What FSX-DX10 should have looked like

[JimmiG 244]

Here's what a graphics engine from 2007 is capable of:http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/894/894201/imgs_1.html

[Guest runwaypimp]

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 ;)

[aerdt 0]

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

[MatthewS 761]

Very nice! Florence sure looks good.

[W2DR 1,859]

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

[JSkorna 137]

Wow, another XBox comparison. I'll be sure to let the ACES guys know at dinner tonight what they are missing out on. You think this horse has been beaten enough?Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[Tabs 2,790]

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...

[Guest]

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 It shows how out of date the FS engine really is.

[Guest PPSFA]

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

[Guest Hocking]

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.

[Guest]

hey stop advertising.

[Guest runwaypimp]

Very well said & very very true.

[michal 44]

>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

[Guest Pilot533]

"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 ;)

[Guest PPSFA]

"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