• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What do you think of my FS2004 Screenshots?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ucdbiendog
Originally posted by: Xionide
This will be one of the first games to support dual monitor gaming from what I have seen. Cant wait.
Click to expand...

i tried getting dual monitors to work with it, i had no luck. is it not supported yet?
Click to expand...

You have to put FS2004 into windowed mode and drag whichever window(s) you want to the other monitor.
 
i've been playing fs2004, and i have to say the graphics in the air are amazing. landscapes on the other hand kind of suck.
 
Originally posted by: dethman
i've been playing fs2004, and i have to say the graphics in the air are amazing. landscapes on the other hand kind of suck.
Click to expand...

Que? I take it you haven't done any tweaking of the fs9 config file, nor are you running high details in the sim, nor are you running anisotropic filtering...
I've done all of the above and there's nothing lacking from my FS2k4 flying experience. Great visuals and the sim is smooth in virtually all conditions.
Edit: the fact that you call it "playing" rather than simming/flying implies that you have not done any of the above 😉 If you view MSFS only as a game you're missing out on a lot of fun. They call it a *simulator* for a reason 😉
 
Originally posted by: Liviathan
What do you think of the graphics? I just got this last week. I have a monster system and I always feel like the graphics are not at 100%.
Click to expand...

The pic of Las Vegas is pathetic. That looks like its straight out of FS '95 which I had when I first got my PC.
The mountains look pretty cool but if the city landscapes look like that, I'll pass. (thought about picking up that sim)
 
Originally posted by: Pocatello
What's a good joystick for MS Flight Simulator?
Click to expand...

Anything that has a Z-axis, throttle, HAT switch, and costs more than $30 is likely to be a good stick. *Always* try before you buy a joystick, too. If it doesn't feel comfortable in your hand you're not going to enjoy playing a game with it so, regardless of the features or cost, make sure it *feels* right for you.
 
I tried to post a link to some screenies last night, but the site I was linking to was either down or my sh!tty DSL was acting up again. Anyway, here's the link. Some of you avid simmers may recognize the site 😉
No offense to anyone who's posted pics in this thread so far, but if you want to see what screenshots are *supposed* to look like, follow the link.
 
Microsoft seems to think that the way to achieve realistic graphics is to use satelite photos of the earth to texture the ground. However, I have always found the effect to be completely fake-looking. I mean, look at the grand canyon pic. I've been in aircraft up high, and the earth does not look like that. I have always found the less cluttered terrain of, say, IL-2:FB to be much more convincing (however, IL-2:FB's graphics engine kinda falls apart way up high, though.).

Anyway, thats my .02.

 
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
Microsoft seems to think that the way to achieve realistic graphics is to use satelite photos of the earth to texture the ground. However, I have always found the effect to be completely fake-looking. I mean, look at the grand canyon pic. I've been in aircraft up high, and the earth does not look like that. I have always found the less cluttered terrain of, say, IL-2:FB to be much more convincing (however, IL-2:FB's graphics engine kinda falls apart way up high, though.).

Anyway, thats my .02.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own (albeit un-posed) question. MSFS's ground textures are made to be viewed from high altitudes (I believe it's 20,000 feet and above) whereas most combat sims are designed to be viewed from low altitudes. This is just due to the nature of the flying in each type of sim. Most people who use MSFS don't fly around at 50 feet straffing the ground like combat simmers do 😉
If only MS had different sets of textures designed to be viewed at different altitudes... One for low (0-10,000 ft) one for medium (10,000-20,000 ft) and one for high (20,000+ ft) I think that would be a much better solution than the current one...
 
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
Microsoft seems to think that the way to achieve realistic graphics is to use satelite photos of the earth to texture the ground. However, I have always found the effect to be completely fake-looking. I mean, look at the grand canyon pic. I've been in aircraft up high, and the earth does not look like that. I have always found the less cluttered terrain of, say, IL-2:FB to be much more convincing (however, IL-2:FB's graphics engine kinda falls apart way up high, though.).

Anyway, thats my .02.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own (albeit un-posed) question. MSFS's ground textures are made to be viewed from high altitudes (I believe it's 20,000 feet and above) whereas most combat sims are designed to be viewed from low altitudes. This is just due to the nature of the flying in each type of sim. Most people who use MSFS don't fly around at 50 feet straffing the ground like combat simmers do 😉
If only MS had different sets of textures designed to be viewed at different altitudes... One for low (0-10,000 ft) one for medium (10,000-20,000 ft) and one for high (20,000+ ft) I think that would be a much better solution than the current one...
Click to expand...


I said that IL-2's gfx engine falls apart up high, I didn't say Ms2004's shines there.

The problem I have with MS's terrain gfx is that it doesn't look right from any altitude. At altitudes 20000-40000 feet, IL-2:FB looks fantastic, especially around 22000 feet (at which alt you begin to leave contrails).

the terrain on MS's products just looks fake compared to that. Its like (actually, it is) just looking at a picture from far away.
 
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
Microsoft seems to think that the way to achieve realistic graphics is to use satelite photos of the earth to texture the ground. However, I have always found the effect to be completely fake-looking. I mean, look at the grand canyon pic. I've been in aircraft up high, and the earth does not look like that. I have always found the less cluttered terrain of, say, IL-2:FB to be much more convincing (however, IL-2:FB's graphics engine kinda falls apart way up high, though.).

Anyway, thats my .02.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own (albeit un-posed) question. MSFS's ground textures are made to be viewed from high altitudes (I believe it's 20,000 feet and above) whereas most combat sims are designed to be viewed from low altitudes. This is just due to the nature of the flying in each type of sim. Most people who use MSFS don't fly around at 50 feet straffing the ground like combat simmers do 😉
If only MS had different sets of textures designed to be viewed at different altitudes... One for low (0-10,000 ft) one for medium (10,000-20,000 ft) and one for high (20,000+ ft) I think that would be a much better solution than the current one...
Click to expand...


I said that IL-2's gfx engine falls apart up high, I didn't say Ms2004's shines there.

The problem I have with MS's terrain gfx is that it doesn't look right from any altitude. At altitudes 20000-40000 feet, IL-2:FB looks fantastic, especially around 22000 feet (at which alt you begin to leave contrails).

the terrain on MS's products just looks fake compared to that. Its like (actually, it is) just looking at a picture from far away.
Click to expand...

If the terrain in MSFS doesn't appear "right" at high altitudes on your system, then you either don't know what "right" is or your system is not configured properly for MSFS. I've been using MSFS for a decade now (in addition to countless other GA & combat sims) and out of all the sims out there, MSFS has the best terrain textures (when viewed at high altitudes) by far. IL-2 looks better at low-mid altitudes, MSFS looks better at high altitudes. End of story. You don't have to agree with me on this one, thousands of users here and here will back me up on that one 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top