Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GoranM

XP 10 Landscapes

Recommended Posts

And its getting better by the day ... the thing I most enjoy in the XP10 dev process is, when I have time to do a bit more extensive test flights cool.png . You know, with a highly procedurally created (driven by gigabytes of data, piles of algorithms and an extensive rule sets which I tuned for years) scenery even I have a lot to explore (and be surprised - hopefully more often in a positive than a negative way happy.png )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@alpilotxCan you tell me if these were taken at extreme res on your system?And what were the AA/AF settings please.Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I usually fly with quite high settings. Though, you can't compare it all to XP9 because there are quite some new ones. Like the shadow settings (in those shots they were at MAX). Or the atmospheric rendering (of course on ... I will never again fly without it - it makes THE difference!). Screen res was at 1920, textures at extreme res, and max trees. And for AA ... well, this will be a bit harder to compare. With the atmospheric rendering, which uses deferred rendering (its common with many modern games), you can't use the normal AA modes, but only some post processing modes. In all the shots I used the FXAA version, which makes kind of a "smoothing of edges" (you can google for it). Its effect is quite good and it is not too ressource hungry. Otherwise you could only use (well at least that in at the moment). 4x SSAA (super sampling anti aliasing), but which would mean that XP10 would need to render the scene in double the resolution (4 times the pixel count) ... which might kill performance a lot (so I usually don't touch that).But with all these settings you get a quite good performance outside cities (with their gazillions of 3D objects and roads). With my GeForce 570 GTX + Core i7-2600K I come around 40-50 FPS (without big stuttering). Though in big cities this can drop to 20, but there, usually reducing the shadow distance helps ...Disclaimer: all these numbers are not official, and should only be taken as a "hint" what to expect (you can see them in the top left of the screenshots under FREQ). They can easily change at any point of the further development process as there are always things that change (or will be optimized etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andras,Is this fully XP10 or are some of the components XP9? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andras,Is this fully XP10 or are some of the components XP9? Thanks.
What I fly, is more or less fully XP10 (the pieces are now coming together) wink.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adras,Looks really great. By the way, did we (the X-plane community) hear at one time that the autogen trees were carried over from XP9, and that they would be worked on in future releases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or the atmospheric rendering (of course on ... I will never again fly without it - it makes THE difference!).
What is exactly atmospheric rendering?Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andras, could you say whether XP10 will support 3d vision, specifically with regard to ground lighting(are they 2d sprites or not)Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that I'm really impressed by the atmospheric rendering. Together with the new weather system which is designed to avoid any unreal sudden weather changes if I understand it right this will bring us to a whole new level. To me, weather is a really really important part of flight simulation and is poorly simulated in the simulations available on the market. No volumetric clouds, no cloud shadows, no real weather systems in a way that you can fly around them without any sudden changes in FSX. If all this is realized in XP10 with a quality that is even close to the screenshots above, that would be amazing!Looking forward to XP10!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About forests: well technique will not change much (for the start) compared to XP9. This means, we will still use bilboard tree textures. The textures will not be the original XP9 ones, but we take those from my old forest project (a bit better but technically no difference). And the placement of forests will be far more accurate (which makes them look good even now). BUT there are ideas for overhauling the forest system (the tree rendering) ... though, this won't happen any time soon (and don't ask me specifics)Atmospheric rendering: well this is the new tech in XP10 which is responsible for a much more representation of the atmosphere (but can still be turned on/off). Its impressive and most of you will like it, as it makes the same scenery look much more real :-)3D stereoscopy: I don't know as it is more a question of the rendering engine, whereas I am more the global scenery guy. I think it was not possible until now (correct me if thats wrong) ... and I don't know if anything has happened in that direction.(typed from iPhone so maybe a bit too many typos in here :-) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About forests: well technique will not change much (for the start) compared to XP9. This means, we will still use bilboard tree textures. The textures will not be the original XP9 ones, but we take those from my old forest project (a bit better but technically no difference). And the placement of forests will be far more accurate (which makes them look good even now). BUT there are ideas for overhauling the forest system (the tree rendering) ... though, this won't happen any time soon (and don't ask me specifics)
Will the scale of the trees be correct. I do see properly sized trees in many of the screenshots, but some of them contain trees that are way too large. Another question along these lines, would we be able to change the autogen trees ourselves. Last, would the density of the forests be thicker. Thanks so much for the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, you ask so many questions. Well, obviously you don't know my original project with which I started "large scale" scenery development in X-Plane (started with V8). It was all about forests (which just plain didn't exist in XP8 - even though the engine was in place). And you can read a bit more on my website about it:http://www.alpilotx.net/So, of course you can customize forests big time. Usually this is done by the so called FOR files. The ones we have at the moment in XP10 are more or less taken from my previous project (XP9 version), and put in the right place. And the density of the forests varies largely ... it depends on a lot of factors which I so by design (depending on forest type, density, climate etc.). And they might receive some further tuning , but for the moment we are happy that they work and already look quite good (even if in some places not perfect).And the size of trees ... :-) ... well, thats a long standing discussion. Well, they are a bit larger maybe than they are in real life. This is, because with their height, their width changes proportionally too. So, to have denser forests (make look them denser), we often used the "trick" to make them a bit higher, so they become wider (this was especially important with conifers, which are usually rather high, but thin if looked at from the side). But, this can be changed ... tuned ...And one day (when all the starting issues of XP10 are sorted out and we are back to normal dev work), we might completely overhaul forests anyways (but as I told, this is not in the real planning phase ... only some first ideas).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very promising! When the seasonal textures arrive I may just invest in a copy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the size of trees ... :-) ... well, thats a long standing discussion. Well, they are a bit larger maybe than they are in real life. This is, because with their height, their width changes proportionally too. So, to have denser forests (make look them denser), we often used the "trick" to make them a bit higher, so they become wider (this was especially important with conifers, which are usually rather high, but thin if looked at from the side). But, this can be changed ... tuned ...
Andras,Thanks for the information. Just for clarification, when you state that the size of the trees can be changed/tuned, does that mean that a user of XP10, like myself when it becomes available, will be able to make the changes or is that something that would be done by the Laminar team? Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. It is really great to have such a high level of involvement from the developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for clarification, when you state that the size of the trees can be changed/tuned, does that mean that a user of XP10, like myself when it becomes available, will be able to make the changes or is that something that would be done by the Laminar team?
You can change it if you want, you can play around if you want (just keep backups wink.png ). The way the forests are defined is quite neat (well, essentially most aspects of the scenery works this way, which is quite a nice aspect of it). In the DSFs (the scenery file), there is no artwork encoded! Only the - hmm , more or less - geographic information, vectors, mesh structures, positions etc... So, forests are only polygons, which define the form and extent of an - for the DSF - abstract forest entity. AND, each of this structures in the DSF (in the forest case the forest polygons) are associated with an artwork definition. In the case of forests these are the so called FOR files (and ground texturing has the TER files, etc. etc.). So, an exemplary forest stand in the DSF might have the FOR file conifer_hot_dry.for associated (thats really all the DSF knows), then this FOR file defines, how in the end it will be populated with artwork (how it looks in the sim). The FOR file includes which textures (trees) will be used, how they will be distributed, mixed, sized etc. ... And yes, there is already a documentation of this. Look here (even if that doc is quite old, it is more or less correct).http://scenery.x-plane.com/library.php?doc=forspec.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can change it if you want, you can play around if you want (just keep backups wink.png ). The way the forests are defined is quite neat (well, essentially most aspects of the scenery works this way, which is quite a nice aspect of it). In the DSFs (the scenery file), there is no artwork encoded! Only the - hmm , more or less - geographic information, vectors, mesh structures, positions etc... So, forests are only polygons, which define the form and extent of an - for the DSF - abstract forest entity. AND, each of this structures in the DSF (in the forest case the forest polygons) are associated with an artwork definition. In the case of forests these are the so called FOR files (and ground texturing has the TER files, etc. etc.). So, an exemplary forest stand in the DSF might have the FOR file conifer_hot_dry.for associated (thats really all the DSF knows), then this FOR file defines, how in the end it will be populated with artwork (how it looks in the sim). The FOR file includes which textures (trees) will be used, how they will be distributed, mixed, sized etc. ... And yes, there is already a documentation of this. Look here (even if that doc is quite old, it is more or less correct).http://scenery.x-pla...doc=forspec.php
Does this work for areas other than forests, such as in urban areas? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this work for areas other than forests, such as in urban areas? Thanks.
Can't answer. The completely new autogen technology for cities is not on my table and I don't exactly know how exactly the system works. But usually the artwork definition files are open (and i expect that the new one might get documented at some point in future too), and then it will be able to "tweak" them. But I would expect them to be a more complex beast than forest wink.png .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone give me a brief explanation why x-plane is so huge (8DL DVDs)? Compared to the size of FSX (3-4 CD-ROMs I guess) it seems way too big to me. And FSX has lots of night textures, seasonal textures and covers the whole world with more modeled airports and cities (I think so at least), has lots of missions and soundfiles etc. Hence it would be more reasonable to me if it was the other way around.What is in X-plane that needs soooo much data and that isn´t in FSX too?Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone give me a brief explanation why x-plane is so huge (8DL DVDs)? Compared to the size of FSX (3-4 CD-ROMs I guess) it seems way too big to me. And FSX has lots of night textures, seasonal textures and covers the whole world with more modeled airports and cities (I think so at least), has lots of missions and soundfiles etc. Hence it would be more reasonable to me if it was the other way around.What is in X-plane that needs soooo much data and that isn´t in FSX too?Thanks
X-Plane has more elevation points for topography, than is standard with FSX.edit: You don't need to load all the discs, if you don't plane to fly in a particular area.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X-Plane has more elevation points for topography, than is standard with FSX.
70gb and yet ... no Antarctica. I'm convinced that it's some kind of running joke at LR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest I did a couple of comparisons of default X-plane 10 with default FSX from Andras's screenshots (Hope you don't mind Andras!). I tried to match it as much as possible. Not sure I got it quite right. As i've said before my computer is pretty old by today's standards. an Intel Core i7 920 with an Ati 4870 GPU, doesn't really set the world alight does it? I remember when it was pretty good though {sigh} I'm crying inside! Anyway... really like the atmospheric qaulity to the X-plane 10 screenshots and as I have said before FSX does a pretty good job of holding it's own for an older platform, testamount to ACES' programming. I love the haze of the scenery in the first picture. I assume this is what Andras means by 'atmospheric rendering'???Comparison%2B2.jpgComparison%2B1.jpgComparison%2B3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xplane images appear to dark if the comparison is the same time of day.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...