Page 1 of 1

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:59 pm
by JonARNZ
I was doing some testing of my new AI package in FSX to see how compatible it was and was interested to note the difference between the same locations in FS9 and FSX, in this case my new NZPN AFCAD airport for the Sounds Air/Air 2 There pack coming very shortly.

Both sets of images are at the same location (NZPN), the aerial shots are taken at the same altitude. The FS9 shots are using 75meter NZ mesh (It will be interesting to see what difference the 20m mesh makes.) Autogen maxed and new water textures. The FSX shots are using the default mesh, autogen set to normal and default water set to 2x mid.

In all cases the FS9 Screenshot is first, then the FSX equivalent.

user posted image
user posted image

user posted image
user posted image

user posted image
user posted image

user posted image
user posted image

user posted image
user posted image

user posted image
user posted image

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:14 pm
by ZK-Brock
Aye, you can see that FSX IS a big leap forward. I wasn't much of a fan of those rocky textures on the FS9 hills there.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:18 pm
by Ian Warren
SUPERB! Jon - the best way to show the diff , and heck nothing wrong with X .. Xmas pc hunting ;)

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:29 pm
by Jenks
I admit it looks very nice with all the autogen, although you may want to trim the trees back from the sides of the runway there!

Unfortunately for most of us though, we still can't even turn autogen on, let alone get it maxed out :(

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:50 pm
by Zöltuger
very true. even on low autogen, frame rates plummit. can't complain tho, overall it's a great game

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:46 pm
by JonARNZ
The trees are part of the challenge, are they not? :rolleyes: It certainly makes bush flying an extreme sport, I just doubt the passengers will appreciate that

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:48 am
by ardypilot
Thanks for sharing those shots Jon, the difference between the two sims is very clear!

May I ask what fs9 textures that you are using? They do not appear to be the default RBE landclass and roads there...?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 1:15 pm
by toprob
Being a cynic from way back, since I first saw FSX I assumed that this was a conscious direction by Microsoft -- people rave about bush flying, so let's cram in as much as we can around little airports and make everything bush-like.
However the result is nice. When MS borrow an idea they do it really really well.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:01 pm
by Ray
Jon, great comparison shots
also be interested in your FSX terrain settings in those pic's ie:
Level of detail radius..........
Mesh complexity.............
Mesh resolution.........
Texture resolution..........
and whether you had land detail textures checked :)

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:07 am
by JonARNZ
Ray wrote: Jon, great comparison shots
also be interested in your FSX terrain settings in those pic's ie:
Level of detail radius..........
Mesh complexity.............
Mesh resolution.........
Texture resolution..........
and whether you had land detail textures checked :)

Hi,

The detals are as follows:

LOD Radius - Medium
Mesh Complex - 75
Mesh Resolution - 38
Texture Resolution - 1m
Land Details Tex - Checked

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:12 am
by JonARNZ
Trolly wrote: Thanks for sharing those shots Jon, the difference between the two sims is very clear!

May I ask what fs9 textures that you are using? They do not appear to be the default RBE landclass and roads there...?

Well spotted Andrew, I installed RealityPack 1.2 (free download from AVSIM) that effectively replaces all the textures with new ones. I have found the visuals to be heaps better, I also installed replacement road textures, can't remember the name off hand. They are pretty good, you do get unrealistic night effects however as they are lit like you would see in a city, which is fine, but not great in rural locations.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:14 am
by Ray
Thanks Jon :)
I'll now check out the extras :thumbup:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:58 pm
by Jimmy
Something iv noticed is FSX seems to focus so much more on vfr flying. Look at all the screenies during the install of fsx for example, only very few actuly are of jets...

MS have put so much effort into the trees and terrain mesh, what have they done for those who like to sit at FL350? I havent noticed any improvments really, the airbridge doesnt even work :lol:

James

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:46 pm
by JonARNZ
Jimmy wrote: Something iv noticed is FSX seems to focus so much more on vfr flying. Look at all the screenies during the install of fsx for example, only very few actuly are of jets...

MS have put so much effort into the trees and terrain mesh, what have they done for those who like to sit at FL350? I havent noticed any improvments really, the airbridge doesnt even work :lol:

James

Check your settings for the animation Jimmy, I'm a heavy flyer as well, the new VC's, improved 2D panels etc have made me a happy chappy for the time being at FL350 :P

Try flying at dawn and dusk, you cant beat sunrise/sunset at hight altitude.