Outerra tech demo

[kcgb]

[Splitpin]

The old KC sunset shot......

[kcgb]

[Ian Warren]

As on facebook

QUOTE

Outerra
We were contacted by Sibwings about a week ago, they asked us if it's possible to import one of their aircraft into the Outerra. It was a great opportunity to get some information about the FSX SDK and how they are handling aircraft imports. This experience gave us some hints about what we should not forget in our import tool. And here are the first results.[/quote]
http://forum.sibwings.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1050

[Ian Warren]

I'd be interested to see a city scape or a very busy airport , seems we looking at the same base at the moment , same type mountain range and tree type .

[Naki]

Sibwings Birddog in Outerra

http://forum.sibwings.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1050

[kcgb]

QUOTE (Naki @ Mar 20 2012,10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sibwings Birddog in Outerra

http://forum.sibwings.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1050

look at the page before this one

[Naki]

oh doh ...missed that

[Ian Warren]

Surprised someone has not looked at installing an airport scenery simply to see how well or if that works .. one off these Cloud9/Tampa types .

[cowpatz]

What page before?

[kcgb]

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Mar 20 2012,6:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What page before?

in this topic

[kcgb]

just got even better

[IslandBoy77]

Nothing else to be said, except "Its gonna be great when it finally releases".

[AndrewJamez]

Will definately add a scense of speed down low. that is if it can render out past the 20m mark as it seems to show in the shot. I see to remember orbx touting something like this a while back but nothing seemed to have come of it. Must have been chucked in the too hard basket.

[IslandBoy77]

I just read on the forum that Outerra is planning to do long grass that waves in the wind, too. Considering that they are taking a whole different approach to the programming of Outerra, which won't be hobbled like FSX was / is, it seems likely that the eye-candy will work fairly well regardless of machine speed (given that one has whatever ends up being the default minimum - the last specs I saw were incredibly modest), with bigger, gruntier machines having the luxury of "sliders all the way to the right" at excellent frame rates. From what I've read, Outerra is designed more like an FPS with an accurate physics / atmospherics model. I understand that the physics side still has some important work to do, but the point is that everything in the Outerra world will act / react as closely to the real deal as is possible in a sim that isn't powered by super-computer class hardware. So therefore, the terrain will be deformable (at least to a reasonable degree), water will behave as water should (rather than just being programmed into a static loop type arrangement as FSX is), wind will have observable effects etc etc. That means that weather will be capable of generating unique, non-programmed events in real time like storms (dust or rain-style).

I got myself into trouble last year by suggesting that Outerra had out-paced FSX. It's ok to say that FSX is no longer the best on the block for several reasons:
1) Its true, and that's ok. Progress is good. Admitting it is true doesnt damage the fabric of the universe, and doesn't make anyone who loves FSX for whatever reason a lesser person.
2) Until Outerra is formally released, FSX is what we all use - me included. And that's ok.
3) The fact that Outerra is better than FSX is no way diminishes the quality of work that people like Rob, Timmo et al, and all the myriad of payware / freeware developers, create. They all still do fantastic work, and when they eventually turn their hand to Outerra, they'll do fantastic work there, too.
4) It's ok to like 2 sims at the same time. FSX will not hate you if you like Outerra too. In fact, it won't even hate you if you stop using it one day and ONLY use Outerra.
5) It's not blasphemy to say that one, new sim is better than another, old sim
6) It's ok for people (like me) to be excited about a new sim that is clearly a whole other level above what is available now. FS9 was (and still is for those to whom it is) a great sim, with lots of add-ons, that now runs great on modest gear. FSX replaced FS9, and that was ok. But better is always better in a flight sim, especially if one can get both fantastic visuals AND proper physics simulation. Regrettably, Flight is a Vista-like fail that isn't much of anything, even visually.

[Ian Warren]

Big compare is P3D to Outerra , what the better solution is or compare .. for the new boys , the same battle raged years 1996-2002 with many other addon , this time MS is holding its our with 'X' - FLIGHT is a kiddies joke , both the newboys are via for what best ... as I said happened 15 years ago .. so be interesting who shows a closer end result .

[IslandBoy77]

Yes, it will be interesting over the next 12-18 months. Does P3D use fractal-style generation of its scenery like Outerra? Or does it use the older FSX style? The great thing about the fractal generation is that even with a coarse 75 metre mesh, hills, mountains and such don't look awful. Not accurate, but not that nasty either blocky or shapless mound that the FSX engine produces at that mesh.

[toprob]

I guess it comes down to what your expectations are -- I've seen a lot of procedural tools which render great landscapes, but it is a long way from there to a mature flight simulator. Saying Outerra is better than FSX needs some context -- it is better at displaying beautiful landscapes, that's for sure. I'm not convinced that the end result will be a great flight simulator, or even a good flight simulator. It might happen, but there's a long way to go.

I would love to see it develop into a great, mature simulator, but I don't think I'll ever have the system to run it. At the moment, as a basic 'world' rendering system the minimum specs are well beyond me, and I would expect the final requirements once sim features are added would be a lot higher.

I don't think that anyone considered it blasphemy to say that Outerra is better than FSX. I just know it isn't true, unless you judge it solely on looks. By the same token, I think that MS Flight is a better sim than FSX, in some respects. In the ten years I've been simming, I've had a lot of visitors, mainly family and friends, show some interest in what I do, and simulators in general, but I've never had a serious 'convert' -- until Flight. I can think of half a dozen people who have developed an interest in simming based solely on a Flight session on my pretty basic system. I have no interest in Flight myself, but I appreciate it's strengths. I suspect what you appreciate the most about Outerra is it's potential.

[Ian Warren]

Rather the tech jargin , you have to fly it regular and most forget about that .. Fonterra and its pretty grass .. for the MOO MOOs , P3D samo i guess ....

OK Who really fly's real time between centers .. sure as hell I no I do .. do you see every blade of grass move .. i no what as real as it gets to see detailed airports ... and that includes coming in on landing and a scenery showing that empression not a paddock full grass

Fonterra is great and as P3D .. BUT People its flight simulation , now if you want to train ankle biters to eat grass .. well .. well done , now let quit posting these poofty gay screens of grass and trees and get on with the friggen job .. OR show me something i have not seen before . To many Kiddies running this channel !

As soon as i see anything looking like an airport .. i'll then start looking .

[IslandBoy77]

The thing that many seem to miss is that flight simulation is supposed to be about simulating not just aircraft aerodynamics, but that thing outside the window what is actually the whole reason a person is flying in the first place - the planet. What's the point of having a fantastic-looking aircraft if you've got smeared low-res graphics and just generally cruddy scenery to look at? I realise that those "flying high" don't appreciate the need or even reason for decent real-world look. But heck, even such like a nice airport / surrounds.

I disagree Rob - I may not have your extensive skills for coding and creating scenery for FSX (and I don't), but FSX is a dinosaur that people keep putting lipstick on to make it "look good". And you and the guys putting on the lipstick do a great job. But it's still just lipstick - the glaring visual flaws (which are far more important that any technical ones) appear to be permanent and irredeemable.

Interesting the you have a positive take on Flight. My system that will run Outerra really well chokes and stutters on Flight. I am presuming this is because Flight is based on the same obsolete way of rendering the world as FSX. More lipstick.

Ian - seeing individual blades of grass is great when its relevant. For those who like to actually see the world they are supposed to be flying over in their simulator, details are great when appropriate. Of course when one is at any speed or even moderate altitude, such details will be muted and subtle, possibly even not visible. But they are there and should be there. ORBX puts "grass" (2D "paper" grass) on some of their airports (possibly all of them?) and most people rave about how great that looks. And it DOES look great, because that's how the real world looks.

Its fair enough if people are prepared to accept less than stellar visuals if technical accuracy is important - that's why many fly X-Plane, as it's even more accurate than FSX. But if just how the silver tube moves thru the air is important, why do people even bother to upgrade from FS2000, FS2002 or FS9? Oh, that's right - prettier graphics...