FSX Roads & photo scenery...

[IslandBoy77]

don't think I can ok that one. if a sim is built for "average" (usually much less capable than "above average" pcs), then they will have to code the sim to be less than what it ought. a new sim should be built for "tomorrow" so that we can get the best poss graphics if we're prepared to shell out the dosh now. those who want to sim on a budget can then just put the graphic sliders to lower res, and then as they update their rig over the years, they will be able to increase the detail. fs9 is like that now - you needed a "beast" to make it run well when it 1st came out, now even a modest rig will run it well. fsx is already heading there - as i've tweaked my rig (now 8gb ddr2 ram, 1gb ddr5 hd5750 graphics, quad-core 2.4ghz - not an icore, though), i can run with sliders to max and get around 12-15 fps most of the time. the 8gb of ram is only ddr2 800, but the amount has made a noticeable diff (was only 4gb before). so when i finally go thru to an icore 7 and 16gb of ddr3, i expect to be heading up to 20-25 fps even in fairly "dense" scenery (although whether that turns out to be true, only time will tell).

so, i say code to high specs, but allow for detail reduction. that way the sim isn't hobbled and obsolete straight out of the box. from what i understand, Outerra uses a much more efficient engine that FSX to start with, so that's good news for everyone.

[Timmo]

The Outerra concept is one that I considered a couple of years ago in this thread: http://nzff.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118&st=40
i.e. Overlaying fractal enhancements on real world data.....so it's cool that these guys are pursuing that same idea. It makes sense to me given that the speed at which high resolution data is captured and disseminated is very slow.

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (Timmo @ Aug 4 2010, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Outerra concept is one that I considered a couple of years ago in this thread: http://nzff.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118&st=40
i.e. Overlaying fractal enhancements on real world data.....so it's cool that these guys are pursuing that same idea. It makes sense to me given that the speed at which high resolution data is captured and disseminated is very slow.

I had a wander thru that thread - a lot to look at, but didn't see any mention of Outerra. Is it possibly on a diff thread?

[toprob]

QUOTE (AndrewJamez @ Aug 3 2010, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would say forget microsoft. The main reason they want to go online multiplay (Micrsoft live) is that they can command a monthly subsrciption like some multiplayer Xbox games. That way each customer becomes a constant soarce of income instead of a 1 time payment that the purchase of a standard type game or sim would provide. They are just being greedy. I believe the next sim to come along will be created from members of the flight sim community. In the end they may be classed as "big companys" but that is where they will origonate from and they will have a passion for it. That could be a long time coming though and FSX is far from done yet.
I only hope that the next generations of computor hardware can continue to improve FSX performance because FSX is capable of running 7cm/pixcell resolution scenery, 5m terrain mesh, insane amounts of autogen and 4096bit textures and there is'nt a desktop computor in existance that can render an FSX world at that level all over.
Let us bow down and prey for such a machine, and please make it affordable. lol

I still think that a Microsoft sim is a lot more likely than a community-driven project, simply because creating a flight simulator to replace FSX would require a huge investment. Microsoft already have a lot of resources from all those years of FS development, and they have a good idea of how much they could expect to make, whereas a community project wouldn't have these resources, so they'd have to pay for them somehow on top of the cost of development. It would work if someone was prepared to fund it properly, but that's unlikely.

I also think that I'd class Microsoft as 'profit-driven' rather than 'greedy'. I've always owned an Xbox, and I've always subscribed to Xbox Live, but I also know that I could quite easily play all the games I own without paying anything to Xbox Live. But then again I have no interest in playing online. I don't imagine that any MS flightsim in the future will need a subscription.

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Aug 4 2010, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

don't think I can ok that one. if a sim is built for "average" (usually much less capable than "above average" pcs), then they will have to code the sim to be less than what it ought. a new sim should be built for "tomorrow" so that we can get the best poss graphics if we're prepared to shell out the dosh now. those who want to sim on a budget can then just put the graphic sliders to lower res, and then as they update their rig over the years, they will be able to increase the detail. fs9 is like that now - you needed a "beast" to make it run well when it 1st came out, now even a modest rig will run it well. fsx is already heading there - as i've tweaked my rig (now 8gb ddr2 ram, 1gb ddr5 hd5750 graphics, quad-core 2.4ghz - not an icore, though), i can run with sliders to max and get around 12-15 fps most of the time. the 8gb of ram is only ddr2 800, but the amount has made a noticeable diff (was only 4gb before). so when i finally go thru to an icore 7 and 16gb of ddr3, i expect to be heading up to 20-25 fps even in fairly "dense" scenery (although whether that turns out to be true, only time will tell).

so, i say code to high specs, but allow for detail reduction. that way the sim isn't hobbled and obsolete straight out of the box. from what i understand, Outerra uses a much more efficient engine that FSX to start with, so that's good news for everyone.

This has been discussed before here. Having a scalable sim is a very good idea, but as you've probably seen not everyone likes it. The battle is always between those who want to run a sim hard-out on any PC, and those who want to be able to take advantage of hardware improvements. The first group don't take into account that their ideal sim would lack a lot of the features they want, by necessity, and the other group gets upset when their sim doesn't take advantage of features which didn't exist when it was developed.

[Timmo]

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Aug 4 2010, 06:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I had a wander thru that thread - a lot to look at, but didn't see any mention of Outerra. Is it possibly on a diff thread?

Sorry, didn't make myself as clear as I should have- Back then I was just musing that that would be the logical next step for flight simulation. Outerra didn't exist back then as far as I know.

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (Timmo @ Aug 4 2010, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, didn't make myself as clear as I should have- Back then I was just musing that that would be the logical next step for flight simulation. Outerra didn't exist back then as far as I know.

Ok, thanks for that. Saves me having to read all 5 pages then thinking my eyes are going funny...