How come arcade style flight "sims" are designed with better terrain detail and better special effects than true flight sims

[SkyStrike]

Hi again..

 

Here's another question I have: How come arcade style flight "sims" have better special effects and terrain detail than true flight sims?

 

I understand since arcade style games must have exaggerated special effects in order to increase thrills & appeal, However,

 

This is the point I'm trying to make:

 

For games like Secret Weapons Over Normandy, Blazing Angels and a few others there's a motion blur effect. In real life shouldn't it be the same because most, if not all aerial confilcts since WWII (and afterwards) , took place at speeds in excess of 200 mph.... How come none of the true sims have that??

 

And both the above mentioned games have well detailed terrain, towns & cities... most of the true sims don't have well detailed towns & cities....

 

For example games like CFS3, Although the aircraft detail is pretty decent, the same can't be said for the terrain.. Even when you fly over areas like Dover, you dont see famous landmarks like the famous White Cliffs... Whereas in Secret Weapons over Normandy, during the "Battle Of Britain" mission which takes place over the White Cliffs of Dover, they're well detailed...

 

As for detailed sky effects, towns & cities; Blazing Angels is pretty good: London with the Tower Bridge, Paris with the Eiffel Tower, and both cities appear to be quite extensive....(even though the game's joystick control interface is absolutely hopeless, but that's a different story..) Even the sky effects with clouds refracting sunlight appear differently at Dawn, noon & dusk... Not even the IL-2 series have these effects even though they're also designed by Ubisoft. (However, I personally feel the IL-2 series are also more worth playing than Blazing Angels other than the special effects)

 

Is there a mod to bring out a motion blur effect in th IL-2 series, CFS3 and the Thirdwire jet combat sim series (SF:P1, WoV, & WoE) ?

 

Thanks.

 

Cheers!

Edited September 25, 2007 by Tomcat_ace

[eraser_tr]

Get an LCD monitor with a slow response rate

 

Seriously, because such effects use up processing power. Rivet counters and Luftwhiners would rather see avionics calculations exactly as an F-16 uses them than to be able to turn into the sun and be blinded by a bright HDR effect and use hiding in the sun as a real tactic.

 

Most sims also cover a very broad area. Sure you have the white cliffs of Dover in blazing angels and you don't in CFS3, but can you fly to berlin and back in a B-17 with all of europe being equally detailed in it? Scenery tends to be much more generic because you have a continent to recreate, vector and landclass data instead of hand placed villages.

 

Though poke around the CFS3 mods, some huge scenery improvements are available.

[Wolf65]

I guess that do to the fact that arcade games tend to go more for action packed explosions and eye candy graphics, while flight sims go more for the realism and feeling.

[SkyStrike]

Though poke around the CFS3 mods, some huge scenery improvements are available.

 

Could you post some links where these mods are available?

 

 

Thanks..

[tn_prvteye]

Arcade-type sims have to sacrifice something in order to get those shiny graphics. That something would be Flight Models. It's all about physics, man. It takes a whole bunch of computing power to get a realistic feeling of flight. Do arcade sims have spins or stalls? Nope. How about ground effect or crosswinds? Not there. Most everyday-Joe gamers don't want to set the mixture controls or mess with prop pitch.

 

Take a look at FSX. It's got some of the prettiest graphics of any flight sim, ever....including light bloom. But when you turn the graphics on, it slows to a crawl. Even the latest PCs can't run it maxed out. I should know, I've got an Alienware that only gets single digit frames when I max out the graphics. And you could argue that the FM in FSX is a bit dodgy, but that's another thread...

[+JediMaster]

Actually, I think it's more that since those arcade games are about the visuals over the fidelity so they have the manpower to devote to it. The masses want it to look pretty, they don't care about climb rates.

[+Typhoid]

Get an LCD monitor with a slow response rate

 

no thanks, I already have one......

 

[+Fates]

How come arcade style flight "sims" have better special effects and terrain detail than true flight sims?

 

Because Arcades Games are Hellakoo!

[SkyStrike]

Because Arcades Games are Hellakoo!

 

Could you please translate that into ordinary English if you don't mind?

 

Thanks...

[+saint aj]

Could you please translate that into ordinary English if you don't mind?

 

Thanks...

 

No

[SkyStrike]

No

 

I wasn't asking you...

Edited September 26, 2007 by Tomcat_ace

[+JediMaster]

Hella cool--irritating way of saying you like something.

[SkyStrike]

Hella cool--irritating way of saying you like something.

 

Thanks for the info...

[+Fubar512]

JSF_Aggie's rather detailed reply (on the other thread you started), should have given you an idea.

 

To keep it short and sweet, the answer is processing power. That's why flight sims on game consoles are somewhat of a joke, given the current state of technology, even though they may look "pretty".