Sign in to follow this  
beatle

New Game Engine?

Recommended Posts

So I am guessing it is safe to say that ACES is creating a new game engine. Phil mentioned in another thread that he is now on a separate team working on the

Share this post


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

I really really doubt aces is ever going to develop anything as detailed as cry engine2, its most likely goign to be a refresh that is even more demanding and cpu dependant than fsx, hopefully I can be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the two words are a little different. But in the Platform there is an Engine: a computer program that performs a core or coordinating function for other programs, or has a special purpose function.I think the team Phil is working with is (in a way) creating a new Engine for FS11 (changing the way graphics are done, etcetera). Will this Engine be anything special

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing Phil has made clear is that whatever the new engine/platform shapes up to be, it not going to be all that backward compatible compared to what we've been used to.This could make things interesting for us add-on devs :-)Cheers,Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The one thing Phil has made clear is that whatever the new>engine/platform shapes up to be, it not going to be all that>backward compatible compared to what we've been used to.>>This could make things interesting for us add-on devs :-)>>Cheers,>Bryan>Oh... we'll hear endless complaints. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think the strength of MS is in developing the platform for FS, which is different from the graphics engine. They need to think through each subsystem that needs to be modeled and separate them out to programmers who are specialists in that subsystem. They have already done this to a certain extent with SimObjects, ATC, Weather, Flight Dynamics, Terrain, Scenery, Sounds, etc. This is what I would call the platform. Each plank in the platform (to use political terminology) needs to be able to be developed separately without causing failure of other planks. MS then develops FS11 to put it all together into an integrated whole.MS's strength is not in the graphics engine and never will be. The people at Crytek have spent at least two years solely focused on creating CryEngine2. They have used top notch graphics programmers who have produced a product that is best of class for now. I just completed Crysis SP on Delta difficulty and there is no point in comparing the terrain graphics with FSX. MS would really do much better to concentrate on the platform itself and license the graphics engine from someone specialized in that field--Crytek being the leading choice right now.The fact is that there are enough significant problems with the current graphics engine (flat runways and unstable pole terrain to name a couple biggies) to warrant a new graphics engine. This will cause problems with scenery addons, requiring a completely new addon and not simply a patch. People expect great graphics, however, and will be willing to shift to the new version if it is graphically excellent. If FS11 ends up simply being a tweaked FSX, I suspect it will be adopted even more slowly than the FS9 to FSX transition (which many have still refused to make).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say-Crysis included with my video card I got tonight (8800 gt).Might just be me cause I am not into shoot them up games-but I am not blown away at all. I have to run at much lower res than my new system is capable of-and it just doesn't give me the looks or the performance fsx is giving me.What am I missing?http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What am I missing?Umm, eyes? :-lolSeriously though I was in the Crysis beta and even then in looked better than FSX, and you had to run at pretty low settings and low res to have it playable. Crysis is like FSX in that high end machines aren't able to max out settings yet for the most part. It's the first game to really challenge the 8800 series. You'll have to lower settings. But on my machine with a e6600 and 8800GTS 640 it looked great, defintely better than FSX as far as graphics go. As a side note, what do you care? I thought you didn't think FSX and Crysis are comparable graphics-wise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"MS's strength is not in the graphics engine and never will be." Which is why Phil has moved to seperate team solely working with graphics. Ok, anything we say now is just speculation but I think ACES will create a separate engine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was not meant to compare Cryengine2 with flight simulator. I already know they do totally separate tasks. The thread is to try and understand how ACES is going to go about thier game structure and work distribution. Is more labor going to be done on the base platform/engine and to what extreme? Perhaps to the extent of Cryengine2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Seriously though I was in the Crysis beta and even then in looked better than FSX ..."Awesome. Can you post a screenshot of KBOS so I can compare it to what KBOS looks like in FSX?Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear, every time someone mentions Crysis or that Windshear or Windlight or whatever it's called, I just want to throw a brick through a window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So pounce on me for comparing the graphics. If you want to be fair, ask Geofa why he's also comparing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The faa seems to think my eyes are fine...>>What do I care? I am truly trying to understand some of these>mantras that appear from time to time .>>Now that I own the game, and see what it has to offer-I am>even more baffled.>>>http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpg>>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/You're baffled because you don't play that type of game, as you've already stated. Does that mean it's a bad game? Not in the least, it's just not your cup of tea. But this is all quite silly anyway because you've made your point many times over that the games can't be compared. You're breaking your own rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-I am baffled because it doesn't run at all on my 4 year old computer and to get it to run at all on my brand new computer I just got I have to run it in a low resolution with antiliasing and aa turned off which doesn't look very good. I never had to do that with fsx-and I could get good performance on my 4 year old by turning sliders down.So I am baffled why anyone would want a "engine" like this for fs and consider it as a possible future. By the way-I don't think I have made the point the games can't be compared-others have. I have made the point I am baffled at what the draw to this engine is however-and I am still. I was baffled on my old computer that couldn't even run the demo-and my brand new computer still. I can run fsx on each-and it looks good on each-and runs rather spectacularly on my new one.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Badger,I wasn't really pouncing ... just making the point that in FSX, the graphics engine actually depicts something I need depicted - my home airport.That's a requirement for a graphics engine simulating flight for me. If it can't do that, it isn't very good, in my opinion.Do I wish the entire world could be modelled by the Crysis engine? Sure! Could it? Well ... nobody's tried, so I don't really know, but from what I have read, it seems the programmers over there aren't designing it to even attempt that.Given a small enough canvas, just about any programming team can create a photorealistic moving image viewable on just about any computer.That skill is no longer impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The one thing Phil has made clear is that whatever the new>>engine/platform shapes up to be, it not going to be all that>>backward compatible compared to what we've been used to.>>>>This could make things interesting for us add-on devs :-)>>>>Cheers,>>Bryan>>>>Oh... we'll hear endless complaints. ;)We probably will :) And it will be louder from users than it will be from dev's, 'cause the devs will already know what's coming. The avg user may not, and might be right ticked when their $55 Level-D doesn't work anymore. :)That's why, if you do design work, save your source. That means save your gmax files, etc.The good news is, I'm thinking at least some of the graphical techniques that have been brought along with SP2, are going to be the same in FS11. After all, that is partially the point of the changes that were made (to transparency, for example...).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

What do you mean you cannot run Crysis on your new computer still. You said you have have an 8800 gt and have to run with "antiliasing and aa turned off" on "much lower res".Since there are wide reports everywhere on the internet about high fps with this card, I would suggest you have a major config issue.Below is a benchmark test from pclabs. With 8800gt on "lower res" and high settings with AA, the result is: 51 fps. I would call that pretty smooth!http://www.pclabs.gen.tr/2007/10/29/crysis...rk-with-8800gt/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/181291.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if MS has set their budget and made all their hirings for the next FS, at this point. Speculating on new engines and platforms is fine and all that, but they don't get made without people at the helm, and the people don't work for free. If we knew what the budget, the departments involved, and the production schedule were, then we could make some guesses as to what will be in the pipeline for FS11. Anything else is predicting the weather in Hong Kong based on the butterfly population in New York.Still, if we must persist, and don't get me wrong, we must! I think this kind of discussion is healthy, even if it is largely groundless at this point, until we look at how Train Simulator 2 turns out. I would guess that in these ways, FS11 would compare to TS2:1) FS11 budget would be equal to or greater than TS2.2) FS11 production teams would be equal to TS2; many of the same people would work on both projects. MS seems more willing than in the past to sub-contract out portions of work, but the feasability of sub-contracting is directly related to budget. Usually sub-contractors cost more than doing stuff in-house, but on the other hand doing things in-house often takes longer, which bring us to 3:3) FS11 production timeline would be equal to TS2. This would depend on a lot of uncontrolled or semi-controlled factors, not the least of which would be Marketing, who may decide to make FS11 a "flagship" product to introduce a new technology, the way FSX was linked to the release of Vista and DX10, or other Engineering departments who are working on new gizmos for DX10/Vista/FS11. Typically, the FS development cycle seems to follow the pattern of "One Big FS Release" that pushes the software and hardware forward, followed by a "Refinement FS Release", where the developers learn from the previous release and make a host of modifications. FS2002 was a Big Release, while FS2004 was more of a Refinement Release. Either way, I would expect that MS would learn from both FSX and TS2 in order to get things in shape for FS11.Many people consider the programming finesse of an engine or a platform to be the force that guides a game or a sim project, say the development of the Crytek Engine, or my personal favourite, the Jeff Shyluk RealGen!!! engine. I would consider those things to be important, but not as important as the Marketing depertments make them out to be. The three most important factors in designing a game or a sim are now what they always have been: money, time, and human energy (add marketing as a fourth factor if you are looking for a commercially succesful sim that pays profits). If you remove any one of those factors, or fail to account for them, then your speculation is just shot-in-the-dark guesswork. If, in all practicality, we could remove any of those factors, then we'd all be writing up our own Flight Sims and Crytek Engines. Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

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