FSX (ESP) graphics engine being rewritten for TS2

[WarpD 824]

>Your incredibly naive and gullible.>>Have you not even tried Crysis and flown the planes and>helicopters?>>This is a video of the spitfire in Crysis. As you can see the>graphics are amazing and embarrass Microsoft developers. >>

>>They know what Microsoft do not: How to write cutting edge>scaleable software. >Their flight model... well, isn't. LMAO And the size of the world is an island... heck, if FSX was just an island, even MS could slam that much detail into the terrain... ANYONE could!!

[Guest]

No, the FSX engine is not capable of anywhere near that much detail, no matter how many cardboard trees they jam in! And if somehow they tried by increasing the autogen density to that level, you wouldn't get a single frame, per minute!! The crytek engine is extremely scaleable, its just a matter of adding the content. And that is exactly what Microsoft should do. Otherwise it will just be more embarrassment in 2 years time when we compare the graphics of FS11 to the next generation engine from Crytek.

[MillKa 0]

dazza answered:>Your incredibly naive and gullible.Thank you so match for your kind words :)>Have you not even tried Crysis and flown the planes and>helicopters?Unfortunately I have never "flown" Crysis or MineSweeper or Excel or whatever. My only flying experience consists of real aircraft in real air plus every GA flight sim since the ancient days of Sublogic. However, some government dude signed my pilot license anyway. >This is a video of the spitfire in Crysis. As you can see the>graphics are amazing and embarrass Microsoft developers. >

Thanks for the video. However the spitfire feels a bit slow or was crytek running at half speed ? I also watched a bunch of those other crytek videos at youtube. However, none of them showed what I was looking for:- a plane at an altitude higher than the sourrounding mountains, so that i can look beyond them- a line of horizon over non-flat landmass further away than 8-9 km- any other proof that crytek goes beyond their own specificationWould you please give me some links to screenshots or videos of that kind, e.g. at altitudes of 1.000/10.000/30.000 ft ?>They know what Microsoft do not: How to write cutting edge>scaleable software. Crytek has an excellent engine for their genre of games. And they know what limitations their engine has. And they are honest about it in their specification. Even if MS buys Crytek, 1 + 1 would still be 2, not 3. Every combination of CPU/GPU has its uppper limit of X million triangles per second. Crytek knows that, and thats why they put that limit in their engine.I am still waiting for your ideas and suggestions for improvement of the MSFS engine. Kind regards, Martin

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"Your incredibly naive and gullible."Those kinds of words and the escalation they will cause, will get your account removed very quickly. Fair warning. Do not escalate this, or you will not be posting at all.

[Guest tmilton]

>This is a video of the spitfire in Crysis. As you can see the>graphics are amazing and embarrass Microsoft developers. >>

>>They know what Microsoft do not: How to write cutting edge>scaleable software. >Don't be too hasty now with your opinion, and don't underestimate Microsoft. Without the legacy code holding them back this time around, and with a new rewritten engine in development that moves away from the older "software rendering" seen in the previous FS versions, I would not be surprised at what MS could accomplish.Sure the video that you linked to has amazing graphics running at smooth FPS, but I think ACES with their new upcoming engine can easily equal or even surpass the graphics and performance seen in this video by the time the next version, FS11, comes out.

[n4gix 4,947]

>Thanks for the video. However the spitfire feels a bit slow or>was crytek running at half speed ? I also watched a bunch of>those other crytek videos at youtube. However, none of them>showed what I was looking for:>>- a plane at an altitude higher than the sourrounding>mountains, so that i can look beyond them>- a line of horizon over non-flat landmass further away than>8-9 kmActually, look closely towards the end where the Harrier is following the train. A close examination of the horizon will show what happens: a narrow band of black, as though there's nothing there at all......which of course, there isn't! :)

[Guest tmilton]

>Actually, look closely towards the end where the Harrier is>following the train. A close examination of the horizon will>show what happens: a narrow band of black, as though there's>nothing there at all...>>...which of course, there isn't!I didn't recognize the last part of that video (with the Harrier jet) as being part of Crysis - and then I realized why. That's an enclosed test environment the author of the video custom built for himself using Crytek's Sandbox editor. The terrain textures and vegetation seemed minimalist and poor. However, the part with the Spitfire flying over the forest covered hilly terrain however is recognizably a part of Crysis, with the usual amazing graphics, which includes the detailed vegetation and high-res ground textures.Now, again addressing those who lack confidence in ACES' skills, and those who prematurely and unjustifiably criticize ACES' coding ability, I believe they will ultimately be proven wrong with a vengeance. With ACES now free to use and take advantage the latest techniques that exploit the potential of multi-core CPUs and the new powerful GPUs, we will see a FS11 that matches or even surpasses what we saw in that Spitfire Crysis video, both in the detailed graphics and performance.With all this available potential, and also with Phil Taylor's vast experience and the fact that he is involved in FS11's development from the start, I believe FS11 could be the biggest leap forward yet in the history of the FS franchise.

[Geofa 108]

I agree completely-fs11 has a huge potential.Then again there are some of us who prefer to compare our present fsx sim to reality rather than to a shoot em up game on a Gilligan's island somewhere... :-lolTo me reality and a compare to it should always be used as the litmus test for a sim.A game-fantasy can do..http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=273281&page=http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[MatthewS 761]

Steve Heijster from ACES has made some interesting comments on TS2 and the FSX(ESP) graphics engine being rewritten for TS2. I guess that also means that FS11 will have a new graphics engine. Its a long thread with many replies, but below I have quoted some of what he said.You can find the full thread herehttp://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php...&st=0&sk=t&sd=a"Performance is definately a huge concern of the team. We actually have a performancecompatibility testing lab that has several machines with different hardware that range from minimum specs, all the way up to beefy quad core machines with the latest video hardware. The graphics engine is in the process of being rewritten for TS2. One of the main reasons that FSX had so many issues is that the graphics engine was originally made for software rendering, which has far different requirements and expectations. The change to hardware and multi-threading did not suit it well. We hope to improve that this time around.""I think the issue is that there is a fine line between performance and offering the best visualaudiosimulation experience possible. Any train simulation software can run at a smooth 60 frames per second, but the amount and quality of the content will suffer. Developers need to make sure they have reasonable art goals that are doable at a good framerate given their code. This is a lot harder in practice than it sounds. It is hard to predict what the efficiencies and inefficiencies of a engine will be before it is fully written.""I wish I could, but that would be foolish of me to promise something until it is certain. We have some really smart guys working on the system. The question is more of whether it will be done in time than whether it will work or not. In the mean time several of us are optimizing and reorganizing code so that it can be done in multiple threads. I also did work to take advantage of some of the new instancing technology, and continue to tune that. It gave nearly a x4 increase in framerate, so we are definately making great improvements.""FSX was never intended to be a software rasterizer, but its engine is based on a bunch of the previous Flight Simulators before it, so it gets to inherit some of the nastiness of them as well as the good."

[Guest tmilton]

>I agree completely-fs11 has a huge potential.>>Then again there are some of us who prefer to compare our>present fsx sim to reality rather than to a shoot em up game>on a Gilligan's island somewhere... :-lolLOL, you're right and I couldn't agree more. :D I definitely believe a sim should be more than just a Gilligan's island type shooter scenario.Imagine realistic and detailed terrain, structures, vegetation, whether you are in the city, the mountains, farmland, deserts, savannas, or forests, and the performance to boot. That's why I think FS11 has the potential to surpass what we now see in Crysis. With all the new tools and recent cutting edge technology at ACES' disposal, I believe with the skills of their programmers, and with Phil at the helm, they can certainly make this happen.