Can you tell and if so, how?

[Soya 7]

Greetings all,

Here is a little test for you all, don't worry, it is not very difficult.

There are 10 shots shown here, 9 of them are from FSX and 1 of them from CGI. The test is not so much to see if you can spot which one it is (although that is part of the fun). The real test is to see how you spotted the CGI image over the FSX images, what in your opinion was your first reaction/feeling/thought that made you decide why the image was CGi and not FSX. Feel free to put down your thoughts/comments or simply make a guess on which shot is CGI. btw I also hope you enjoy these images.

Shot 1:

Shot 2:

Shot 3:

Shot 4:

Shot 5:

Shot 6:

Shot 7:

Shot 8:

Shot 9:

Shot 10:

See, I am sure you spotted which image it was, but how did you spot it, what gave it away?

If you cannot tell which image is CGI then great, I must be getting better with my screenshots. : :shrug_no:

Cheers

[mutley 4,487]

is it shot 4, the KLM DC-10?

Somehow the background and the reflections do not look like FSX.

Cheers

[dgor 0]

I would say Shot 7. It could just be a heavily edited FS image but something about the proportions and contrast make it look a bit more like it's been drawn. All excellent shots though!

Dave :shrug_no:

[marimbaman 0]

I would say Shot 7. It could just be a heavily edited FS image but something about the proportions and contrast make it look a bit more like it's been drawn. All excellent shots though!

Dave :smile:

I agree... That little glint above the cockpit windows doesn't look like it could have come from fs. Plus, it doesn't really match your style :shrug_no:

[stu7708 244]

I'm going to agree with Dave and Marimbaman on shot 7, but I was also considering shot 4. Both due to the sky not being up to you standards :shrug_no:

But the look of the plane in shot 4 feels like FS, where as the whole of shot 7 feels wrong. Most likley due to the fact that it isn't as sharp as the others.

[mutley 4,487]

I agree about shot 7 but it seemed too obvious!

Cheers

[rob16584 42]

Shot 7 because the lines are much smoother and if it is one of Soya's shots from FSX, he needs a new camera :shrug_no:

[Soya 7]

And the answer is... *drum roll*.... NO 7...

Like I said, it was not that hard, although I did try to make it a little challeging by entering shot 4 & 5, which are not like my usual shots, especially no 4. That shot was a tower shot while the CLS DC-10 was about to enter the clouds, so total grey background. Anyways, the image was taken from a movie called 'Get Smart', it was a CGI generated plane, a pretty :shrug_no: good one too. Here are a few more shots that I took from the movie, it should show even clearer that it is a very high end CGI generated image, pretty close to looking real too (the natural grain look gives it away that it is taken from a movie):

I was mainly curious how people would recognise a different image to FSX, as the bounderies of PC graphics/movie CGI & reality come ever and ever closer, I wanted to see what elements are still lacking to give FSX that even more real look. I think it comes down to these elements that are still lacking from FSX, or any PC flight simulator for that matter: (in no particular order)

1) Lightning and shadowing, as you can see in above shots, high end CGI effect can match real lightning & shadows much closer then any PC GFX, for now, that will hopefully change in the coming years.

2) Reflections & Bumpmapping, FSX does a reasonably decent job, but it is no match for the reflections seen underneath the plane/wings on the CGI pics.

3) Model & Poly count, although many recent FSX payware aircrafts have done a fantastic job in recreating very beautiful and accurate models, it still does not compare to the smoothness and the obviously MUCH higher poly count in the CGI pictures. Again, with more powerful PC in the future, FS models should become more complex & poly count can go up and still keep FPS smooth.

4) Other real life effects, ie Blur/Motion/Haze, FSX tends to be too clean, too crips, nice to look at but you can see it is FSX, whereas high end CGI can add more real life effects to make the image more 'dirty' thus more real.

I think these points is what FSX, or future simulators, need to improve on if we want to see images like we do in the movies, or indeed, real life.

Thanks for viewing and commenting, hope you enjoyed this post.

Cheers