squid 21 Posted January 6, 2011 Checking out what the AC6 engine could do for us (but apparently won't) http://acecombatskies.com/index.php?autocom=gallery&req=si&img=117 http://acecombatsix.com/ Darn the consoles. Anyone maybe a spare console to give me ? :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fubar512 1,350 Posted January 6, 2011 The anology that comes to mind is "pretty, but stupid". Graphics are nice, but you need real computing power to run a simulator (even a "lite" one ), as opposed to an arcade game, which is what consoles are best suited for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squid 21 Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) God in all his wisdom, issued a worthy role for the pretty but stupid, too Edited January 6, 2011 by squid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xclusiv8 35 Posted January 6, 2011 I cant totally agree with you fubar. Graphics are calculated on the gpu, physics on the cpu in most sims. What you need to make these kind of graphics and still make it realistic is lots of money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squid 21 Posted January 6, 2011 i sense a point here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Stary 2,427 Posted January 6, 2011 Graphics are important part. And the "core" simulation part doesn't take that much in fact, all goes down to optimization of code. Falcon 3.0 was running on what, 386DX processor? Now more computing power has every cheap smartphone-wannabe. Falcon 4.0, I remember playing demo on my Pentium 166Mhz with 32MB of ram and Voodoo 1. Was it bad simulation? No, it's still perhaps among the best as F-16 systems modelling goes. Similar case with the forgotten JSF, remember the quality of terrain masking and ground environment in that title? Still ahead of what the our most popular series here has to offer as far as ground environment goes I played that one on even older Pentium 90 with 8 MB of ram. DID's titles are another example of (then I admit) high fidelity simulations running on ancient computers by todays standards. But, in my own biased opinion, we aren't much more HiFi as systems modelling goes these days. Recently I was suprised how in fact survey, or "lite", and innacurate in avionics modelling, Flamming Cliffs 2 are. DCS series seem only one modern example of real high fidelity titles around, but I haven't played them, so can't really say. Xclusiv is right about the money, the example console title (Ace Combat6) mostly rely on high resolution satellite data which costs a lot of money. So-so quality 2x2 kilometers picture for commercial use costs around 90-100 dollars up, as I found myself. @Squid: we're talking flight simulations, not women here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 7, 2011 To paraphrase Mr Spock, graphics are the beginning of a simulation, not the end of it. If the graphics are sub-par, the immersion of the simulation fails. However, if the graphics are spot on but the rest of it is inaccuarate, you're left with a pretty arcade game, not a sim. The main difference is a sim doesn't need to look AS good, but it still needs to be at least competitive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Stary 2,427 Posted January 7, 2011 That's why I consider Wings of Prey the best WW2 simulation to date (yes it's a simulation). It's the looks and feel of "being there" over rooftoops of burning Stalingrad that delivers the experience. Today, being away from my main gaming/simming/modding system I finally bought copy of HAWX (the first one), this title is prime example of pure arcade title, with good but not great graphics (mind you, I'm in mission one, on low end single core Dx9 system here), but also not pretending to be more serious than it can be. Which is ok for me, what hurts me are in fact quite serious titles (guess which series... ) pretending they are "lite", and as such doesn't requiring complex (battle)environment thus "suspending" the simulation experience when looking outside the canopyglass.tga Mr who? "I was always more of a Star Wars guy" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast 153 Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Okay who brought up the pointy eared green goblin... Star wars is much more fun because its dirty... And me I want simulation no arcade I want the balance between the 2 instead of something that looks drop dead gorgeous... Its like a girlfriend I want an attractive one with the brains not the drop dead gorgeous one with the airhead... The airhead is fun for a quick night out but the attractive one is the one you keep... Edited January 7, 2011 by Slartibartfast Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Stary 2,427 Posted January 8, 2011 The airhead one gives you head, an attractive one with the brains makes you helpless, been there, done that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squid 21 Posted January 10, 2011 LOL LOL See Stary ? its all about the women LOL Our hobbies are probably manifestations of freudian slips :p I still keep hopes though for some of the attractive ones lol Btw about the actual topic :P i agree with Stary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
