Which is the better image now .
 

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/9...tordx10499.jpg



http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4879/sh5screen.jpg
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8...5screenbaw.jpg

The first one, the water in the second looks sort of like it has a skin on it!:O:

they need to at least be of simular image, time, weather, and backgrounds to be able to compare them.

otherwise people will only see what they want to see.

Hee Hee!!:03:

I love the nude sunbathing girls in pic 2 ;)

Perhaps disappointingly, the first one...which I'll point out is over three years older than the second one and your compressed version of it does not do the actual image any justice.

The less compressed version is at http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/reso...03/ds10fss.jpg

But comparing the graphics from a flight sim to a sub sim? Why? :hmmm:

As far as I know the first image was early concept art of what FSX might look like with DirectX10, it was an artist's rendition. At least the water, sky, clouds and sun rays are completely fake.

:rotfl2: Kinda ruins the comparison then.

Perhaps, to ensure the responses that are undoubtedly sought, the "fake" picture should be substituted with this more relevant picture...being a sub sim with wolfpacks and all (see, they were doing them back in 1983, how hard could it be? ;):rotfl2:)...

http://ui01.gamefaqs.com/1536/gfs_797_2_1.jpg

The best picture in your post is actually your Ernie&Bert signature :O:

Exactly. Nothing of it is ingame.

It's one of the screens MS tried to pass of as genuine to get people hyped up for DX10. :nope:

Even then I think the SH5 screens look better; haze in the air and the lighting is correct. Looks a lot more realistic.

To be honest, MS must've had one low standard artist. The image looked like badly made photoshop image. I remember people complaining back then that MS was taking us for idiots. FSX looks very good tho. And it's the only flight sim where the illusion of distance and dimensions are well made. Flying throught he mountains in FS2004 felt weird. Doing the same in FSX was a completely different experience. Mountains really looked as big as mountains.

The same can also be said about SH5. The movie mostly shows high speed cameras at high altitudes, but at sea level the size of the ships feels just right. All that extra detail sure shows. :up:

Um... the first image looks like something out of a jehova's witness pamphlet

Now how would you know that Boris??:03:

Yes it does, Ive seen those pamphlets, It just needs all the sickly looking people in cardigans stroking wild animals.

All of which suggests that in Paradise, Carnivorous animials turn veggie and you will be forced to wear cothes from grandmas catalouge.

The Flight Sim x pic is properganda anyway. I have never seen an actual Screenshot of the game looking like that.
The SHV screens are far more credible.

FSX screenshot with DirectX10 enabled

http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...3161373566.jpg

Nou that's a great screen...

Well, there are some mountains close to my parent's home. I know them by heart and have climbed all their valleys and stood on every peak. With Global Terrain in FSX they just felt like a bunch of polygons close by. In FSX however, even in the default terrain (same resolution for that part of Europe) it blew me away. I really felt like they were mountains 1500 meters higher than the small town I was over. The haze and textures play a huge part in this. It's one of those "subtle but important" things that make you play a game. I hope SH5 will have the same makeover :D

Can someone explain the relevance here to Silent Hunter 5?

Meh, it started of with a comparison between a DX10 artists impression of FSX and an actual ingame shot from SH5. I'm not sure there really was any relevance to begin with. :D

i dont know either but it has wolfpacks thanks to JScones reply :up:

in the beginning i thought it was something serious about comparing grafics but i guess its a joke thread to get people comparing fake images to sh5 trailer

Edit: if there is a point to it i dont get it :06: