A new era

[Charlie Bravo]

I just can't fly around in a sim with a 12 year old graphics engine anymore. It was naff then and it's just as bad now.

Before you keep going on about the '12 year old graphics engine' of P3D, remember the first version of X-Plane was 1994, so some would say it has a 24 year old graphics engine.

I also love how X-Plane 11's slogan is "More powerful. Made usable", meaning they admit that all there previous versions were un-usable

Keep going on? I didn't even mention P3D... you did. FSX is 12 years old and P3D is modelled on it. Yes it has been optimised but they look pretty much the same.

[Elvis Presley]

Now now everyone please.

Firstly, photoreal cannot exist, not in real time today, only in still images - believe me I've tried, a building I was involved with in Glasgow, big shopping centre, in 3d was 3gb as a fairly mundane 3d model. It looked good enough if you chose your angle and lit it well. That was for single frame images, to be printed and displayed. Another, a housing estate, 400 units and about 30 acres, as a colored 2d plan with shadows that followed the sunpath, looked beautiful but was over 3gb. Just 2d only mind. A hotel in the city centre as a 3d model that did all that plus reflection in the glazing, animation and sunpath was impossible to render in anyones lifetime.

Games do it differently, essentially cardboard cutouts (very well drawn and lit) but essentially 2d, a bit like a film set but projected on an enclosing sphere (or spheres). Thus they occupy very small worlds, exactly as a film set does, but through storyline immersion, portray a very much bigger space. Fair enough, if the set is Berlin 1945 and centred on the Reichstag, or a spaceship or whatever, but otherwise for bigger spaces eg driving a sportscar around a Hawaian island or a tank through eastern France, multiple generic environment (in this case, buildings) types are used. Then, a 3 point perspective camera frames the space. To keep frame rates within acceptable limits, and still attempt a representation of 'real life' at that place . Otherwise everything out to the horizon would otherwise would need to be modelled, individually, and that would be needing all your customers to have their own Kray. Then again, if the player is moving, everything to the horizon beyond. In every possible direction. Hmm, they might need networked Krays. Accordingly, the developers will usually say, you will not recognise a specific building (ie, your house) in play.

I think you can see where this is going, but lets look at photoreal applied to an entire planet. Say 3gb for every building, (remember, each would have to be mapped and surveyed to recognise 'your house'). New York Has about 860,000 buildings in it, the USA has 34 million buildings...that would be 2580000 gb, just for buildings, for the continental US alone.

My hardrive certainly is not big enough for that. It really struggled with those 30 acres. Render time was 15 minutes a shot, and my pc aint particularly sluggish either. At FL21, I can't see houses anyway.

Jim

[Airspeed]

Thanks for the recent comments.
I found you-tube samples of X-Plane, Flight Sim World, Aerofly FS2, to compare them.
As mentioned by other members, there's not a huge difference in appearance.
One mentioned doubtful flight characteristics.
Another showed an engine fire, where the smoke actually went ahead of the jetliner.
Jim's comment on buildings was well demonstrated; nobody is depicting buildings other than nicely decorated boxes.
Because I'm not especially interested at present, in international flights with associated weather and ATC, I have convinced myself that FSX will do me.
I just have to refresh my reading of whether I can reinstall all of my Playsims UK scenery since my HD problem trashed everything.

[blanston12]

I just can't fly around in a sim with a 12 year old graphics engine anymore. It was naff then and it's just as bad now.

Before you keep going on about the '12 year old graphics engine' of P3D, remember the first version of X-Plane was 1994, so some would say it has a 24 year old graphics engine.

I also love how X-Plane 11's slogan is "More powerful. Made usable", meaning they admit that all there previous versions were un-usable

Keep going on? I didn't even mention P3D... you did. FSX is 12 years old and P3D is modelled on it. Yes it has been optimised but they look pretty much the same.

I am sorry if I was a bit snippy there, I was having a bad day and apologize. Maybe you did not say it but I have read many posts on how Xplane is this all new thing and how much better it is that FSX or the polished turd that is P3D.

But X-Plane 11, while its user interface I admit is much improved, but graphics wise is not that much better than seven year old X-Plane 10, or the 11 year old X-Plane 9 or the 14 year old X-Plane 8. And yes, I have owned all of them, but I will hold my tongue from now on.

[Airspeed]

Hey, Joe,
Nothing to be gained from holding your tongue.
Forums are for discussion, and I believe that we're all entitled to express our feelings & points of view.

In your own words, you may have been a bit snippy, but you did not insult anyone.
If we all hold back, Ben & co may as well close CBFS.

ATB, mate.

[blanston12]

Hey, Joe,
Nothing to be gained from holding your tongue.
Forums are for discussion, and I believe that we're all entitled to express our feelings & points of view.

In your own words, you may have been a bit snippy, but you did not insult anyone.
If we all hold back, Ben & co may as well close CBFS.

ATB, mate.

I agree, but discussing Flight Sim preference is a bit like discussing Religion or Politics, most people have strong opinions already and your unlikely to change that. I will try for a more balanced approach.