If you took on Fly! what would you do, change or add?

[Guest]

I guess the 'cartoonish' could be eliminated when everything can be in much higher resolutions giving more pixels per object to shade, color etc. who knows maybe it's possible even now.I agree with you, it depends where, how much detail was put into it etc.My favourite was FU2. The satellite imagery in that one made San Fran look more like a city (greys and dull blues...not bright) and the mountains were the most ralistic I have ever seen. I don't have FU3 so I don't know if that one's better or not. Maybe I should get hold of FU2 or 3 if it's still possible to find it and try it out on my new system. Take care LarryMike

[Guest]

I guess that could work also. Have only the vicinity of airports look as realistic as possible and as shapr as possible since you will be low coming in to land. Take careMike

[michal 44]

Larry,I understand perfectly well limitations of the idea. It would certainly be not a viable solution for VFR flying.On the subject of 'dangerous' terrain - elevation could still be there intact so careless pilots could fly into terrain. Texture would be missing but texture is the real hard part.Michael J.

[Guest]

Larry MichaelI know what Mike is on about here. For me FU3 gave the most realistic landing experience especially in the Beech jet which was and is the closest ive tried to landing a real biz jet in a sim.Something still isnt right in the "other" sim. Whether its to do with poor slow flight capability or low level scenery depiction, landing is one of the weakest links.You got the impression that if you didnt carry power the Beech was going to sink on approach, the runway to flatten visually and that you would be taking out the houses under the approach path.You had a stronger sensation of "energy and momentum".FU3 dealt with low level better so that you fealt that you were coming down over the houses, streets , cars.Maybe it not a tangible ingredient which caaptures that mood maybe its more an artistic blend of all the ingredients which give an impressionist result.I know what Mike means. I too dont need a world scenery. FU3 limited their area and conentrated on close up detail.Having said that Bremen scenery in FS2002 is amazing when your "on" the ground but there is an ingredient missing somewhere.Peter

[LAdamson 240]

>Something still isnt right in the "other" sim. Whether its >to do with poor slow flight capability or low level scenery >depiction, landing is one of the weakest links. >You got the impression that if you didnt carry power the >Beech was going to sink on approach, the runway to flatten >visually and that you would be taking out the houses under >the approach path. >You had a stronger sensation of "energy and momentum". I'm disagreeing again Peter :). Perhaps it's my use of the virtual cockpits, my 3rd party scenery/mountain airports, or whatever. But some of the best "feel" of landings yet, have come from the "other sim". Especially that "sinking feeling"! I just didn't happen to run across your particualar business jet landing scenario in FUIII, & looks like you havn't run across mine. :)L.Adamson

[Guest]

Ah Yes, the last thing. Virtual Cockpits have a lot of potential. If they can make them look more alive and detailed, make the instruments clickable, make the gauges update more times per second and make the gauges more sensitive (if that's the right word to use) then we would not need 2D cockpits any more. I realize taht this would eat up FPS but I am sure there can be a way. I love flying using a virtual cockpit for the main reason that with the 2D cockpits I cannot see over the cockpit in 2D mode and becasue it gives you a better feel for flight. IMO!If only we could take the best things out of every sim (FS, FLY, X-Plane, FU and Pro-Pilot) and put them into one sim it would be an amazing sim. In FLY!2 I love flying with the regular cockpits because they are a lot mroe detailed and you can scroll across instead of sqashing in all the gauges in one view! They also keep you a lot more busy with all the complicated systems and gadgets taht they have.In X-Plane I can make the most accurate "minimums landing" for the main reason that the gauges are extremely sensitive and the slightest movement can be noticed on the instruments insted of the needle jumping from one positin to another like in other sims.OK, that's it from me...I am blabbering on and on and I am putting you guys to sleep :-doh Take careMike

[michal 44]

>real world) and not so bright happy colors. The airports >need to blend in with the surroundings a lot better and the >runways/taxiways/aprons need to blend in with the >surrounding groundMike,I wonder what you think about FS2002's photo-realistc airports - like Anchorage, Seattle, Vegas, etc .. In my opinion, they did a very good job of blending the surroundings with airports and airports grounds do look extremely photo-realistic. If another 100+ airports could be done in the same style I would be 95% satisfied with the scenery. Photo-realistc 'everywhere' type of scenery is still probably decades away so I tend to limit my expectations to what is reasonable.Michael J.

[LAdamson 240]

Anchorage International is off the left wing of this shot, while we're facing another airport, but the effect is good.

[Guest]

Those ones, yes, they look excellent. I didn't even know that Las Vegas was in high-res...i'll have to check it out. What I don't like to see is the taxiways put over those fine looking images so that the taxiway on teh image stick out of the sides under the FS taxiways. That takes alot of realism away (IMO). If the runways and taxiways could blend in better with those images then it would be a lot better. I think that FU2 did that very well. Another thing that I remembereed now that makes the airports look cartoonish...please don't take this as coplaining or ranting, i'm just writing my idedas to improve any sim!... anyway, the cartoonish look comes from the lines on the runways and taxiways. The lines are always perfectly straight, one shade of color and extremely clean. We all know that's not the case in the real world. The lines should have some dirt/cracks and wear-off/weathering from all the years of taking on planes. If you look at the runways in X-Plane they are the most realistic I have ever seen (IMO) in a sim. With a little tweaking from me I got them to look even more weathered and dirty especialy on the sides. If you have not seen the ruwnays in X-Plane then I can put a screenshot if you want me to or you can get the demo at x-plane.com so you can see what I mean. I think that the reason the lines look much better in X-Plane is becasue the lines are painted on the runway texture and not put on separately as a layer over the runway. There must be at least 10 textures for each runway made in x-Plane. The more dirt/cracks you have on the runway it gives you a nice sense of spped on take-off/landing because you see all the different features fly past your windshield even if you don't specifialy look at them you still realize the speed. FLY!2 does this great as well becasue the runways are detailed when you are close to them and you see the grainy surface. X-Plane does this the best IMO.Here I go again...going on and on and on...Am I too fussy??Take careMike

[LAdamson 240]

>Another thing that I remembereed now that makes the airports >look cartoonish...please don't take this as coplaining or >ranting, i'm just writing my idedas to improve any sim!... >anyway, the cartoonish look comes from the lines on the >runways and taxiways. The lines are always perfectly >straight, one shade of color and extremely clean. We all >know that's not the case in the real world. Runway tire marks at McCarren (Las Vegas). Any thing else you'd like to know? :) BTW-- lot's of runways like this, & may depend on settingsP.S.-- I have the X-Plane demo with the good looking tire marks.Now the first pic is X-Plane, attached is McCarren (hopefully)http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d30bf7d59be5881.jpg

[Guest]

I can't see the Las Vegas pic. Only the X-Plane one.I will go take some shots as well to compare...maybe you are right and it's my settings.Mike

[LAdamson 240]

Check again, I had to fix!!!

[Guest]

Hi LarryYes but you campared concrete to asphalt. Here is what I mean.First shots are asphalt. The one in FS2002 Pro looks fine escept the lines (edge,centerline etc) don't blend in because they are too clean and jagged (at least on my computer!)http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...9886fcc259a.jpgThe one in X-Plane has the lines painted on the texture so they blend in more and they are dirtier and faded.http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...98e6fd5a565.jpgIn my opinion the XP one looks better. Same goes for ConcreteHere the FS one has the lines over the texture and on top of the tire marks.http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...a4b7106613a.jpgIn XP the lines are under the tire marks (like it should be right?)http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...a50710e6fc4.jpgWhat do you think?I can't believe that we are discussing lines on the runways! Are we that bored? :-lolMike

[michal 44]

I see what you mean. Clearly X-plane has some unique capabilities in that area.Michael J.

[LAdamson 240]

>What do you think? >I can't believe that we are discussing lines on the runways! > Are we that bored? :-lol >Mike Yes, good looking runways are very possible with X-Plane! I also really like the low level mountain flying in the F-15. The scenery is just repeatable tiles, but it has a glossy photo look & is extremely smooth & fluid to fly over.We could always discuss "auto-gen" :)L.Adamson