Which is the better image now .

THE_MASK · 12-10-09, 10:31 PM

Reece · 12-11-09, 12:25 AM

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

12-11-09, 12:37 AM

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.

Reece · 12-11-09, 12:50 AM

Quote:

people will only see what they want to see.

Hee Hee!!

looney · 12-11-09, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

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.

I love the nude sunbathing girls in pic 2

JScones · 12-11-09, 01:48 AM

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?

etheberge · 12-11-09, 02:31 AM

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.

JScones · 12-11-09, 02:43 AM

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?

)...

ichso · 12-11-09, 04:06 AM

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

Arclight · 12-11-09, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etheberge

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.

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.

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

karamazovnew · 12-11-09, 05:13 AM

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.

Boris · 12-11-09, 06:52 AM

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

Reece · 12-11-09, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris

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

Now how would you know that Boris??

JU_88 · 12-11-09, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris

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

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.

Seeadler · 12-11-09, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karamazovnew

FSX looks very good tho. And it's the only flight sim where the illusion of distance and dimensions are well made.

FSX screenshot with DirectX10 enabled

12-10-09, 10:31 PM	#1
THE_MASK Ace of the deep . Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,226 Downloads: 901 Uploads: 73	Which is the better image now . Last edited by THE_MASK; 12-11-09 at 01:03 AM.

12-11-09, 12:25 AM	#2
Reece CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Down Under Posts: 34,709 Downloads: 171 Uploads: 0	The first one, the water in the second looks sort of like it has a skin on it! __________________ *Sub captains go down with their ship!*

12-11-09, 02:31 AM	#7
etheberge Watch Officer Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Montreal, QC Posts: 345 Downloads: 614 Uploads: 10	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. __________________ 11 War Patrols / 56 ships sunk or damaged for 212,022 tons Zero casualties throughout the war Scuttled on 8 May, 1945 in Sonderburg Bay, after German surrender

12-11-09, 04:06 AM	#9
ichso Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Germany's oldest city alive Posts: 1,066 Downloads: 57 Uploads: 0	The best picture in your post is actually your Ernie&Bert signature __________________ My Subskins: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=164169

12-11-09, 12:37 AM	#3
Webster Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.

12-11-09, 01:48 AM	#6
JScones Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,501 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	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?

12-11-09, 02:43 AM	#8
JScones Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,501 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	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? )...

12-11-09, 05:13 AM	#11
karamazovnew The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 1,403 Downloads: 151 Uploads: 0	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.

12-11-09, 06:52 AM	#12
Boris Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hamburg, Germany Posts: 1,691 Downloads: 41 Uploads: 0	Um... the first image looks like something out of a jehova's witness pamphlet