Flight Simulator X screenshots

[Everlost_MI]

Worthplaying (http://www.worthplaying.com/) has posted thirty screenshots (http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=30885&mode=thread&order=0)for Microsoft's Flight Simulator X for your viewing pleasure.

Gorgeous!

[jacktion]

I really expected more. With the 360 out and all the new pc games coming out, this is looking a little dated. That World War 2 plane sim for the 360 really smokes these screenshots.

[absolut taco]

I hope there will be some decent crash explosions this time around.

[askheaves]

I really expected more. With the 360 out and all the new pc games coming out, this is looking a little dated. That World War 2 plane sim for the 360 really smokes these screenshots.

Remember, though, that the WW2 game probably works in arenas, whereas FS streams an entire planet worth of terrain. An entire planet worth of terrain is a LOT--easily dozens of terrabytes at a pretty low res--of data. I work at a company that makes terrain generation software for gov and private flight sims (among other things), and I think this FS is pretty as hell. I'm curious what they used to generate that terrain because it looks a hell of a lot nicer than our stock stuff.

[goc_sin]

I hope they keep the simulator part and don't dumb it down to a arcade style of flying... Too many of these games are taking that route. Looks pretty. It would be sweet if they add the physics that I-L2 has.

[Akeldama]

Don't worry they won't do that. There's a huge market for serious flight enthusiasts for FS. The payway market is massive and I doubt MS would want to bit the hand that feeds it.

[Harbinger]

Maybe it is not played in an arena, but I can't see these graphics bringing anyone new to the table. I've owned several versions of FS over the years but haven't purchase a new one since prolly 95ish---and I have never been able to really get into it. Just piloting/flying alone is not worth it for me, unless the graphics are radically better than any flight game with some type of warfare.

Apparently these games make money though, on true sim lovers and pilots perhaps. /shrug

[Bone]

Yes, true sim lovers and pilots are a big target market for a game called Flight Simulator... :rolleyes:

I thought FS2004 was pretty good-looking, if you didn't get too close to the ground. I agree that they could use some LOD to make it look pretty when you get closer to the ground. After all, your potential ground visibility is reduced the closer you get. At 35,000 feet you really don't need to see anything but the mountains in detail.

[Cubfan]

I took a poop that had better graphics.

[Morrolan]

Meh. I understand that they have huge technical problems to overcome, and empathise, but that doesn't change the fact that it looks like ass. That may be necessary given their goals, but it still looks like ass. Pretty planes over muddy, crappy terrain make for muddy, crappy visuals.

[Bone]

I guess you need to put it in perspective of what people who buy flight simulators are looking for. Graphics are nice, but flight physics, specific plane model simulation, and radio communications are probably the most important factors. The inside of the planes look extremely detailed and the controls all work as they should between each different model. And there are currently thousands of people playing multiplayer FS2004 with other people whose sole job is to act as air traffic controllers to the pilots. This is what flight simulation is about and what makes them good training/practice for pilots.

You've also got to consider the amount of texture space it takes to map pretty much the whole USA. There are tradeoffs that probably limit them as to how detailed they can get, and I'd rather see this incremental improvement (it looks better than the last FS game) than have them throw up their hands and say "well, we can't make it look like a movie, let's just give up".

[askheaves]

I'll emphasize again, I work in the Terrain Generation industry, and this is a pretty looking game. This looks better than anything we produce for government and commercial flight simulators... you know, the big multi-million dollar machines?

Using actual satellite/flyover imagery is really really disk intensive. 1 meter imagery in only black and white of an area about the size of texas sits on about 5-10 Terrabytes (just a guestimate, but not too far off). That's the resolution you're going to need if you want to be able to fly 100 feet off the ground without noticing too much pixelation.

This is a phenomenal looking piece of software for a flight sim where the terrain is bounded by ALL OF THE LAND ON THE PLANET.

[Harbinger]

Yes, true sim lovers and pilots are a big target market for a game called Flight Simulator... :rolleyes:

Oh your powers of deduction are exceptional. I simply can't allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment...

Ok, for conversation's sake, would it be better to break the world into arenas that would load, to enable a higher LOD? Back in the day they sold all those packs separately. No one wants that, but could they all be included and load separately, like per timezone or something---or is that too unacceptible?

[H.Bogard]

Ok, for conversation's sake, would it be better to break the world into arenas that would load, to enable a higher LOD? Back in the day they sold all those packs separately. No one wants that, but could they all be included and load separately, like per timezone or something---or is that too unacceptible?
Unacceptable....but thanks for the insight.......peon...

[Bone]

Oh your powers of deduction are exceptional. I simply can't allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment...
It seemed the appropriate response to your post, which displayed a firm grasp of the obvious.

No, most people who buy flight sims don't want a small package, like one state. They want to plot cross country or international flights. Most of the time you spend in a sim is high in the air, with 1% of your time (just a guess) is spent landing or taking off. So the time spent looking at detailed scenery doesn't make it worthwhile when you're more often than not viewing 1 mile areas depicted the size of a postage stamp.

[Borys]

I have to laugh at all the people calling this "shitty" graphics.

Here's a tip: you have absolutely NO IDEA what's the reason behind that kind of graphics.

Enjoy your CoD2/ FEAR/ Battlefield 2 with levels, say, 1 000 000 times smaller (and that's a rough estimate).

On some other forum there was an idiot spouting: but GTA looks better and it renders the WHOLE world also!

People are morons.

[Bone]

I have to laugh at all the people calling this "shitty" graphics.

Here's a tip: you have absolutely NO IDEA what's the reason behind that kind of graphics.

Enjoy your CoD2/ FEAR/ Battlefield 2 with levels, say, 1 000 000 times smaller (and that's a rough estimate).

On some other forum there was an idiot spouting: but GTA looks better and it renders the WHOLE world also!

People are morons.
QFT, and also so I could say QFT.

[Flarnet]

Those defending the graphics are forgetting that 8 years ago and beyond flight simulators were THE post-child for cutting edge PC graphics. Screens from Flight Unlimited and EF2000 before it drew Ahhs and Ooohhs from the "regular" gamers (like those frequenting this establishment).
So something is not "scaling" like it should on the FS side of things.

For instance, all other outdoor engines have had detailed textures up close for years. Which makes the blurry hillsides in the shots above look like complete crap by todays standards.

Furthermore, it doesn't look like the satellite data they are using is of a higher resolution than the one used several years ago. There are probably availability issues involved, but to a gamer that just screams old-gen.

Also, in the old days people - even the casual crowd - accepted the huge discrepancies in fidelity between the ground surface and the objects placed on it (huge differences in texture resolution per area for instance). But these days we are so used (from all other 3d games) to being served graphics that look the same across the board, that seeing the crisp houses placed on the huge blurry texture blobs in the screens linked above you wanna cry.

So while I don't condone whining, there is some merit to the claim that "OMG it looks like shit". And the "but they have to render the entire world stupid" defense doesn't cut it, since flight sims have always had to do that and not long ago they did that AND were the pinnacle of PC graphics.

[Demo_Boy]

1 meter imagery in only black and white of an area about the size of texas sits on about 5-10 Terrabytes (just a guestimate, but not too far off). That's the resolution you're going to need if you want to be able to fly 100 feet off the ground without noticing too much pixelation.

I think that you made a failed assumption which is:
"the ground the player is flying over must be accurate to real world detail down to to one meter of fidelity"
is not the same as
"the terrain has to look good at one meter of fidelity."

The best games use tons of fakery to increase the impression of detail without accuracy.

For example something like Unreal Tournament 2003's version of Detail Enhancement that mips in when you get "close to a surface" -- a fractal alpha is mapped on the wall to give it a rough sheen that appears high fidelity and non tiling giving the impression of a detailed crispy surface, but really the game runs on 256x256es.
Take that micro craft example and apply it to the terrain as a macro effect and the stills would looks like the ground had crazy crispy detail and non blocky/overstretched texture art.

An alternative would be a "stylized filter option" which adds more rack focus to soft blur the world and sharpen the plane. All screen caps could be taken with this on and the end ser could choose to turn it off in play. Then the shots would look "next gen blurry" and noone would complain it looked low poly because the brain would fill in assumed detail about the blocky stuff in the distance.

[Subbacultcha]

I'll emphasize again, I work in the Terrain Generation industry, and this is a pretty looking game. This looks better than anything we produce for government and commercial flight simulators... you know, the big multi-million dollar machines?

Using actual satellite/flyover imagery is really really disk intensive. 1 meter imagery in only black and white of an area about the size of texas sits on about 5-10 Terrabytes (just a guestimate, but not too far off). That's the resolution you're going to need if you want to be able to fly 100 feet off the ground without noticing too much pixelation.

This is a phenomenal looking piece of software for a flight sim where the terrain is bounded by ALL OF THE LAND ON THE PLANET.

This would be impressive if the FS games had accurate terrain textures. However, even if the textures are satellite based, the resolution is so poor that, in the end, it all looks like elephant-faeces anyway.

If only the game engine could, for example, provide spontaneous fractal-based detailing of the terrain textures when flying at low altitude. FS already has random generated trees, so this isn't asking for too much.

[doyama]

A comparision of terrain textures between FPS and FS is simply not applicable. You have to realize that in an FPS, the level designer has one key element: CONTROL. A good level designer will make sure that the level doesn't have too much texture thrashing and such. Also they can't leave the arena, so once the textures are loaded you're set! So sure FPS' look nice but it's that level of control which allows them such luxuries.

In FS the designer has zero control over the player. Having to render the world is a huge problem because of the lack of control over what the user wants to see. They could fly anywhere and they'll be expecting to see whatever is supposed to be there. So the terrain engine has to be felxible enough to render all types of terrain without causing your computer to choke, swap, then when its done you realize you just crahsed into the rockies :P

[Taco]

I've played Flight Simulators dating back around 15 years, including the original MS Flight Simulator. They were never the poster child for great graphics. They were always good, but certainly not cutting edge.