FAR more things like WHAT?
The exterior...for example ?
Since we have to fit *everything* in less than 4GB, and many people are already dangerously close to the limit, up to the point they NEED those extra 400-500MB saved by using DX10, exactly as I've said, before we could start doing detailed interiors, a move towards 64 bit will be needed.
NOT all true. These games were available long before 2012 and many were using only 32bit.
The usual mistake...to compare a fully EXTENDABLE Flight Sim with a WORLDWIDE coverage that cover REAL world, with an FPS shooter...
Let's see how many things an FPS can do, and a Flight sim can't, to save memory and get better performances:
- An FPS has a controlled set of levels ( = scenery ), and the designers can even tweak the story to be sure the player won't get into trouble. A Flight sim doesn't have this luxury, the user should be allowed to fly anywhere.
- An FPS (or any other game) is not usually stuffed with DOZEN of 3rd party add-ons running at the same time, and no game offer the same level of extensibility, such any number of 3rd party .DLL and .EXE modules calling an API, Gauges with executable code, virtual cockpits with hundreds of animations, etc.
- A Flight sim is supposed to display things as they are in reality, a game can create a scenery which is both nice to look at AND optimized, without having to worry being real. Obvious example: the New York area contains a city with hundreds/thousands of buildings, 3 large airports and several smaller ones, all in a very short distance. We just can't remove an airport because of fps problems or because all 3 don't fit in memory, a designer for a game could just move the airport some miles away and simply adapt the "story" or the game to that requirement. We can't do that...
- A normal game might not allow a certain level to be played in every day/dusk/night condition or in any weather condition (with weather info coming from *outside*, because is supposed to be the real one), but instead can include all pre-baked textures for the single light condition the designer has specified for *that* level. The games that simulates changing light and weather conditions are NOT those with the most striking visuals.
- An FPS doesn't have any complex simulation to run. It doesn't need hundreds of AI with real world schedules, even when there are AI doing stuff, a game designer can just skip real world schedules and just add only the number of NPC (non-player-characters) he KNOWS the system can handle.
- An FPS doesn't have 100 nautical miles of visibility. Many of them are not even running in the open, but inside buildings. Obvious trick to further save fps, because you just don't draw what's behind the next door.
This list can go on and on, but the concept is quite clear: you can't compare a realistic Flight sim to an FPS, they are really too different.
In any case, I do remember BEFORE Crysis 2 came out, people were shouting on forums things like "when Crysis 2 will be out, it will run like a dream on a PC that can barely handle FSX, you'll see". It came out, and the sentence "Will this PC be able to run Crysis 2 at full detail?" became even more widespread than the same about FSX...
NOT everyone have the same opinion (which is a good thing) however, don't confuse your opinions with facts.
Exactly my point...
