Demongornot

Sorry can you reformulate both, my English is not perfect i don't have understand.

Thanks for the link, but anyways everyone know how look modern FPS game and simulation... And like i have already say : in FPS we see extreme details like almost crumb of bread on the ground and inside of building and house. Its useless and i never talk about obtain an extreme level like that but the power trade from one the other can't eat so many power, cause the result its Battlefield 3 work with nice FPS on single graphic card (eyefinity or not) and DCS for extreme difference of render need SLI or Crossfire (and the worst its that actually don't work) cause if we force Battelfield 3 (and its just an example) for show 30Km 3D object and over that just 2D map we NEVER will loose s many details. Why a take FPS example ? cause FPS its created for show FIRST PERSON like real view, its why the size of the object look realistic on FPS and look like a RC model for simulation... And again when a talk about better graphic engine a talk more about this render http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scXSG3hF3Y for tree ground and object everywhere on the map, and no, its not impossible.

@Cedeway & Winz : Yeah but no i have never say to buy other graphic license, Infinity Universe its just an example for distance of view (full planet) and FPS its for show what we loose just for more distance (and its not true, just more distance can't make loose all of this power) I just talk about principally make the graphic engine able to CORRECTLY use actual graphic card without give low FPS with only 20% using of computer power or stupid missing optimization like calculate the water under the ground or low FPS inside big cloud or frog, optimized graphic engine for the MAXIMUM speed of AIRCRAFT and not a camera, a simulator must be optimized for INTERNAL view, external its optional (and anyway that will still working) @Togg & Sobek : like i have say : I don't care how that work, the important its : that work. and i never say ED must use THIS engine its just an example. @Falcon : what you want mean ?

@Winz & Sobek : Of course we can't have it, but don't told me that for show more visibility range we just exchange that : http://www.1fotech.com/wp-content/up...tlefield-3.jpg for that : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.ph...1108184420.jpg That was ridiculous... And look what you see at 150km plz, its a single 2D relief WITHOUT any 3D object and a almost monocolor texture, and (with maximum distance setting) we can't see any 3D object over 30km, that just was a texture with city (in low resolution with horrible result) @LostOblivion sorry my English are not perfect but i don't have understand anything of what you are write ^^" @Geskes Yeah but no, the problem will still the same, its not appropriate for simulation and ED never will buy graphic engine, they must create a new cause actually its the same since LOMAC just optimized (not perfectly) And i just say again, i know that FPS graphic engine can't be using, i don't talk about graphic like Battlefield 3 but more like that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scXSG3hF3Y everywhere on the map, that will beggin to be really better !!!

Not true, first, in DCS we see GIANT pixel on the ground, with infinity engine i don't see it, look every video and try to find only one where we see pixel of texture. DCS engine its NOT better, its bad. And that depending, in ARMA 2 or other modern 3D game we able to see interior of house, building and useless details (for air simulation) like almost hairs on the skin or like paper on ground and able to read what its write on it... Of course we can't have it, but don't told me that for show more visibility range we just exchange that : http://www.1fotech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/battlefield-3.jpg for that : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=981410Screen111108184420.jpg That was ridiculous... And this difference its obtain with the same computer configuration, don't told me that is no problems... Just bridle graphic render for save power and be able to show more surface okey, but obtain low FPS with most powerful computer configuration today for show this extremely bad at the limit of the possible of horror graphic compare to normal graphic engine, its not the same thing... We can't obtain details of Arma 2 but we can have a GOOD compromise... And of course you don't see it, you defending DCS graphic engine like if it is a good look graphic engine, you eyes are accustom to it that all, and a lot of people need realistic graphic render for immersion (maybe half of people and maybe more, its important to not ignore that) and immersion its the most important thing, that's why i can't really take pleasure when i try old flight simulator like Falcon or Janes and more... But in my screenshots of the boat the size problem its really flagrant you just won't see it and you don't need good graphic for be happy, and i'm sure if ED change the graphic engine for correct thing with good graphic, you will be happy... Its like FX on movie, remember how the first artificial effect are bad, and at the time of this movie for everyone that just look extremely realistic, and today its the same but with difference between some people can find simple graphic engine nice and other who need better, but at the final people who find simple graphic good are happy when the graphic change for be better and if a minority don't want to have good graphic rending they can use the simulator with minimum graphic setting... Some people look starwars for the story and don't care about old FX ans other just will be bored when they will look the old movie. Don't forget that several people find that minecraft or world of warcraft have a really nice graphic.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1340886#post1340886 =)

Hi all, Like i have already say http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81293 , the graphic engine actually using for EVERY flight simulation are really bad for multiple reason, the worst (really bad for immersion cause that really have an important effect for visual flight) its the size effect, in EVERY flight simulator every object and terrain look small, the size impression make look like if we using RC model simulator, best exemple its here : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=213301Screen111108001508.jpg Its supposed to be a BIG ship and that look like a small RC model ship, the problem its that the 3D model are good, really good with a lof of details, but that still make a bad size effect like that http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=192471Screen111108001501.jpg or like that http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=229628Screen111108001420.jpg in both of this screenshots i have try to make the biggest effect without be too close... And compare with that (i don't talk about graphic but size effect) http://img.jeuxvideo.fr/photo/02078176-photo-arma-2.jpg for every VFR flight size effect in actual simulator CAN'T be use at realistic way... Size effect its the first problem, second problem its the ground, ground complexity (terrain are flat and every mountain or relief its not rounded but its gross angle...The texture are horrible, we always see pixel of the ground, building are just a box with bad texture and bad size render, tree look like a paper tree with bad size effect too. Light effect are not perfect too, same thing for general effect like smoke, explosion, weather and more. Actual graphic engine have a BIG optimization problem, the worst example : When we flying inside BIG frog and we DON'T see any ground, 3D object or effect except maybe some nice frog effect on the wing (bugged with eyefinity) we have low FPS... And every problems i have say here its obtain with low FPS on the MOST POWERFUL actual graphic card... My conclusion : Graphic engine using for aerial simulation have a problem and its bad !!! I have hear a lot of response (look more like bad excuse for me) like : the size of the map and the visibility distance, ok but with maximum visibility distance setting, every simulator NOT reproduce real visibility distance and with the bad size effect its worst... And anyways I have already hear : the simulator need to calculate IA flight physic avionic and more, ok but its the CPU who calculate it and not the GPU and when we see how many IA are actually bad and really sucks ... Anyways the problem can be solved by only two way : REAL optimization of flight graphic engine cause actually a little part of full power of the graphic card (and all part of the computer too) are using and that still with low FPS and actually SLI and Crossfire don't work, for give to the simulator the possibility to show graphic like that : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scXSG3hF3Y BUT in the FULL map and with correction of bad size effect, cause in this video its the most advanced graphic that i have ever see in simulation but when the camera its turning to the car, the truck and the copter, look how its unrealistic, that look small and immersion fail. For me the bad size effect coming from the fact that simulator reproduce what a camera see and not what human eyes see cause its not the same size effect, we are supposed to embody a pilot who see with eyes and not a camera and in DCS pilot body miss, mission information on the leg of the pilot its not eye candy cause if the simulator show mission objective briefing and other (like when we use escape in DCS) its important and that can improve immersion. Or second possibility its the CHANGE graphic engine politic of flight simulation and try to turn to other possibility. I have find a perfect graphic engine, its here : http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php Its a space combat game, well why its perfect for me ? Cause this graphic engine can show FULL PLANET, not only one time but a LOT of planet with different terrain (not the same using several time), possibility to show a lot of asteroid field like belt (asteroid ring) around several planet, at long range that look like a gas and when we coming close (like in real) we finally see that its a big asteroid field, the light effect and reflexion are perfect, physic are pretty nice, effect like smoke explosion and other are nice too, 3D model are nice, ground texture are nice and we DON'T see the pixel on the ground, its capable to show forest or BIG city with a lot of COMPLEX 3D building, ok that still with bad size effect but optimized for show only ONE planet, cause in 2 second the camera can, without lagging and in real time (not precalculate) coming from ground go to orbit and show full planet or show giant gas planet through the atmosphere or more, we can be able with the same graphic engine to obtain REALISTIC and almost photorealistic graphic engine capable to work without low fps on actual nice computer, example http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=90&catid=4 And the guy don't use a supercomputer for obtain this result. And before people who defending actual graphic engine told me "yeah but that work like that or like that and that do that and other bad excuse..." I don't care how that work, the important its : that work. And the result its pretty nice. And i challenge you to find only one thing that actual flight simulation graphic engine do that this super graphic engine can't do... Except size effect but its not optimized for human size. Its not optimized for flight simulation, its BETTER than that cause its optimized for space simulation/travel and extremely high speed of camera. For DCS if, like a lot of people ask, ED team just will make SDK every one who know using it and who want to do it (more than number of people of ED team i'm sure) can officially without asking money help ED, that want mean : ED can have more time for work on the more important things, correct bug and problems, optimize graphic engine (or change it and using DX11) and more and every people of community can make the rest, new 3D model, effect, texture and more and we finally could have EVERYTHING that we ask since LONG time and that ED will never do cause considerate like eye candy or useless or cause they not have the time but that we anyways want and make better and more rich simulation, maybe the best ever. And that can give better and big commercial argument cause fan made its always the best thing, and fan made + professional made/work can be extremely nice, think about it...

Yes i know, and make it will do loose time, but after its not the number of people of ED team who will work on this simulator, but every one who have minimal knowledge and free time for help ED will work and maybe finally can help for the same initial work more faster and after the gain of addons and new things will really be positifs, and i think more faster that can be done, better the final result will be... I think its like have 3 or 4 time the number of people working on this simulator without need to pay them. For example, ED would not have needed to make the New E3A and other new 3D model, maybe community would already do that or ED just have to ask to the community to do it, ED just have after to correct fly model for example for adding aircraft and just correct it need little time, its nothing compare to fully do it... And if it already exists partially, its what ED team use, make SDK for community will not take so extremely long time.

Its nice, thanks you, but i think the most important things that ED must do its a SDK (Software Development Kit), a lot of people in simulation community make incredible addons like that : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV2JTnvbxnc or like that or for graphic like that (its exactly what a lot of people want to have in this simulation) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scXSG3hF3Y and more and more and when the graphic engine will be more optimized with graphic card (cause actually in DCS my computor don't work over 50% (i talk aout everything: cpu, memory, gpu, graphic memory, HDD) and i have low FPS with good config and its the same for everyone) and when crossfire/SLI will working (actually when i turn on my CF fps its divided by 2) we can be able to have the same graphic than what we see on Grandsurf video everywhere on the map without lagging... Same thing for AI http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81295 , adding effect (like explosion smoke and more), ground crew with a lot of animation same for boat and carrier (and if the next aircraft its an Hornet that will be really better to adding crew with nice animation made by fan and more live on airport) , adding sound for a lot of thing actually missing, give more real things that we don't have for the moment and that ED never will have the time to do, adding new map and why not on day have a complete earth (i prefer loose 20Go of my HDD and have a better simulator) And adding more units and more and more and more things... Look how many addons FSX have, and some payware can give money to ED with original software right, and compare original FSX and the same with addons (like animation, AI/flyable airplane, extreme flyable airplane like PMDG or VSR, new carrier and more). More things can be adding for military version cause ED will have the time to concentrate only to the more important things without lets the community wait a lot of things, we can do it ourselves and give more commercial argument to the civil simulator cause a lot of community addon can be officially adding by ED to DCS series. And with the combined arms community just need to make it only one time and with the possibility to embody JTAC and commander new "playable" ground unit can be adding. And if ED want to make something but without the time to do they can ask help to the sim community without need to pay us... Make a contest and the best addon will be adding with why not possibility to modified it with every good things from other addon of the contest. Please ED give us the possibility to help you and to make together a fantastic simulator !!!

I have download it just for testing and its was written : evaluation version 30 day left... I have try it again just right now i can continue to use it but it ask me a serial on starting... An yes i know but its not the same thing than a hud/gun view I talk about implement the same AVI rending but commanded by action on DVADR in game with limited camera (we can't move or zoom it) like the onboard camera of the real A10... Anyways its better to integrate a 3D replay like Falcon or other, that can give graphic engine to laucher for 3D mission editor and 3D library and payload screen... If the real A10 do that a simulator must do that too, if people who pay for this simulation want to do it its better to give ut the possibility... DCS need a lot of things...

Its the best idea ever !!!! xD But this weapon can't support supersonic flight :/ The new version can one day replace the Maverick, its the same but with fart jet engine, but its a top secret US technology...

Yeah but no... The DVADR record VIDEO and not Data. The Airborn Mission Recorders VS1500 record Data AND Video And TacView is nice but its not free. Just make an auto generation of AVI video from real camera angle (hud, gun) not when we flight but after, at the end of the mission, like we actually have option for replay, an option for generate HD recording data and why not create too a Data file that can only be read by TacView cause we can ask for implement a basic 3D data view like Falcon 4 we never will have it, the thing same for every wish, until community created itself everything we wait since several years and that ED never will do it... If ED don't have time or don't want to make it, they must give us an SDK !!! +1 RglsPhoto

+1 and if ED do it, i hope we will see the the same effect when we cross cloud or contrail like in real !!!

Nice idea, when the possibility to embody JTAC or any ground Units will be here, a lot of people will really appreciated to not be killed by A10 at multiplayer by a pilot who don't really know who is a friendly or enemy !! ^^ And sometime that can help a little for seek friendly position.

Actually AI don't have any combat tactic, i wish the possibility to add AI comportment script (with why not the possibility for everyone who know scripting do it) for optimized AI comportment and do, like i have say, better attack flight procedure, improve collision detection, humanize it with random mistake (sometime cause crash) like real, goes "crazy" like EVERY PILOT with low altitude flying, break formation, formation flight strike, more formation and free formation for AI and possibility to command player cause DCS its a flight simulator and not a squadron command simulator and everything can help a lot if one day ED do dual seat aircraft for flight with GOOD AI cause actual its really bad and if we be at rear seat inside F-15 (for example) and we see AI pilot flying like a 747 pilot...that will bored everyone... IA Script can change a lot of thing and open a lot of doors for DCS simulation, military version too... This video show a true exercise And this video too And we can see good things like 2 A10C act like that : Possibility to script a lot of true air strike, dogfight, bombing and other realistic attack like real. Script for improve weapon use and don't see AI bot using Mk84 in a single car and after waste the bomb do gun run on a tank... See IA in convoy strike first destroy anti aircraft vehicle and stay far and after strike the convoy. Possibility to set in mission editor free (or auto) airspeed and altitude for strike phase for example and see A10 drop JDAM from FL 150 or FL 200 and after dive, at middle altitude firing AGM65 and at low altitude using NGB like Mk 82 or CBU 95/97 with gun run or other good tactic and not a suicidal attempt... Please give us the possibility to simulate the REAL LIVE and not to simulate a procedure book...

Yeah 3D editor its a good idea, the 3D engine can too be use for 3D library and payload screen... With the actual 2D map its hard to find a correct place for ground units, like simulate ground crew with soldier cause its will always be so close or so far to aircraft/chopper or we put tank into tree or we don't find good location for SAM site or anything like that... Its a nice idea, and static yeah but with zoom (or altitude) possibility, its important. +1

I think my wishlist for 1.1 will be that : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81295 but i prefer that now, if we don't need correction of bug avionic or other, the ED team still concentrate to the next DCS and do it the more faster possible without mistake quality. But your suggestion its nice =)

Its true level of graphic of BF3 but i still sure than we can have better than actual, one year ago i have talk about flight sim with actual realism of DCS and everyone told me that its impossible without supercomputer... But we must stop to talk about it here or talk in MP or create a new threat cause we will spam this actual threat... =)

Yeah but you just take a single part of my post without take any consideration about everything i have say about my idea for optimization... Ok, well, what about it ? http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/ This graphic engine can show anything and i work me too in a concept who can show every detail like details of any little stone or hairs of other and can go away and at the end show several galaxy, all the travel with photo-realistic autogenerate details and that can be using with low power.

The problem is that we pass from that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSYbH9vtJc&NR=1 for that http://hpics.li/69d1a3e DCS : Only 1 ugly carrier with bad texture minimum 3D details without any animated or static crew 1 "correct" model of an F/A-18 with "correct" texture, bad sea and simple sky without any cloud and it don't get more than 50 FPS and we have again a bad size effect where we see a plastic model carrier and aircraft impression... BF3 : in this video we see carrier and F/A-18, sky (cloud) and sea, but what is the difference ? Extremely realistic sea with nice reflection and good 3D effect and interaction with boat (particle) deck rain effect and reflexion, highly detailed crew member vehicle and other, nice steam effect, other aircraft, other boat and nice animation, nice light effect from cloud shadows, nice carrier hight rez texture and more realistic size effect, it was recorder with only one HD6970 AND FRAPS (the fps killer). With the same graphic card than i have for DCS, this "cinematic" of BF3 can be pass over 50 FPS with maximum graphics settings. I have made a test with maximum graphic setting (and maximum view distance) in DCS we can't see ground texture (city, forest or anything else) over 30 Km, above 30Km we don't see anything else than little pixel for little city at 800m and more over the ground. Ok we can see something like all the terrain but without detailed texture, we just able to see basic terrain form and single texture... But i will explain differently my simple idea : I don't talk about use the same graphic engine, but another where we can be able to see nice visual render like in this video, every object in this video its in 3D and the camera move relatively to it, but in every graphic engine, FPS, Flight sim on anything else, we are limited by screen resolution and we can't cause of pixel, see 3D object over a certain range, in real too, i think we can't see car, truck tank and other over 5km, liner aircraft its a big thing 50 to 100m and we see it without any details, no on can see the flaps or the engine of an A380 at 10Km... Well, why calculate 3D over that in a game ? like i have say so many time, we are able to do it : We don't need 3D map, 2D with 3D impression its the same thing for eyes, lauch any 3D application in windowed mode, free or pause it, make a screenshoot and compare the 3D screen with the 2D screenshoot, you CAN'T see any difference... For graphic engine that can be the same, like carrier and boat fleet in the video of BF3 we just have to calculate it when we see it, if the single sky without cloud need performance, its not bad, its extremely bad cause sky its a empty area, like actualy every flight graphic take a lof of performance when we flight inside big frog through we can't see any 3D 2D object or texture except or aircraft, just a color, for high altitude cloud what is the difference about 2D and 3D ? nothing that player can see, just performance gain, same for the ground, we can calculate only close 3D object and use 2D ground map (pretty realistic not like flight sim in a lot of case) win a lot of power and concentrate of extreme cockpit visual rending... Same for low altitude like 800m, just calculate the proximity terrain, the rest don't need to be 3D, just for far horizon using 2D texture of the ground + under calculate 3D with only basic relief for mountain for example, with that we can be able to show at the screen extreme visual without any bad part, just convert into 2D (not take more than little FPS) 3D object that we can't see, its not complicate... DCS sucks computer performance when we are at the full sea at high (or low) altitude and we look up to see a sky without any cloud, sorry but its just...bad... Like that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ If you look we can see 3D object appear, what want mean : its now show in only one time, its calculate when we move, if you look far horizon you can see extremely far mountain, but, i think so much its...in 2D, like a say, and that NOT take performance... Now imagine the same think optimized for flight only with interior view only (cause its the base of the simulation, in real life external view not exist) optimized with the maximum aircraft speed and where all 3D object over the limit (when it appear) its just convert into 2D and progressively transform into 3D when we approach. With that we can be able to show extremely nice visual render with nice 3D object with a lot of details and big view distance (maybe over actual flight engine). With that we don't will have the impression of small object effect like plastic model, saved performance an be using for reflexion for give a true metal impression effect (for example) and when we coming to do low flight, at airport and if we use external camera (without move the camera in free view at 10000Km/h) we can change that : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=809009Screen111108184435.jpg with tree look like that http://clisdebarjols.unblog.fr/files/2008/09/p1070234.jpg for that : http://www.confrerie-des-traducteurs.fr/forum/upload/1248248498_arma_ii_pc_212.jpg Same thing with TGP, just calculate 3D object where the second camera pass and not for all the map at 20km around or something like that... And we can be able to see that : But i think we must stop to talk about it (or create a thread) cause we will flood Next DCS Aircraft Wish List, my newt aircraft wish list its simple : F/A-18, better AI and better visual render with nice animations.

No, we can compare it, the terrain size its don't matter cause in 3 software wwe don't see all the terrain in one time, its loading when we move. Imagine if Arma 2 have 2500 tree TOE 45000 and DCS 12350000, and ? We don't need 250 45k and 12350k texture, same thing for a wall, a road, a forest ground, a dirt road or a meadow... Its just the mesh that it will change and take more place not the texture and with good graphics engine mesh can be small on HDD but highly detailed with a lot of object (used so many time in the same terrain) mainly if we look how DCS terrain are flat, just say the area where wish texture need to be not take extreme size...That can be a simple ko by bit texture and octet by objects... I go sleeping good night here =)

When we are at low altitude or on ground, its hard to see at more than 5km by terrain and object limitation and atmosphere effect cause air block the light, every people flying at the edge of the space like U2 pilot or Mig25 have say we can clearly see better with low density atmosphere, if we add fuzzy effect to that, good optimization can make the difference and not overcalculate 3D object that we don't see more that a basic form or a single pixel... And for medium and high altitude we can't see the difference against 3D and 2D object and use a simple map without 3D object don't need extreme computer and the render can be extreme, look that for example : its a 2D map with texture where we add 3D object (rc plane) and maybe the view distance its not correct for flight sim for like for any texture that can be ad multiple part and cover all the terrain cause this RC sim don't take more than little Mo by map (depend of the map) and anyway i tank about a map for medium and high flight and not for low flight... Another tweak for optimization, when a 3D object don't move why not stope to calculate it and convert it into spherical screenshoot, no one can see the difference and that can help for win a lot of FPS... For example when we are at startup, aircraft don't move against the exterior, same thing for horizon when we do low flight, sim just need to convert 3D into 2D and update it with a good transition effect for give us the impression of far mountain mooving relatively to us...

I knon that ED have it's own graphic engine, i just talk about every graphic engine in the world of air simulation and i don't talk about integrate Frostbite 2 to DCS but to obtain the same visual render. And yes is highly optimized for ground combat, but close graphic engine can too optimized for flight combat without loose graphic quality, for Arma 2, no, cause optimization for flight can give the possibility to integrate HIGHLY detailed cockpit without lag cause system and flight model don't use GPU but CPU...And Arma 2 don't need 100% CPU... For Take On Helicopter i have try it ad Eyefinity and it work only in one of my graphic card and it DON'T lag and yes it was optimizes like i talk about the possibility to take graphic engine with visual quality close to Frostbite 2 and optimize it for flight simulation, and if it can use crossfire that can be extremely nice at the end... And for Arma 3 we will see...

I always compare with Arma cause i have playing it, but i can give another example like Operation Flashpoint, another good graphics combat sim where we can use aircraft... In this type of simgame we can stay with nice performance and better visual render than flight sim. And if i talk about shooters graphics engine its cause its made for give immersion of human eyes with realistic object size effect and simulator must be made for simulate pilot inside aircraft and not camera inside aircraft... and why not, i love every aircraft, Eagle can be nice too, its just that the Hornet have the multirole and carrier possibility, that open more things, but fighter can be nice too i don't have anything against.

Yeah but a lot of short cinematic can be just transform into animation, i prefer see for every flight the same beautiful animation to see nothing... And or for BF3 engine its not pefect but it can be optimised, and what about Arma 2 and better Arma 3 engine ? look the fists gameplay video of Arma 3 when free fall, its not an animation, we can do it anytime we want like arma 2 and graphics render its close to BF3, look that : We can see big visibility distance and like i have always say at high altitude graphic engine can show any 3D object in 2D with basic ground map with HD texture. Visibility distance its not the same thing than terrain area, for terrain area we just need more HDD space and if we compare the space from any 3D details in big map of BF3, all animation for campaign gameplay and every texture useless in flight sim that not take more HDD space than single HD terrain for flight sim... Arma 2 and the futur Arma 3 don't kill computer and in flight sim we don't need to see every details of a big area of several place like Paris and other and we don't need too to see inside every building, and that take the same HDD size i think cause if we have 500 hight detailed forest, we don't need 500 hight resolution texture, just 10 or a little more for little difference and for different seasons... And the graphic engine can be smart, show the same visual quality and animation than the F18's video of BF3 with same quality carrier and cockpit, and when we flight, concentrate for high altitude with simplified ground terrain and 3D object turn into 2D and single big texture, for low flight the fuzzy impression and the "short" distance impression can help too, like the death angle from cockpit that will help for don't need to calculate it, just load it and get ready for the possibility that the pilot will turn or other... I prefer hight detailed flight sim only optimized for internal view and lag when we pass at external view than flight sim optimized for internal and external view with bad general visual render... I think the problem its from optimization cause in every flight sim when we flight under big frog what's happen ? low FPS...But its so stupid cause with a big frog we don't see any 3D object or texture, maybe a little we can see our aircraft but that's all, a lot of optimization like that can help for take big graphics engine...