Holy moly! It's FSX - for real!

[chris]

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0106/FSX/fsx_thumbs.html

Okay, I'm near speechless - it looks fantastic! :beer:

And I was right with my prediction on the name, it's indeed FSX.

[Radical-Al]

is this FS2006? the new one from 2004 - A century of flight ?

[Wazza]

Wow, looks great. Maybe time to get back into Flight Sims.. Does it just use Google Earth? ^_^

[chris]

is this FS2006? the new one from 2004 - A century of flight ?

It's the replacement for FS2004 (aka FS9).

[VulcanB2]

Hi,

Some of the new visuals include:

* Bump Mapped Texturing
* True Environmental Reflective Maps
* New pixel shaders/improved 3D renderers
* New bloom effect
* Enhanced shadow generation calcs

That's all the tech info I have on it so far.....I'll post more as it becomes available.

Best regards,
VulcanB2.

[chris]

I think the improved shadow generation can really help. And of course the new visual effects like the reflections on wet tarmac really gives the impression of "be careful, this surface might be slippery".

Even better if you can get glare from the sun off the water. :) That's all under environmental reflections I guess.

BTW Robin, do you know if the 2d panels are going to go, or will there be both 2d and 3d as is the case now? I also hope for better weather - standard FS with Concorde is really fun with those sudden weather changes. ;) Fortunately AS6 sorts out most of the silly things.

[chris]

Few more screenshots:

http://fsinsider.com/screenshots/default.htm

[chris]

Few other things, a Boeing 737-800 is in FSX, as is the Airbus A321. There, bet you didn't see that one coming. ;)

Also, look out for road-traffic too.

[Frank N. O.]

Well that's interesting, but for me the most interesting thing is now the physics, will FSX still be a simulation of a simulation or a real simulation and any supersonic and/or VTOL planes?

Frank

[chris]

That's exactly the question everyone else is asking as well. And Bill Gates didn't mention much about it.

But we do know they've promised backwards compatibility with existing planes, so I can accept that, if it can accept the existing planes. :) I hope it means the more sophisticated ones, not just the usual looks better but otherwise no more functional than the default planes addons.

[Radical-Al]

I still think UBI soft has some of the best water made (Silent Hinter 3, IL2 games and other games).

[chris]

Problem with the FPS games and the like is they don't have the entire world, so I think they can get away with large graphical detail, flight-sims like FS have the entire world, in one flight I might cover 6000km.

But yes, I do agree, I've not yet seen entirely convincing water in FS, nor clouds for that matter, although FS2004 with Active Sky 6 does come close.

The clouds should look dull from underneath, but from above, they should look really brilliant white, and almost shimmer in the sun light - since they are made up of water vapour.

[VulcanB2]

I had posted a long(-ish) response, but my login timed out and lost it, so I'll re-type it tomorrow! :AAAHHH:

Best regards,
Robin.

[VulcanB2]

I give up!! :(

"Sorry, this forum is no longer accepting any more posts". What?! This is a post, isn't it? :(

In (very) short:

* I hope 2D stays as the VC is too slow and tricky to use at present; if smooth and fluid like in CFS3 then great! Pluses: Easier for the aircraft devs (only 1 set of gauges to develop) and less processing and updating of gauge code thus faster and smoother sim! Minuses: Will take some getting used to, and needs to be designed with USEABILITY as the design goal! I'm not bothered if it really is modelled to a 1/10th of an inch of the real thing if I can't see what I'm looking at because the drawing angle is so great. We are still trying to replicate a 3D environment in 2D; you still need to think 2D (overhead panels are the biggest issue)
* MS need to get more technical on the aircraft in their descriptions of the new sims
* The scenery looks great but...
* Too much emphasis is placed on the (slowly becoming) stunning visuals to the detriment of the sim
* The World needs to be re-written from scratch to more accurately model the shape of the Earth and finally allow you to fly to the Poles. A new system would also (hopefully) run a lot quicker and smoother than present, whilst maintaining friendness towards scenery devs (I think the scenery engine can be simplified IMHO).
* Aircraft systems modelling needs to be a LOT more refined and more detailed.
* Why do we need FSUIPC exactly?
* Update the very old gauge drawing techniques; scrap bitmap gauges completely and forget XML...let's get some fluidly running gauges in there. RealityXP have done it with the existing sims, so it is certainly possible.

I think that covers everything. I haven't completely got used to this forum yet; it seems to like losing what you type if your session expired whilst you were typing. :(

Best regards,
Robin.

[chris]

Ooh yeah, always make a copy of your message to Notepad before hitting Submit. ;) I think we've lost count of the number of times vBulletin has ate messages. :bomb:

But it has redeeming features. Try editing your message, and it does it in the actual post itself. -^

I also agree with the point about FSUIPC. If we had better internal access to FS functions or just raw data itself, you could do many more things without needing external modules.

[Frank N. O.]

Time-out? I've never had this problem but yes the forum is buggy, I've also lost long posts, even recently :( Notepad is most definately a good tool :D

About your comments:

Too much emphasis on visual quality alone: HEAR HEAR!!!! And that goes for a lot of other so-called sims.

Redesigned scenery system: Agreed. It would be nice to fly around mountains and not see stretched out textures because it only maps in 2D (if you understand my meaning by stretched textures).

About the physics then I've only ever flown in real life once, for 1 hour but I did get to pilot for 15-20 minutes and what I remember was that the plane moved up/down and was rotated slightly around the vertical axis by the wind (I think) even though it the winds were calm. Even in storm have I never been able to see this in FS. The only sim I've seen do this was Fly! and Fly! II but they don't work well with modern graphics-cards :(

I was wondering, have you tried a FF joystick vs real flying in a light aircraft? I can't imagine it really feels like that, but what do you say?

Greetings and welcome btw :wave:
Frank

[VulcanB2]

Time-out? I've never had this problem but yes the forum is buggy, I've also lost long posts, even recently :( Notepad is most definately a good tool :D
Duely note[pa]d! :D

Redesigned scenery system: Agreed. It would be nice to fly around mountains and not see stretched out textures because it only maps in 2D (if you understand my meaning by stretched textures).
I think that is a limitation of 3D vs. 2D again...it can be eradicated by using over-sized textures, that on a flat surface are cropped, but on a larger tile, the texture isn't stretched, just more of the texture is shown.

About the physics then I've only ever flown in real life once, for 1 hour but I did get to pilot for 15-20 minutes and what I remember was that the plane moved up/down and was rotated slightly around the vertical axis by the wind (I think) even though it the winds were calm. Even in storm have I never been able to see this in FS. The only sim I've seen do this was Fly! and Fly! II but they don't work well with modern graphics-cards :(
FS does model this, but you need to have a pretty fluid frame rate to see it. If you are over the ocean, it can be virtually undetecable. This is something that is improved by running AS6.

I was wondering, have you tried a FF joystick vs real flying in a light aircraft? I can't imagine it really feels like that, but what do you say?
I think the FF sticks are unrealistic insofar as that they are too aggressive on the application of the forces, and exaggerated. It is largely dependent upon the type of control in the real thing. Some have sticks, others have control panel mounted yokes. They do have weight to them which adds to the apparent difficulty in moving them, but the way this is simulated with FF sticks is just wrong. It is a constant force with the real thing (it does change depending on control surface loading such as during a loop; the force required is greater than just for straight and level flight) but the FF sticks just can't simulate it. I think the biggest issue is that they are short 6" or 8" sticks, an the way they move is also an issue, compared with the larger movements of the real thing.

If my stick was floor-mounted rather than desk mounted, then I think it would be better. The other problem that adds to it is that the control surface response is wrong. It isn't reacting correctly; a disproportionate amount of stick input is required for the response (i.e. too much for little response or too little for too much response).

Greetings and welcome btw :wave:
Thanks! :D

Best regards,
Robin.

[chris]

And with respect to frame rates, FS never ever has particularly brilliant frame rates unless you have a supercomputer - even a P4 3.4ghz with a fair bit of memory sort of gives average frame rates on higher detail.

FSX had better be improved in that regard. :nono:

I also agree Active Sky 6 makes a big improvement - default FS weather is just nasty in comparison.

[Frank N. O.]

There seems to be a few extra screenshots here, of a Goose flying boat, and a close-up of a scenery yacht in full 3D.

I also read that DX10 won't be backwards compatible so some of the effects in FSX might not work in Windows XP, bloody great! From what I've heard about how integrated everything in Vista is I'm not buying it.

Oops, I pulled a Ryan (Ryan T), I forgot to post the link: http://www.fs2004.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=7

Frank

[chris]

I believe (IIRC) Microsoft actually did say it would be compatible with Windows XP, though perhaps there might be a few updates.

It's too early to speculate. But if it does bring improvements and more efficiency, sure, I'll move over to vista, provided they bring out a pro-version suited to developers and other similar types of power-users.

[chris]

Few more screenshots:

http://www.avsim.com/pages/FSX/fsx.html

747 doesn't look detailed, but the sky does look a bit darker. (good!)

[Frank N. O.]

I saw these tonight as well, what are the two other planes? And btw that float-plane looks pretty detailed, but I'm beginning to loose hope that there will be any significant improvement in the physics :(

Frank