Orbx remarks about X-Plane

[Cameron XA 272]

So you agree what is presented on that web page about DX is not accurate and is not true? Because earlier you said it was true?

 

Let's not mince or twist words here. I only agree that there is room for improvement and reason to provide users further explanation as to why a DX minimum card is required. I still maintain all I have said.

 

Why this IS important to me is that I would not have wasted my time, money, and effort with XP10 if it had listed OpenGL 3.2 on that page.

 

This is non-sensical beyond belief. You had a demo at your fingertips to assess if you liked X-Plane 10 or not. Further to this, let me just refresh your memory on something YOU said in an earlier post:

 

On a performance front, XP10 64bit is amazingly smooth and utilizes DX11 - put that kinda poly count in FSX and I'll be looking at 2-8 fps on a top end system ... I think we have enough videos of XP10 already demonstrating that. JV's comments are completely out of order and not accurate.

 

So now something that you thought was great and used DX11 is now no good after you found out it runs OpenGL, even though it runs and performs great on OpenGL and can handle what you say FS X cannot (a DX utilizing product)? I mean, I'm assuming your performance hasn't all the sudden degraded from the hours you went from thinking X-Plane was DX11 to finding out it's OpenGL. -Sigh-

 

 

And this is probably why OpenGL wasn't listed as I was lead down a false path of DX.

 

This just shows you don't know much at all about Laminar (which is okay) and how much of an "open book" they are. As a new consumer like yourself it would be unfair of me to assume you to know these things as well, but to settle your doubts, Laminar is quite vocal in the fact that they are OpenGL only, not DX, and why. They are also easily accessible people via e-mail and I can promise you they wouldn't try and tell you it ran DX. They are very comfortable in their own skin.

 

Does LM know that Apple doesn't really do simulations on desktop computers, let alone the even smaller niche market for Flight Simulation?

 

They know, and they are very vocal about it! In fact, they often times suggest a Windows PC if you really want to max out potential. But, just because of this it doesn't mean that they should switch. Apple makes their own choices, just as the consumers that use Apple products do. All this is to say that 50+% of X-Plane users are...on a Mac. Never mind the fact that the entire Laminar team (with the exception of a lone Linux team member) are all Mac users and develop X-Plane on the Mac. This is the choice they make. This is what they like.

 

With all these little details, then JV's comments start to make more sense -- still not something that's not business appropriate, but is starting to make sense.

 

I don't see OpenGL going away. I don't see Laminar shutting down. I don't see the decision to show that OpenGL is capable of rendering a sim that many people enjoy equates to a bad business decision. I don't see how catering to Mac, Windows, and Linux users limits the ability of X-Plane and somehow makes it a third rate sim. And lastly, I'll just quote you again from earlier, Robains:

 

JV's comments are completely out of order and not accurate.

[BimmerCop 332]

This is how I see it and take my word like a grain of salt, because after all, I am just a cop...

 

The minimum requirement is a DX 9.0c capable card, which will have the ability to support at least OpenGL 3.2...

Recommended requirement is a DX 10 (DX 11 preferred) capable card, which will have the ability to support OpenGL 4.x+ and any other future goodies they want to incorporate.

 

My understanding is that XP 10 will work on EITHER card and will adapt to whatever card you have. If you have a DX 9.0c capable card, then don't expect to see visuals or features that can only be had with a DX 10 (11) capable card. That sounds like common sense to me. If this is the case, then the system requirements at the XP website is spot on and doesn't expect one to have an English Major to comprehend it. :LMAO:

[fvapres 7]

When you look at the box of any major video card, as most games are DirectX based apps, the manufacturers place what version of DX is supported and sometimes, buried on the details of the box, you can find the OpenGL version. Since XP is OpenGL and there is NO GUARANTEE someone knows what version OpenGL their card can do, but may know their card is DX9 or DX10 or DX11, LR is using this rough idea that a DX11 card is usually compatible with OpenGL 3.2, DX10 cards are OpenGL 2.4, DX9 Cards are 1.7...blah blah blah...

 

They're saying that if your card can do DX9.0c, it 99% should have the hardware required to do the OpenGL stuff XP needs. A DX11 card has more hardware features. There is a keyword on those specs that is what you seem to miss over and over again...CAPABLE...as in DX9.0c CAPABLE which means it is capable of DX9.0c...doesn't mean XP uses it, but it is a feature of the card, that if your card is DX9.0c, it meets minimum requirements. That doesn't tell you anything about what it actually uses, just what you, as a customer, need to know about your hardware to know it wlil work for what is needed. Some people don't even know what OpenGL is, so why would LR advertise the requirements based on something that a lot of people have never heard of and there's no guarantee they'll be able to find out as the manufacturers of the hardware sometimes don't advertise OpenGL version capability?

[Guest]

The minimum requirement is a DX 9.0c capable card, which will have the ability to support at least OpenGL 3.2...

 

There is nothing that says a DX9c card has to support OpenGL 3.2. Two completely different libraries.

 

XP10 is OpenGL 3.2 nothing more, nothing less, you will not see "accelerated" visuals beyond what can be done with OpenGL 3.2 library. But as you can see A LOT can still be done with OpenGL 3.2 -- XP10 is a great example of this. And like I've maintained, XP10 is fast, is smooth, is 64bit -- I'm NOT changing my opinion on that. However Efrain, your assumptions are not correct, if you have a DX10 or DX11 video card you will not see any additional visuals beyond how well those card work with OpenGL 3.2 features.

 

XP10 will actually see and use OpenGL 4.3 (on Windows) but it will only use those features that are a part of the OpenGL 3.2 library (so no accelerated tessellation, shader 5.0, etc.) My concern here is that LM will not use the additional features of OpenGL 4.3 until Apple move to OpenGL 4.3.

 

 

That is my point of contention, and it's a big one for me because it will influence when/if I want to work with the SDK to produce any 3rd party content ... am I really that far out in left field because I don't want to be bound to whatever version of OpenGL Apple decide to support (and hence LM)? Now if this is NOT the case, and LM will move ahead with OpenGL 4.3 support regardless of what Apple do, then great!! I'm all in for working with their SDK and producing content!

 

On a side note: after contacting LM, they do actually use a small part of DX ... for sound (however DX10/11 is not needed).

[OmniAtlas 93]

OpenGL is going to flourish this year with the release of the steam box. Woo hoo!

[jjjallen 37]

OK so Xp10 is G3D and not DirectX. Good then take all references to DirectX off the XP download page IMO.

 

Cheers

jja

[fvapres 7]

Again, they have people that don't know the difference between OpenGL and DirectX that need to know if their hardware will run XP. Since manufacturers aren't better than 75% in providing the OpenGL version, but are 100% providing DX version, LR have defaulted to telling the users what DX version their card needs to be as that is the only way to be sure people can know if their hardware will be compatible with the software.

 

If they added the fact that XP uses OpenGL as a renderer but any card that can do DX9.0c or better can do the OpenGL required, that would be more accurate, but possibly more confusing to someone who's never heard of OpenGL and barely knows what DirectX 9.0c means.

[tkyler 88]

+1 to fvapres..he sees it.

 

Don't agree "DX11 Preferred" why make this statement when there is NOTHING in OpenGL 3.2 that supports the extended features of DX11

 

You are thinking like a programmer.

 

I think tt51d who agreed with you is a programmer as well....and the web site isn't meant for you. If I line up 1000 guys who use flight sims, most will use Windows machines, fewer Macintoshes and even fewer Linux. All of those windows guys think in terms of "DX"....not openGL. Given a choice of sitting them down and trying to explain "GL spec" or "DX spec" to guys who really don't care and the differences...or just saying, "Get a DX-11 capable card".....it is just simpler to say 'get a DX-11 card'. By the "bounding theorem"....having a DX-11 card means that the new features we stuck in x-plane that utilize specific hardware processing features with OpenGL will work with their "DX 11 card". The goal is to convey to average users (read NOT programmers) the expectation that features promoted will work when users fire up the sim. 'DX11 capable'........done...finished, no more explanation needed to those other 999 guys...that guy with the DX-11 capable card walks away happy when his lights light up at night or his engine heat exhaust gets blurry....1 in 1000 not happy? Welcome to the club, I've been there myself. 99.9% success rate for the goal of having users know if their card will support the latest and greatest graphical x-features to work on their hardware is enough to have management say, "do it!" AND with fewer words no less than trying to explain GL and see users eyes gloss over.

 

If I have 1000 guys get in front of me who ask, "will my card work with the new x-plane features?" and I say, "is your card DX-11 capable?" and they say yes, I say "yes, next!" You say, "well x-plane is openGL and NOT DX-11..you don't get the extended feature set that DX-11 provides even though x-plane doesn't claim to use this extended feature set therefore......blah blah blah blah!"...that's when the user gets out of your line and gets in mine because mine is moving faster. Professor says, "if this was programming 101, you'd get an A....but this is business 101 and you get a F"

 

Tom K.

[JasonHarris 96]

Instead, Austin would rather spend MORE cash than the settlement just as a matter of principal. Uniloc was not expecting this if I had to make a very good guess. Money is not the issue for him. He's got quite a bit of it, and not just from X-Plane sales.

 

Probably why the guy with the idea and brains is not the best person to run the business side of things. If you want your business to succeed you do what is best for it. I would hate to pay the buggers but if I am financially better off for doing it then there isn't much choice.

 

Also, as already mentioned from the interview, Austin saying he doesnt really think more than three months out is amazing and says something.

[Cameron XA 272]

 

Probably why the guy with the idea and brains is not the best person to run the business side of things. If you want your business to succeed you do what is best for it. I would hate to pay the buggers but if I am financially better off for doing it then there isn't much choice.

 

Also, as already mentioned from the interview, Austin saying he doesnt really think more than three months out is amazing and says something.

 

You can take that up with Austin.

 

On a side note: after contacting LM, they do actually use a small part of DX ... for sound (however DX10/11 is not needed).

 

I don't doubt your contact with them, but can you tell who at Laminar stated this? If like to get further clarification, as I have serious doubts. As someone familiar with the sound engine to a large degree, I am every bit confident that X-Plane uses SoftAL, not DX.

[JasonHarris 96]

This seems to be the most silly part of the thread. In all games the DX version of the card is usually recommended.

 

I dont see any issue with LR saying dx9 card required, or 11 preferred. Most games are still not using DX11 but you will still see them saying DX11 preferred. Why? Because it's usually got more grunt and this seems to be the defacto way to give average joe some idea about what they need.

 

This seems to be the least of anyones worries, how can it be that big of a deal? Does the Heaven benchmark look oh so bad using dx9?

[fvapres 7]

I am every bit confident that X-Plane uses SoftAL, not DX

 

I think it might be OpenAL, but the idea is the same, the audio platform has to be cross-platform compatible so they don't have to use multiple programming techniques for audio. Programming for multiple OS's is hard enough.

[Cameron XA 272]

 

I think it might be OpenAL, but the idea is the same, the audio platform has to be cross-platform compatible so they don't have to use multiple programming techniques for audio. Programming for multiple OS's is hard enough.

 

OpenAL was discontinued for use by Laminar with X-Plane 9.

 

X-Plane 10 is, as I stated, SoftAL (aka OAL Soft) and is a derivative of OAL with much less limitations. It was changed for various reasons, many of which were the result of clashes in plugins.

[fvapres 7]

Nice to know. Haven't heard of SoftAL, but I assume its a newer robust and less error prone modification or development path of OpenAL...the AL at the end...

[carrotroot 77]

Given a choice of sitting them down and trying to explain "GL spec" or "DX spec" to guys who really don't care and the differences...or just saying, "Get a DX-11 capable card".....it is just simpler to say 'get a DX-11 card'.

 

"A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation" - H. H. Munro

 

^{It's all good until you actually have to explain to the people who know the difference.}