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

>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.

Funny, I get the same feeling using FSX.

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/

:-lol :-lol :-lol

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.

>>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

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

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

Quote by Jeff Shyluk

It may have to do with the monitor, if you look at the second to last paragraph in that article it explains the problem with larger LCD monitors.

Yes-I have a 24" monitor running at 1900x1200.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

ok try returning your monitor and buy a different model. You gotta see Crysis in hi-def Geofa its really awesome!! :(

What the heck are you talking about? 1080i and 1080p are 1920x1080

I'm talking about his monitor not working properly as mentioned above, and the option to return it to get proper graphics in Crysis which obviously he cannot get at the moment! :-rotor