4 ms·

I was skeptical when you said attractive low-poly graphics. I'd never seen such thing. But checking the link out, it is pretty. Incidentally, why is it that so

I was skeptical when you said attractive low-poly graphics. I'd never seen such thing. But checking the link out, it is pretty. Incidentally, why is it that so many flight simulators are low-poly? I've seen FPS with amazing graphics, why not make flight simulators with amazing graphics as well?

the_af 3y ago
> But checking the link out, it is pretty. Yes, did you see the contrail effects? Pretty cool. And I own the game -- it's even cooler in action. And the explosions of cluster bombs raining on tanks... very satisfying! > Incidentally, why is it that so many flight simulators are low-poly? I've seen FPS with amazing graphics, why not make flight simulators with amazing graphics as well? For commercial games, I'm sure you know DCS and its amazing photorealistic graphics. I assume you mean indie games, and I think the answer is multiple: - The authors want to recreate the experience from the flightsims of their childhood, which were all wireframe or flat polygons. - Flat polygons can look pretty cool if well animated. They give a cartoon/retro vibe that many of us like. - It's way faster to prototype and have something running on low-poly than having to deal with textures, shaders and whatnot, especially if that's not what the developer is interested in toying with. - "Good graphics" in a flightsim can be very taxing! Developers probably just want to toy with their favorite planes, add some cool features, and have it running on a midrange computer. I can play Tiny Combat Arena at very high res with all effects maxed on a mid-range laptop from 2016! I think I probably wouldn't even be able to start DCS with this, let alone having it maxed.