Originally posted by gilboa
View Post
2D stuff is mostly shoveling things around, the load is mostly on storage, caches and busses.
and spend a lot of resource of LOD v.s. range optimizations, neither of which is required by FPS focused engines.
Most of the models here (scenery, not planes) are veeeery simple from the start as they are meant to be viewed only from "far away" so I don't think there is much LOD involved.
More-ever, I would imagine that X-Plane devs have their asset management, physics code, flight modelling (aero-dynamics) and render code deeply entangled, making it impossible to simply pull out the renderer and replace it by another engine.
The physics would require them to make a module/plugin for the game engine, as I doubt that the stock physics engine can cut it, apart from Unigine that has a dedicated simulator. I *THINK* it should be possible with Unreal as it does support plugins, but I don't know about others.
Oh, it seems Unity has a plugin for flight simulators already (should have better physics than default engine, but heh, Unity...). http://unityfs.chris-cheetham.com/
(Even trying to refactor highly optimized single-threaded code into multiple threads can be nearly impossible)
Last and not least, I would imagine that if indeed using normal engine for flight sims was so simple we would have seen more companies use them instead of developing their own (like you see in the FPS market), while in reality, a vast majority of flight and space sims use their own engine. (1. Including "real" multi-million USD simulators. 2. Ungine seems to be only engine used in "real" simulators, at least AFAIK).
Dropping that and migrating now is nonsense, as they would drop something they have decades of experience with to embrace something they don't know in the slightest.
Even if the engine was dramatically better, they would still suck at using it for a long while, and the only way to see if it is really better than their own is to try and risk it.
Comment