Steveyb 0 Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 ....Well, I don"t care how long it takes, just try not to make it another frame rate dilema Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinetic2080 0 Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 If I was in a company like Aerosoft I would probably be weighting if creating new simulator would be profitable compared to releasing addons for FSX. Maybe the maximum potential of the FSX engine was reached with scenery packages like VFR Germany 2010? Not to mention the latest AP's. But then similar projects for other areas of the world could of course be very profitable, and then why make a new simulator yet? But Aerosoft released Værnes X for my country, which I consider an optimum airport, so I'm all ready for a new simulator even now if it gets even better hehehe -Arvid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liam727 45 Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 ....Well, I don"t care how long it takes, just try not to make it another frame rate dilema yea you said it man thats the biggest problem. always has been with sims of all kinds. I'd be just as pleased to have by the time I graduate college. of course by then we will be carrying machines at least 2-3 times the power of the ones and average person has now. just please, make it pretty, and make it smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted July 21, 2010 Aerosoft Share Posted July 21, 2010 yea you said it man thats the biggest problem. always has been with sims of all kinds. I'd be just as pleased to have by the time I graduate college. of course by then we will be carrying machines at least 2-3 times the power of the ones and average person has now. just please, make it pretty, and make it smooth. I am not too afraid of framerates. The whole MSFS range has been very slow to use hardware, from multicore cpu/gpu to the more advanced hardware DirectX supported options. There is a lot to gain there. Certainly is we move to 64 bits and get a lot more memory to play with. HOWEVER... and this is important. At the base of all computer graphics are the polygons and bitmaps and FSX is simply not too slow in displaying that. The problem is that you got these huge (up to 100 mile) vision lines so there is a HUGE amount of stuff to show (or to decide it is too far to show in full detail or at all). If you take any of our major airports and you are talking about millions of polygons, there is almost no game that has to show those kinds of numbers. And every polygon takes time, there is no optimizing possible at that level. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk83 7 Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Now to be perfectly honest there is nothing in those screenshots that impresses me. I am sure the real thing will be way better then the 256 color, low res, no shading and no advanced GPU images in that video. If you, frkaipanik, like that as graphics you will be blown away by already released stuff like Rise of Flight. There is nothing in detail I can say at this moment other then anything we are looking at is a lot better then these screenshots, lol. But there IS movement, loads of people flying to all parts of the world t discuss things. You should give it a chance, this are honest WIP shots from a simulator that is not even being beta tested. The progress documented by such screenshots over the year is very steep. Terrain does not (yet)look that good, but default scenery in FSX does neither. Lighting however seems excellent. There're some more screenshots in higher res collected here: http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/sow-screenshots-02-juli-2010/ From what was made public this engine, developed for the planned "Storm of War" series of combat flight sims, seems to be ideal as a base for a project like yours: -The engine was developed for flightsims, not ego shooters or something else -thus weather engine, flight physics, damage modeling already included -designed to be easily expandable by 3rd party, just like MSFS -Dx9, 10 and 11 -round earth model, can depict global scenery 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strid 1 Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Storm of War: Oleg Maddox Russian Interview (Partial) A: Considering what I've said already, and given an initial commercial success of BoB, here's what I see: 1. Some number of developers internationally that worked with MSFS, and probably a large part of them too, will convert to our side. This is especially to be expected considering the recent closing of Aces studio. So these add-on developers might just start making add-ons for Storm of War. I think this might even include jets, including modern ones. At the very least I would expect someone to do Vietnam, not to mention WWI. This should happen too. Generally WWI aircraft are easier to model and program, since they don't have such complex aerodynamics, no retractable landing gear, propeller pitch, and other advanced devices. There's also no radio, which means there's no need to develop and record radio chatter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lollipop 1 Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frkaipanika 9 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Lockheed Martin continues to develope FSX... With ACES studio members http://www.prepar3d.com/experience/Experience.aspx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts