P3D V4 speculation thread - may as well

[BrendanMan33 1]

I think my p3d is 64 bit.. it should be, how do i know?

[ErichB 3,643]

 

 

I think my p3d is 64 bit.. it should be, how do i know?

 

64 bit P3D will only be released this year.  Your version will still be 32 bit

[SteveW 1,792]

I think my p3d is 64 bit.. it should be, how do i know?

Right-click on Prepar3D.exe and (temporarily) check the Compatibility mode box in the popup window, look at the dropdown list, shows Win95 and up, means by elimination it is 32 bit. If it is 64bit the list will start with Vista. Now Cancel that popup.

[BrendanMan33 1]

Ohh ok I see. Man a x64 P3D would be great, It's something when you hit VAS on 4GB with clean frames XD

[MatthewS 761]

Please LM fix the comically oversized scaling of both autogen trees and buildings!

 

Even if all LM does is add a configuration file option to let the user apply a scaling factor to the default height of the trees and buildings.

 

For example...

 

The default (ie no user applied factor)

AutogenTreeHeight_ScalingFactor=1

AutogenBuildingHeight_ScalingFactor=1

 

Then for someone like me who thinks everything is too big, I could change to

AutogenTreeHeight_ScalingFactor=0.75

AutogenBuildingHeight_ScalingFactor=0.75

 

Of course I'm probably oversimplifying the solution and maybe some other posters could offer some suggestions.

 

It's something that LM needs to address!

Just compare any real life cockpit video on Youtube to P3D and you will see how oversized the autogen is.

When the autogen is oversized it creates a false sense of scale and wrong impression of how high above the ground the aircraft is. 

 

Come on LM you can do it and "me love you long time"...

[DylanM 1,069]

Interesting idea Matthew. You should post that on the LM P3D feature requests forum:

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=6317

[MatthewS 761]

Interesting idea Matthew. You should post that on the LM P3D feature requests forum:

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=6317

 

 

Ok, posted at the LM forums here...

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6317&t=123254

[him225 51]

Although I agree with oversized autogen which need reducing, don't orbx use their own autogen models? Or is it p3d that makes them oversized at the time of rendering?

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

I'm pretty sure that one can reduce the height of the trees just by editing the textures, so that they are smaller (not less resolution). The tree textures are just mapped to two vertical rectangular faces arranged at 90 degrees to each other.

Here's an old FSX mod that reduces a few of the default tree sizes which the author believed were too tall:

 

https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/17853/fsx-genreloaded-photoreal-trees-v1/

 

It's not possible to do that with buildings because they are a 3D box with 4 walls and a roof. The various buildings in the sim  are different heights and shapes so it is possible to create autogen models that are lower in height.

[MatthewS 761]

It's not possible to do that with buildings because they are a 3D box with 4 walls and a roof. The various buildings in the sim are different heights and shapes so it is possible to create autogen models that are lower in height.

 

According to the P3D SDK "The height of each building is generated at runtime"

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/SDKv3/LearningCenter/environment/autogen.html

 

So it would seem possible that LM could add a configuration setting that would allow the height to be somehow scaled/constrained.

Although I agree with oversized autogen which need reducing, don't orbx use their own autogen models? Or is it p3d that makes them oversized at the time of rendering?

 

IFAIK Orbx is only making their own textures for the autogen buildings and then its P3D that is applying those textures to the autogen buildings which it generates at runtime, and which are IMHO too tall.

[simmerhead 885]

I've never noticed that the autogen buildings were oversized.

 

Autogen buildings fit the size of the building used in the satellite photo used for the landclass. If you make them smaller, they wouldn't fit, so I don't see how this could be done without making new landclass.

[ErichB 3,643]

Autogen buildings fit the size of the building used in the satellite photo used for the landclass. If you make them smaller, they wouldn't fit, so I don't see how this could be done without making new landclass.

 

That's a pity. The oversized autogen has bugged me for years as well. Look at the autogen buildings and trees in relation to your aircraft size or properly scaled scenery objects. You'll soon notice it. I believe the Aces team did it this was at the time to reduce impact to performance. IIRC in 2006, even modest autogen load played havoc with PC resources at the time.

[MatthewS 761]

I've never noticed that the autogen buildings were oversized.

 

Autogen buildings fit the size of the building used in the satellite photo used for the landclass. If you make them smaller, they wouldn't fit, so I don't see how this could be done without making new landclass.

 

You're talking about the ground "footprint" and I'm talking about the height.

 

There is nothing wrong with the ground footprint, it matches the underlying photo used for the landclass texture.

 

It's the height that's the problem.  

 

As per my previous post according to the P3D SDK (under Height Profile) "The height of each building is generated at runtime"

http://www.prepar3d.com/SDKv3/LearningCenter/environment/autogen.html#Setting Building Properties

 

P3D is making the houses too tall and they look ridiculous IMHO.

[gboz 157]

Interesting aside from Peter Dawson:

 

"and with them (LM) I imagine being so busy with the next development.."

 

http://forum.simflight.com/topic/82599-crash-loading-p3dvhttpforumsimflightcomtopic82599-crash-loading-p3dv34-reporte-fsuipc4dll34-reporte-fsuipc4dll/?do=findComment&comment=498265

 

gb.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Here's another interesting tidbit from the official LM forums:

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6312&t=120967&p=150649#p150649

 

What I interpret from reading this is that other than fixing bugs (which are getting pretty rare these days with P3d), V3 will see  no more either major features or improvements.

 

Finally, I'd like to respond to the feedback about memory usage in general. We understand the frustration with OOMs, which is why we worked hard to provide major memory improvements for v3.0. In the move from v2 to v3, many heavy add-on users saw VAS drop by hundreds of megs or more. Performance and memory optimization will remain a high priority for us as the platform evolves. Big changes are often too risky to attempt for a point release or hot fix, which is why our focus has been on addressing specific reproducible bugs. 

Thanks

Beau Hollis
Prepar3D Rendering System Lead