 knots>89, follow runway heading, 5000>PMDG: roger, cleared for take-off>>0:43 min later (very optimistic)>>PMDG captain: holy sjit! what was that?>PMDG co-pilot: I think we hit something..>PMDG captain: Houston, we have a problem!>PMDG captain: I think we hit a invisable wall...>Houston tower: you hit WHAT???OMG Gert!! Now THAT was hilarious!! ;)

[Guest abulaafia]

>Personally, FSX can be absolutely stunning in certain flight regimes. >In the same token, as a heavy iron pusher, at FL350, FSX looks like >FS9 but with less performace and more features disabled. So the math >doesn't add up for me to make a change. However, the day I decide to >move to lower and slower, FSX is the way to go, hands down.I beg to differ. I am hugely enjoying the much improved textures, lightning, clouds etc. in FSX and would never contemplate going back to FS9. And I only fly heavy iron at FL350.

[Guest EternalNY1]

Ok, here's a topic I'm qualified to comment on.As both a career Windows developer with plenty of relevant experience (C++/C#, DirectX, etc), an XBox 360 owner who has finished Ace Combat 6, and an FAA licensed commercial pilot ....Yes, the graphics are fantastic in Ace Combat 6. Some of the best I've ever seen in a game.But there is absolutely no comparison between Ace Combat 6 and Microsoft Flight Simulator. Ace Combat is an arcade game. A game. Just think of what Flight Simulator is capable of compared to this game:- Entire planet is modeled "on the fly" from accurate source data in real time- Aircraft feature realistic cockpits (both 2D and 3D) with fully accurate gauges- The entire thing is customizable... gauges, aircraft animates, AI routes, weather, auto-gen... it goes on and on- Realistic round earth model, no artificial "boundaries"... (the fact that you can go into orbit and look down on the planet says enough)There is no need to go on with this topic anymore. This is about as "apples and oranges" as you are going to get.