Graphics In The New Sim

[derickavery]

I don't know if this should have been part of the "things I'd like to see in the new Sim" thread.

Graphics would effect how movement is seen, example, a train in motion, correct? The frames per second (frame rates) is what makes it seems like jerkiness or a clitch, correct?

Will there be better graphics in the new Sim? Thanks in advance for all input to this question.

[sstyrnol]

>Will there be better graphics in the new Sim? Thanks in
>advance for all input to this question.

You bet! At least it's built on the FSX platform...

[bm_89]

As one might suspect, the overall look ( by that I mean the animations, shadows, textures and 3d models ) of the new sim will be better than MSTS, which is currently outdated. As far as framerates go, if you run the new sim on a computer that isn't a fairly up-to-date gaming system, you might experience low framerates.

[BNSF4723]

Frame rates are up to your computer's hardware and what settings you run the simulator at. Graphically, the game should look leaps and bounds better than MSTS. I suppose this should be a given, noting it's age.

[wakeboarder82]

All you need to do is browse the screenshots of FSX to get a glimpse of what to expect. I'm sure there will be differences though. I would expect to see more ground detail and less distant detail given the basic difference between flying and riding the rails. I'm positive that the new sim will be leaps and bounds better than the old graphics.

Something else to keep in mind is that just because everyone does not have the latest hardware does not mean they can't enjoy the new sim. I see a lot of posts on the forums with people concerned about their old PC. Think of it this way (and this is my situation with FSX): Even with the sliders turned down in the new sim you will still get the other benefits of the software. It's like running the old sim as far as graphics and performance are concerned but with new features and capabilities. I just don't get why people get angry about advancing the graphics in these games. They give you the ability to use crappy graphics via adjustable sliders, but for some reason, people want to be able to max out the sliders. They would rather have a program that is crappy so that they can keep the sliders up rather than giving the folks with high end PCs a chance to push it to the limit.

[muskokaandtahoe]

I do have some concerns that MSTS-X will be a graphics program in search of a sim. It just seems that taking another game engine and moving it over to a new topic... well, all that really does is move the graphics, the motion formulas, and the game loop. Everything that's actually about the new topic -- on this case railroads -- has to be created from scratch. FWIW, IMO the later should be open source -- let the hobbiest who know do what they know and have MS, who knows graphics and threading, do what they know.

Where I'm going w/ this concern is this: I don't care how beautiful an image you can produce of the south end of a northbound Husky (dog) can be... I want a RR sim. Don't bother showing me screenshots of Xbox-like water or of a 60,000 poly locomotive skinned by professional artists... give me a list of the signalling / train control methods supported or explain how the power curve of steam locomotives will be calculated. Explain how scenarios are created / managed and what functions the sim editor supports.

Uber-Graphics? Hey, so long as they give us 32 bit color... I really don't care.

[b]Dave Nelson
SLW Route Design: The Cal-P, 1950.[b]
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/Dancing_Genma.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/4ad3d633.jpg

[sstyrnol]

Yeah I see your concern as well. This is one of the reasons I still wish TMTS wouldn't have been cancelled. But at the end of the day, we still have yet to see what they come up with before judging anything.

MS have to see that there is a different and more serious target group than just the average gaming kiddies.

[bm_89]

Well, I'm nowhere near an (airline) pilot, but FSX seems to be quite realistic. Hopefully they'll do the same for MSTS-X.

[OTTODAD]

Well, I'm nowhere near an (airline) pilot, but FSX seems to be quite realistic. Hopefully they'll do the same for MSTS-X.

Well, I am a real pilot (PPL) and there is a lot in FSX planes where things don't work like they do in real planes, such as flying ILS approaches with the Autopilot and other functions !

The same goes for Train Simulators, their locos, infrastructure and switches I expect to look and work just like the real ones. Graphical eye-candy is secondary to me !

O t t o

[Armchair_Engo]

One interesting aspect of any improved graphics capabilites in the next generation MSTS is that to actually use those capabilities the modellers will have more work to do.
I see this affecting route design and scenery design as well.

I imagine that a lot of the polys in a MSFS-X aircraft are there to make the aircraft smooth on the outside like the real thing.
Locos tend to have a lot of, umm, "sticky-outy" bits when you look at them close up, stuff like hand rails, bogie details, brakes, horns etc.
Somebody will have to model and assemble all those fiddly sticky-outy bits to make the rolling stock and scenery look better than they do currently.
Lets say MSTS-X will be able to render ten times the detail as 1.x for the same framerate. How do you modellers (both freeware and payware) feel about putting in maybe ten times the work into a model?

Like Otto, I would prefer superb physics to superb graphics if I had to make a choice. However, the more performance variables there are to put into a .eng file of some sort, there more there is to get wrong.
Is every physical property and performance parameter for every loco ever made readily available? I think not and I don't see MSTS-X changing that.
Is every .eng file for every currently available loco model as good as it possibly could be? I doubt it.
You can't ring up a long-defunct manufacturer and say "Hi, I need a few details on a locos you made 50 years ago...what was the water usage rate of the boiler condensate drain on loco XYZ?...oh good, and what what the steam usage rate of the steam-operated firebox door on loco ABC, per stroke? ...thanks... by the way, do you have the aerodynamic drag coefficient for loco DEF?... oh, that's better than I thought... thankyou... yes I'll certainly call back if I have more questions, bye."

[djt]

“Like Otto, I would prefer superb physics to superb graphics if I had to make a choice.”

I think you’re getting Otto and the “plainsman” (Bob Boudoin) mixed up.

I don’t think Otto along with a lot of other folks here would really know the difference between riding a skateboard or running a 12,000 ton train, or care for that matter.

[USRailFan]

Otto has proven many times that he does not care about proper physics, e.g. having admitted to making an 89-foot boxcar behaving the same way as a 200mph ICE-3 intermediate car...

[TrainMan_112]

Physics are important, and so are graphics. I'd like to see an equal balance.

[CajunRon]

>Lets say MSTS-X will be able to render ten times the detail as
>1.x for the same framerate. How do you modellers (both
>freeware and payware) feel about putting in maybe ten times
>the work into a model?
>

Actually, as a modeller, I have spent probably more time trying to model some respectible level of detail while keeping the poly count as low as possible than I would have, had I been able to use a higher poly count. I believe every modeler out there would jump for joy with the ability to create higher poly models.

(And there are some "rivet counters" who would be in hog heaven if we could model each rivet instead of trying to draw them into the texture ;) It would really still be up to each modeller as to how much detail he wanted to model but it would give the rivet counters to ability to produce exquisite models.