Reco 3 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 What has this got to do with a Real Flight Simulator Motion blur has something to do with how smooth movement are in the sim. When you are looking at a movie, you are looking at 24 images a second, and it is perfectly smooth. Old puppet animation movies are recorded frame by frame, moving the puppet a little inbetween the frames. There is no motion blur and the result is jerky movements. In the flightsim environment, higher fps will give you a smooth experience. By including motion blur, 24fps will be enough. Anything above is a bonus. Reco 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiflyer 129 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 On a different subject, In FSX I am often annoyed by the use of full aircraft models for Ai. Can't be good for framerates! Then you have third party Ai whose models are often too far the other way as far as minimalism. (Or afcads that desperatly need modification, but never are, either due to designer apathy, or that the regular user simply cannot be bothered to learn all the necessary arcane arts) Perhaps the Aerosoft Sim might require all aircraft designers to include lower-poly Ai models of any aircraft sold for The Sim, much like game companies like Sony require third parties to maintain certain standards for games released on its console. (1080p 60fps etc) Alternately, or perhaps at the same time, the sim could have its own compact, efficient, programmable (and updatable!) aircraft/airport control modules to standardize Ai usage across the Sim. It would probably make things easier for all the designers who come along later if some of that hard work was already done so that the same wheel does not need to be invented again and again. If I was a designer I'm sure I would rather put my time and effort into the process of aircraft and airport creation rather than fretting about the minutia of Ai! Design the aircraft/airport: assign the gates and etc and let the Sim worry about most of the rest! At the very least have the Sim be modular in such a way that a chosen third party Ai package could insert itself seamlessly into the mix. I explodeth with ideas, but have no idea how practical they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tassie Tiger 4 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Motion blur has something to do with how smooth movement are in the sim My understanding of motion blur is 1 A method photographers use to make a still photo look fast 2 Sheer speed that make things appeared blurred. I personally have not seen blurred scenery/ objects even when I was a Naval Photographer photographing jet planes doing T&G's and I also had the pleasure of being catapulted into the wide blue yonder etc etc Tas Tiger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tassie Tiger 4 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 What I would like to do Land in FRA and shut down my A787 XWB with my trusty Co Pilot Then I would be able to go down to the Flughafen Fernbf station and watch the AI traffic from the new TrainSim pass through the Station Fortunately I have purchased the new TrainSim and next morning I go down to Fern 7 platform and take the controls of ICE3 and onto Bruxelles-Midi Change trains and give the EUROSTAR a bit of a flogging onto Lille Europe Swap trains and take the TGV Duplex onto Paris-Charles de Gaulle TGV where on approaching the station I can see the AI planes landing at CDG Next day I start up the A787 XWB from cold with my Co Pilot etc etc etc =========================================================== Frankfurt(M) Flughafen Fernbf Tu, 02.02.10 dep 13:43 Fern 7 ICE 14 ICE Bruxelles-Midi Tu, 02.02.10 arr 16:35 Bruxelles-Midi Eurostar Tu, 02.02.10 dep 16:59 EST 9149 EUROSTAR Lille Europe Eurostar Tu, 02.02.10 arr 17:32 Lille Europe Tu, 02.02.10 dep 17:54 TGV 5123 TGV Duplex Paris-Charles de Gaulle TGV Tu, 02.02.10 arr 18:56 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tassie Tiger 4 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 A787 XWB COCKPIT The A787 XWB would have the best features of the 787 and A350 and designed to be used from beginners with a WideScreen monitor up to Sim Pit builders Some Key Features Throttles from Airbus or Boeing could be used Joystick or Yoke Width must fit into a 12 Foot wide room "Imperial Broadloom Carpet width" Aerosoft control Patent/design/software/licence of the A787 XWB USB for all major components Manufacturers must follow the Aerosoft design/software/licence Find a Chinese/Indian Manufacturer to get costs down 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyBoyMario 19 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 What I would like to do Land in FRA and shut down my A787 XWB with my trusty Co Pilot Then I would be able to go down to the Flughafen Fernbf station and watch the AI traffic from the new TrainSim pass through the Station Fortunately I have purchased the new TrainSim and next morning I go down to Fern 7 platform and take the controls of ICE3 and onto Bruxelles-Midi Change trains and give the EUROSTAR a bit of a flogging onto Lille Europe Swap trains and take the TGV Duplex onto Paris-Charles de Gaulle TGV where on approaching the station I can see the AI planes landing at CDG Next day I start up the A787 XWB from cold with my Co Pilot etc etc etc Now that my friend would be awesome!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reco 3 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 My understanding of motion blur is 1 A method photographers use to make a still photo look fast 2 Sheer speed that make things appeared blurred. I personally have not seen blurred scenery/ objects even when I was a Naval Photographer photographing jet planes doing T&G's and I also had the pleasure of being catapulted into the wide blue yonder etc etc Tas Tiger 1. Motion blur is a result of the shutter speed compare to the speed of the moving Objeckt. It can offcourse be used as an effect. 2. When I am phothographing airplanes I normally use a shutter of 1:500sec in order to avoid motion blur. If you remove motion blur from a sequence of a car in motion, the movement of the car will have some kind of a strobe effect. Reco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingsub 7 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 the technology for scenery is getting more and more interesting http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18449-realtime-webcam-images-painted-onto-google-earth.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManuelL 71 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Effects like motion blur or depth of field are already available in FSX using the EMB bloom effect. Personally I don't like these effects very much. I find them rather distracting and unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reco 3 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Effects like motion blur or depth of field are already available in FSX using the EMB bloom effect. Personally I don't like these effects very much. I find them rather distracting and unrealistic. Mution blur is not available in FX. It has nothing to do with the bloom effect, which is an effect generated in order to simulate a light reflection from shiny objects. It is not an effect at all, but a result of objects in motion and the shutterspeed of a camera. However, it can be used as an effect. Like the speed of a moving car or by photoghraphing a waterfall having the shutterspeed open several seconds. The intention is not that you should see it and think it is cool. It is invinsible but, smoots out fast moving objects. If you take a look at your favourit action DVD and pause it in the middle of the action, you will see a lot of motion blur, but you can't see it while the DVD is running. All CG animations in movies like Lord of the rings, Transformers, Avetar etc. are rendered using motion blur: They do it by generating several passes of one image in order to create motion blur. Reco 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManuelL 71 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Mution blur is not available in FX. It has nothing to do with the bloom effect, which is an effect generated in order to simulate a light reflection from shiny objects. It is not an effect at all, but a result of objects in motion and the shutterspeed of a camera. However, it can be used as an effect. Like the speed of a moving car or by photoghraphing a waterfall having the shutterspeed open several seconds. The intention is not that you should see it and think it is cool. It is invinsible but, smoots out fast moving objects. If you take a look at your favourit action DVD and pause it in the middle of the action, you will see a lot of motion blur, but you can't see it while the DVD is running. All CG animations in movies like Lord of the rings, Transformers, Avetar etc. are rendered using motion blur: They do it by generating several passes of one image in order to create motion blur. Reco Not sure if we are talking about the same thing? In the ENB series module there is a motion blur option in the cfg. It is posted here: http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1258822864 Edit: but it seems it doesn't work for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reco 3 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Not sure if we are talking about the same thing? In the ENB series module there is a motion blur option in the cfg. It is posted here: http://205.252.250.2...?num=1258822864 Edit: but it seems it doesn't work for everyone. Well this is a sort of motion blur, but to me it looks more smeared than blured. It gives me some kind of tunnel vision. The first thing that I noticed is the blurry lanscapes in the distance. Object in distance should have very little blur, or no blur at all. But then again, If you are able to notice the blur, it is not done right. Reco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveyb 0 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Hello, I have been a serious simmer since FS2002 and seen its progress florish until FSX!....and continuously spending hundreds to achieve satisfactory performance as I went...FSX, what a performance Bl""dy disaster...don"t get me wrong here, FSX is impressive , but all that is redundant if one can"t use it.It is fine with default in game options (and thats with sliders no-where near maximums, but not many simmers use these ..they fill it up with add-0n sceneries and complex aircraft, which I have found, eventually bring it to its knees...one should not have to put up with any performance issues when spending this amount of money.You may say this is because the sim will last for years and customers will eventually get it running right by spending money.....let me tell you.. I started with a single core machine with FSX := CPU : SINGLE CORE 3.8ghz CPU: Q6600(2.4) OVERCLOCKED TO 3.3ghZ! GRAPHICS CARD: ATI X800XT >>>>>>>>>> then today >>>>>>>>>>> GRAPHICS CARD: NVIDIA 285GTX & 8800GTX(physx) MEMORY: 2GIG RAM MEMORY: CORSAIR 8500 4GIG IN SLI MODE HARD DRIVES: 10,000 VELOSARAPTORS X 2 HARD DRIVES: 2 (HIGH END) FSX cfg tweaks. You should agree this is a mamoth leap in hardware upgrading,and the whole internet has forums full off similiar threads like this one, and I still spend most of my time not flying but trying to tweak to stop blurries and improving FPS ( I use PMDG 747, HORIZON VFR SCENERY,FRANCEVFR SCENERY, UTX, GEX, REX2, MEGA HEATHROW X etc)..... THE POTENTIAL IS THERE TO HAVE TRUELY UNBELIEVABLY REALISTIC FLYING EXPERIENCE, but regretably performance issues always put stop to this. I must say that aerosofts idea of developing a new sim is a VERY brave venture, because customers would not want to put up with these issues anymore, aerosoft would have to use a completely new platform (architecture) regarding the sims development, and if microsofts team,of almost 16 years development in the simming world came up with FSX and it performance issues...how is aerosoft going to succeed?? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, don"t make the performance an issue if you do go ahead in developing the sim, ..I wish you luck Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPL 39 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Hello, I have been a serious simmer since FS2002 and seen its progress florish until FSX!....and continuously spending hundreds to achieve satisfactory performance as I went...FSX, what a performance Bl""dy disaster...don"t get me wrong here, FSX is impressive , but all that is redundant if one can"t use it.It is fine with default in game options (and thats with sliders no-where near maximums, but not many simmers use these ..they fill it up with add-0n sceneries and complex aircraft, which I have found, eventually bring it to its knees...one should not have to put up with any performance issues when spending this amount of money.You may say this is because the sim will last for years and customers will eventually get it running right by spending money.....let me tell you.. I started with a single core machine with FSX := CPU : SINGLE CORE 3.8ghz CPU: Q6600(2.4) OVERCLOCKED TO 3.3ghZ! GRAPHICS CARD: ATI X800XT >>>>>>>>>> then today >>>>>>>>>>> GRAPHICS CARD: NVIDIA 285GTX & 8800GTX(physx) MEMORY: 2GIG RAM MEMORY: CORSAIR 8500 4GIG IN SLI MODE HARD DRIVES: 10,000 VELOSARAPTORS X 2 HARD DRIVES: 2 (HIGH END) FSX cfg tweaks. You should agree this is a mamoth leap in hardware upgrading,and the whole internet has forums full off similiar threads like this one, and I still spend most of my time not flying but trying to tweak to stop blurries and improving FPS ( I use PMDG 747, HORIZON VFR SCENERY,FRANCEVFR SCENERY, UTX, GEX, REX2, MEGA HEATHROW X etc)..... THE POTENTIAL IS THERE TO HAVE TRUELY UNBELIEVABLY REALISTIC FLYING EXPERIENCE, but regretably performance issues always put stop to this. I must say that aerosofts idea of developing a new sim is a VERY brave venture, because customers would not want to put up with these issues anymore, aerosoft would have to use a completely new platform (architecture) regarding the sims development, and if microsofts team,of almost 16 years development in the simming world came up with FSX and it performance issues...how is aerosoft going to succeed?? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, don"t make the performance an issue if you do go ahead in developing the sim, ..I wish you luck Steve Have you seen this topic? This worked for me. I now get frame rates in the 50-80 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etien 16 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Would be nice to see rainbows and fingers of god... Please login to display this image. Please login to display this image. Etiennne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiflyer 129 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Would be nice to see rainbows and fingers of god... http://farm1.static...._a16804c95f.jpg http://www.photoshop...ainbow-blur.jpg Etiennne In fact, effects like these are in a large number of modern games, and are once again one of the reasons that FSX needs a successor so badly, hopefully done by a company not driven so forcefully by the type of "save those good ideas for the next version" mentality that I suspect eventually dragged Flight simulator so far behind the technology curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tassie Tiger 4 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 6 Cores I wish I could get that close to a rainbow then I would be rich Please login to display this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyking 3 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Hello, I have been a serious simmer since FS2002 and seen its progress florish until FSX!....and continuously spending hundreds to achieve satisfactory performance as I went...FSX, what a performance Bl""dy disaster...don"t get me wrong here, FSX is impressive , but all that is redundant if one can"t use it.It is fine with default in game options (and thats with sliders no-where near maximums, but not many simmers use these ..they fill it up with add-0n sceneries and complex aircraft, which I have found, eventually bring it to its knees...one should not have to put up with any performance issues when spending this amount of money.You may say this is because the sim will last for years and customers will eventually get it running right by spending money.....let me tell you.. I started with a single core machine with FSX := CPU : SINGLE CORE 3.8ghz CPU: Q6600(2.4) OVERCLOCKED TO 3.3ghZ! GRAPHICS CARD: ATI X800XT >>>>>>>>>> then today >>>>>>>>>>> GRAPHICS CARD: NVIDIA 285GTX & 8800GTX(physx) MEMORY: 2GIG RAM MEMORY: CORSAIR 8500 4GIG IN SLI MODE HARD DRIVES: 10,000 VELOSARAPTORS X 2 HARD DRIVES: 2 (HIGH END) FSX cfg tweaks. You should agree this is a mamoth leap in hardware upgrading,and the whole internet has forums full off similiar threads like this one, and I still spend most of my time not flying but trying to tweak to stop blurries and improving FPS ( I use PMDG 747, HORIZON VFR SCENERY,FRANCEVFR SCENERY, UTX, GEX, REX2, MEGA HEATHROW X etc)..... THE POTENTIAL IS THERE TO HAVE TRUELY UNBELIEVABLY REALISTIC FLYING EXPERIENCE, but regretably performance issues always put stop to this. I must say that aerosofts idea of developing a new sim is a VERY brave venture, because customers would not want to put up with these issues anymore, aerosoft would have to use a completely new platform (architecture) regarding the sims development, and if microsofts team,of almost 16 years development in the simming world came up with FSX and it performance issues...how is aerosoft going to succeed?? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, don"t make the performance an issue if you do go ahead in developing the sim, ..I wish you luck Steve Steve, I think the performance issue was due to the fact that the whole program was more or less patched over the years. Their last attempt should have been to redo the code from the ground up. Unfortunately this would have ######ed off the bean counters because it would have taken them a bit longer to do. I know what you mean about the frustration in upgrading and then still having to tweak and STILL not being able to get rid of the blurries on a state of the art computer. And Microsoft's response to that issue was insulting. Over on Avsim, I personally put up a challenge to the head guy at Aces who had taken over in the middle of the last build to explain how it was that on a very fast computer, with all settings as low as they could go except scenery quality, that I could still have the blurries. This was using like the 152 or something at cruise speed, nothing fast or fancy. I even had the same blurries with the ultra-light. This is even though my far less capable computer when the program came out was perfectly able to run the UL without any blurries at all, well, until they came out with their SP1 at least. I never did get a response from him even though he was extremely active on the forum. I've been using msfs since the mid eighties and always looked forward to the next version. I was always looking for the holy grail and thought we were pretty close with the last version, when I first fired it up and there were no blurries, and it was buttery smooth. Obviously my excitement didn't last too long and ended with sp1, and finally with the notion that MS had no intention of fixing the problems short of a new version. I have no doubt that Aerosoft could build a great simulator from scratch. I do hope that they keep it much like MSFSX, except for the greatly needed improvements to the scenery, flight characteristics, ATC, and a host of other things. FSX was a nice simulator poorly executed. Hopefully Aerosoft won't deviate much from the overall design. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reco 3 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 I have no doubt that Aerosoft could build a great simulator from scratch. I do hope that they keep it much like MSFSX, except for the greatly needed improvements to the scenery, flight characteristics, ATC, and a host of other things. FSX was a nice simulator poorly executed. Hopefully Aerosoft won't deviate much from the overall design. I am of a different opinion. I hope Aerosoft is doing a serious brainstorming in order to come up with new ideas, and I am pretty confident they will do so. Reco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiflyer 129 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 To me, one of the old paradigms that should probably be replaced is the old and tested flight-sim technique of Photo-shop type layers of scenery. Base texture, water textures, roads, auto-gen etc. Its very manually intensive to get it right (look at Orbx!) requires humongous amounts of textures to be moved around (especially when you consider seasonal textures, night lighting textures etc) and by definition it buys fully into the increasingly antique history of buildings jutting in the air off of the sides of mountains, highways as flat, dimensionless ribbons that plow through everything, huge airport "tiles" that don't blend with, and partially obscure the underlying scenery....... In short, its not the future. Its why I keep occasionally mentioning my hope that procedural generation be given a serious look. Suitable algorithms/rules, once created would allow detailed creation of absolutely enormous amounts of terrain by application of appropriate seed data that could be almost instantly modified for maximum artistic impact and resource utilization on the fly! Subtle seasonal changes, building weathering/aging and all sorts of other effects could be changed at need and applied in real-time to create something never seen in the Sim world before. Or not. (I am just dreaming, after all) But wouldn't it be nice?! Or to make a point, here is a video of a game called Kkrieger. Fairly standard graphics, effects etc. Until you realize that the entire game is only 96kb! http://www.youtube.c...h?v=bPXlU6XmvE4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingsub 7 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 please make a simulator that doesn't take hours to load up. A "vanilla" copy of FSX on my PC takes less than a minute to load and a flight only takes a few seconds to load from there. However now that I have 100s of aircraft and scenery files it now takes 5-10 minutes to boot up and a flight as long again to load. I quite often have lost all interest (or fallen asleep) by the time a flight loads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiflyer 129 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 please make a simulator that doesn't take hours to load up. A "vanilla" copy of FSX on my PC takes less than a minute to load and a flight only takes a few seconds to load from there. However now that I have 100s of aircraft and scenery files it now takes 5-10 minutes to boot up and a flight as long again to load. I quite often have lost all interest (or fallen asleep) by the time a flight loads. Defrag, defrag, defrag........ then do it again! a defragger that works automatically on the fly is an FSX necessity for me. My collection of scenerys and etc is getting enormous (Just purchased nearly the entire Orbyx scenery lineup in one go during a recent sale, for instance) and I have nothing near those load times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyoming 2 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 To me, one of the old paradigms that should probably be replaced is the old and tested flight-sim technique of Photo-shop type layers of scenery. Base texture, water textures, roads, auto-gen etc. Its very manually intensive to get it right (look at Orbx!) requires humongous amounts of textures to be moved around (especially when you consider seasonal textures, night lighting textures etc) and by definition it buys fully into the increasingly antique history of buildings jutting in the air off of the sides of mountains, highways as flat, dimensionless ribbons that plow through everything, huge airport "tiles" that don't blend with, and partially obscure the underlying scenery....... In short, its not the future. Its why I keep occasionally mentioning my hope that procedural generation be given a serious look. Suitable algorithms/rules, once created would allow detailed creation of absolutely enormous amounts of terrain by application of appropriate seed data that could be almost instantly modified for maximum artistic impact and resource utilization on the fly! Subtle seasonal changes, building weathering/aging and all sorts of other effects could be changed at need and applied in real-time to create something never seen in the Sim world before. Or not. (I am just dreaming, after all) But wouldn't it be nice?! Or to make a point, here is a video of a game called Kkrieger. Fairly standard graphics, effects etc. Until you realize that the entire game is only 96kb! http://www.youtube.c...h?v=bPXlU6XmvE4 I agree with that and I hope as well. A few years back I would've put my money on a group of mavericks coming from left field with a bunch of innovative ideas. But today... I see more these people creating games rather than a sim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingsub 7 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Defrag, defrag, defrag........ then do it again! a defragger that works automatically on the fly is an FSX necessity for me. My collection of scenerys and etc is getting enormous (Just purchased nearly the entire Orbyx scenery lineup in one go during a recent sale, for instance) and I have nothing near those load times. thanks for the heads up but I defrag all of the time (O&O Defrag 12 Professional) and this seems to make no difference to load times (it helps in terms of performance though). Am I correct in thinking that FSX tries to read every single aircraft and scenery file (which for me is some 540Gb spread over several HDDs) whilst loading instead of just the area and aircraft that you have set or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManuelL 71 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 thanks for the heads up but I defrag all of the time (O&O Defrag 12 Professional) and this seems to make no difference to load times (it helps in terms of performance though). Am I correct in thinking that FSX tries to read every single aircraft and scenery file (which for me is some 540Gb spread over several HDDs) whilst loading instead of just the area and aircraft that you have set or am I missing something? From my experience when FSX gets over 200-250 GB it really starts to slow down. I am now kicking things out I am not using regularly. You might also try de-selecting large sceneries you are not using at the moment in the scenery library. But I'm not sure if this helps a lot. Hard drives also get really slow, when they re too packed. I have a 230 GB installation of FSX on a 1 TB hard drive and it works quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts