Bdsbob

My Feedback: (20)

I have G2 and well as G3 and the graphics are just that - graphics. I downloaded the Reflex XTR demo and all I can say is WOW ! The photorealistic scenes blow G3 away!
Does anyone have any ideas as to why G3 didn't go the photorealistic route?

peefiddyonefan

Well I don't think you could have pylon racing or Limbo contests online with photo scenery? Also notice in G3 clouds moving and trees sway on the breeze.

Bdsbob

My Feedback: (20)

I see your point. However, I don't notice trees swaying and clouds moving when my eyes are fixed on flying a plane. This is true for me if I am flying R/C or the sim. I just feel that the graphics are too cartoon-like.

r1derbike

I asked about why not photo backgrounds in G3 and the answer was it was a step backward in technology. Where G3 "active" scenery really shines is slope soaring. You really see the different cloud layers moving in different directions as you fly. I don't notice active scenery as I'm flying on fields, unless I buzz the ribbon and windsocks. You have to notice the movement then. The wind modeling is actually pretty cool.

Charles

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I haven't seen either program, but I have worked in combat simulation for the military.

Okay, if we assume that a sim is written correctly without any programming mistakes, then we have tradeoffs. The tradeoffs are targeted for a certain range of processors, speed of the CPU, busses, graphics chips & cards, and other things that end up making a system a certain speed range. It really depends upon the skill of the programmers and the choices they make. Mistakes can clog the system, choke buffers, overload everything, or simply be poorly debugged. Too much scenery detail robs you of available horsepower for physics and planes moving around. The meat of any sim is the plane with vertices to model it (as in wireframe views). Then, you skin it. Things move on it. Then, you need the physics engine to make the flight profiles. That can be a heavy demand on a processor. Then, you get into how detailed can you make the scenery without bogging the program down. Some companies rob the flight model and physics and opt heavily on the scenery. Some give you options. All software companies look at the programming effort, and dictate marketing considerations. That is why you sometimes get buggy software. They need the money and ship it too early. Some take out options, which may be good or bad. The marketing types have a heavy hand in ruling how it gets sent to Gold Master for production.

Options to look for would be shadows on or off, if selectable. Some give you a method or form of Area of Interest. Basically, that is the clearly focusing area around the plane. You may notice backgrounds and the edges of your monitor soften. That helps CPU loads. Level of detail for sound takes a toll, and some give you options to relieve the processor.

It is always interesting to see the different sims, computer gaming or r/c, to see the approaches, the exploitation of the technology, and what marketing decided to sell you.

In the G3 version, wind in the trees and accurate simulation for thermals seems high on the priority list.

Bdsbob

My Feedback: (20)

All,

I picked up Aerofly Pro Deluxe today at the WRAM show. I REALLY like flying with the photorealistic scenery. There are only a handful of the photorealistic scenes that come with the product. The others are the cartoon-like graphics of G2.

Needless to say, my G3 is now up for sale!


Thanks for everyone's input.

cfossa

My Feedback: (5)

I saw Reflex XTR at the WRAM show today and was very impressed ... but did not pick it up since I already have AFP, G2, and G3.

Carl