I think once XPX is further along in development and implements the features many are asking for, it will look so good by default that Orbx won't be needed anyway.

I think once XPX is further along in development and implements the features many are asking for, it will look so good by default that Orbx won't be needed anyway.

 

I believe it will take quite a number of additional years, a lot more computing power, and a extremely large data base (such as Google) to replace 3rd party scenery such as Orbx, MegaScenery, New Zealand for X-Plane, etc. With what we have these days, a default data base will never satisfy everyones curiosity of what other parts of the world look like.

 

Geez, sometimes I like taxing right next to various buildings in an airport environment. And that means representations of the "actual" buildings. Not just generic structures from a database. Other times I like flying over photo-real, while knowing it will lack features at low altitudes. In other words, I won't just sit , hope, and write about some future additions, that may, or may not actually come true...........in some future year.

 

In the meantime, I could care less who makes it, and for what sim. Just as long as it looks good, and is worth flying over.

 

L.Adamson

http://www.x-plane.c...m-requirements/

 

Your statement about XP10 and DX11 is 100% wrong - see link for Windows. Mac OSX is limited to OpenGL 3.2 which is a very old OpenGL spec - current OpenGL spec supported on Window 7 is OpenGL 4.2 which is similar in features to DX11.

 

Agree tesselation is only supported at a hardware accelerated mode in DX11 and OpenGL 4.x .

 

Sorry to break the news to ya, but that's reality.

 

OpenGL 3.2 spec is feature equivalent to DX9c

 

No, robains, you're 100% wrong here. X-Plane does not, in any form or fashion, utilize DX. The specification is purely there for suggestive purposes as to the CARDS capabilities and to ensure that if you get a card with the minimum DX version on it that your OpenGL will be covered...Tessellation is a good example, because the extension for OGL or DX shares this feature of the card.

 

This has been discussed multiple times by Laminar, and us developers have had countless discussions to ensure we clear up any misguided thoughts.

 

Plain and simple, X-Plane is OpenGL only. It does not use DX...at all.

 

Just to drive the point home, quoting Laminar (Ben Supnik) on a blog post a while back:

 

Make sure your video card is “DirectX 11 class”. (This confuses everyone, because of course X-Plane uses OpenGL. I am referring to its hardware capabilities.) This means a Radeon HD 5000 or higher, or an NVidia GeForce 400 or higher. DirectX 11 cards all do complete hardware instancing (something X-Plane 10 will use) and they have other features (like tessellation) that we hope to use in the future. We’re far enough into DX11 that these cards can be obtained at reasonable prices.

Who is this John Venema and since when are his statements to be taken as Gospel?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Who is this John Venema and since when are his statements to be taken as Gospel?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Efrain, like some others around here I've never heard of the guy either, never owned a Orbx product.

 

What statements are you referring to that people are taking as gospel? Is it the sentiments / feelings in this post about the "future" of Xplane, and one that he is questioning? Xplanes future has been discussed many, many times, long before this guys comments.

 

I think most of us feel Xplane always has had, and always will have a future, it's just what kind of future, "the same old", or finally "something new", where they do make some changes in the way it's developed, and finally, the high performance, great looking, fully functional simulator we all have been waiting for, will come to be.

 

Xplane can be it, with change. Is this what you're referring too, "his Gospel"? It should be "our Mantra".

 

Glen

That would be the TV movie

 

Ford: The man and the machine

 

I enjoyed that movie, I just found it on youtube

 

Thank you Jay,

I stayed up most of the night watching it! :lazy: It's good, but not That good!.

 

Kind regards,

No, robains, you're 100% wrong here. X-Plane does not, in any form or fashion, utilize DX. The specification is purely there for suggestive purposes as to the CARDS capabilities and to ensure that if you get a card with the minimum DX version on it that your OpenGL will be covered...Tessellation is a good example, because the extension for OGL or DX shares this feature of the card.

 

This has been discussed multiple times by Laminar, and us developers have had countless discussions to ensure we clear up any misguided thoughts.

 

Plain and simple, X-Plane is OpenGL only. It does not use DX...at all.

 

Just to drive the point home, quoting Laminar (Ben Supnik) on a blog post a while back:

 

Make sure your video card is “DirectX 11 class”. (This confuses everyone, because of course X-Plane uses OpenGL. I am referring to its hardware capabilities.) This means a Radeon HD 5000 or higher, or an NVidia GeForce 400 or higher. DirectX 11 cards all do complete hardware instancing (something X-Plane 10 will use) and they have other features (like tessellation) that we hope to use in the future. We’re far enough into DX11 that these cards can be obtained at reasonable prices.

 

Being one that only believes what I see ... sadly I was able to confirm that XPlane-10 is indeed OpenGL 3.2 on Windows and NOT DX11 ... sorry I didn't believe you, but I loaded DependancyWalker and Spy++ and monitored ... sure enough it's not using DX at all.

 

So what's on X-plane web site is frankly NOT TRUE ... it can't even be "interpreted" differently for the English language in any way shape or form and why it even mentions DX is just 100% inaccurate.

 

It's still a very an interesting product, but for me it's definitely moved from "it's the future" to "it's a BIG maybe" If AM is bound to whatever version of OpenGL Apple decide to support (as of today Mountain Lion is OpenGL 3.2 ~ feature match to DX9c) in their OS, then it's going to have a serious impact on potential. I don't necessarily have a problem with it being OpenGL, but I do have a problem with it being limited by Apple OS's support -- and that support being forced on Windows side of XP10 ... IMHO, that's a serious and significant limitation.

 

Oh well, no hardware accelerated Tessellation or Shader 5.0 for XP10 ... perhaps JV's comments were not PC, but I can at least understand his concern on the technology side ... the last company of this planet I would want to be at the mercy of is Apple and when/if they ever decide to support OpenGL 4.3.

 

On X-Planes web site ... this is more than just misleading:

 

So what's on X-plane web site is frankly NOT TRUE ... it can't even be "interpreted" differently for the English language in any way shape or form and why it even mentions DX is just 100% inaccurate.

 

What's on the website IS true. If you don't have a DX 9 capable video card then you can bet your bottom dollar that what they need to access for OpenGL will NOT work. It is very easily interpreted in English...even more so with the quote I provided in my last post directly from the primary programmer at Laminar.

 

Given most cards are heavily advertised with their DX capabilities, this makes it even easier for the consumer to understand if they have the minimum required card to run X-Plane.

What's on the website IS true. If you don't have a DX 9 capable video card then you can bet your bottom dollar that what they need to access for OpenGL will NOT work. It is very easily interpreted in English...even more so with the quote I provided in my last post directly from the primary programmer at Laminar.

 

Given most cards are heavily advertised with their DX capabilities, this makes it even easier for the consumer to understand if they have the minimum required card to run X-Plane.

 

Don't agree "DX11 Preferred" why make this statement when there is NOTHING in OpenGL 3.2 that supports the extended features of DX11 - specifically hardware accelerated tessellation and shader 5.0 ... but anyway ... you are correct on the OpenGL:

 

Cameron I have to agree with Robains, if one just looks at the description and system requirements on the XP website, they can very easily get the impression it's a Direct X application! While I understand your point about it only being a hardware requirement, with no mention of OpenGL, the inference is that it is a DX app.

Don't agree "DX11 Preferred" why make this statement when there is NOTHING in OpenGL 3.2 that supports the extended features of DX11 - specifically hardware accelerated tessellation and shader 5.0 ... but anyway ... you are correct on the OpenGL:

 

Do you not read fully or something?

 

It's called future proofing. The quote from Ben Supnik addresses this. They plan to use features available only to DX11 cards in the FUTURE. This is why it is preferred. Not only this, there is little doubt that a DX11 card will be a better card in general than a DX9 card. It's really not rocket science.

 

DirectX 11 cards all do complete hardware instancing (something X-Plane 10 will use) and they have other features (like tessellation) that we hope to use in the future. We’re far enough into DX11 that these cards can be obtained at reasonable prices.

 

Cameron I have to agree with Robains, if one just looks at the description and system requirements on the XP website, they can very easily get the impression it's a Direct X application! While I understand your point about it only being a hardware requirement, with no mention of OpenGL, the inference is that it is a DX app.

 

I am in no way debating the point of how one could interpret otherwise, but you just now proved my point that one can also interpret correctly or at least make sense of why Laminar would list it this way! Robains said: "it can't even be "interpreted" differently for the English language in any way shape or form", yet it looks like you were able to interpret it in the same way I can...and in English no less.

It's called future proofing. The quote from Ben Supnik addresses this! They plan to use features available only to DX11 cards in the FUTURE. This is why it is preferred.

 

I have NO problem with my reading comprehension, show me where it says this on that x-plane web page? You've injected something that is NOT being communicated on that web page at all. How would a potential customer know "future plans" of XP10 on this web page? Come on, really? I can't belive anyone is suggesting that page is accurate or "True" at all??

 

And finally, "Future plans" could mean anything or nothing. That page is "SELLING" a product, it's not some open discussion about future plans and what may or may not be implemented - it's a hardware/software specification list. That page is just NOT true in any sense of the matter. It can only "maybe" make sense if you inject "future plans" and other speculation that simply isn't identifed on that page??

 

If it is, show me where it says anything to that nature on that web page?

 

DX9c, DX10, DX11 preferred ... and yet XPlane doesn't even use DX ... how can that be a "TRUE" statement?

I have NO problem with my reading comprehension, show me where it says this on that x-plane web page? You've injected something that is NOT being communicated on that web page at all. How would a potential customer know "future plans" of XP10 on this web page? Come on, really? I can't belive anyone is suggesting that page is accurate or "True" at all??

 

And finally, "Future plans" could mean anything or nothing. That page is "SELLING" a product, it's not some open discussion about future plans and what may or may not be implemented - it's a hardware/software specification list. That page is just NOT true in any sense of the matter. It can only "maybe" make sense if you inject "future plans" and other speculation that simply isn't identifed on that page??

 

If it is, show me where it says anything to that nature on that web page?

 

Enough time has already been wasted trying to get you to understand. Now you've gone from what X-Plane does use and why they would suggest it to trust of a salesman. There's no doubt that things could be worded better...I already said that (something you would know if you read). The question was further proposed by your lack of understanding on the Uniloc position (you entirely misinterpreted that).

 

I am not going to debate Laminar's silly page. To the average consumer this likely doesn't even matter. Pure and simple, Laminar is making a suggestion to the consumer to:

 

A.) Ensure they have the correct hardware not only for now, but later (something easily defined by the highly NVIDIA and ATI marketed, on the box plastered, version of DX).

 

B.) Suggest a better card for Laminar's hopeful future proofing. Given the context of this conversation and all I have posted here, including quotes by Laminar, my concern is not telling the average consumer why Laminar lacks words or suggests the way they do, but for YOU to understand why (after all, it was you asking or insinuating).

 

I'll leave the marketing side to Laminar. I'm sure they'd gladly take your email and suggestion to further clarify to their customers that DX is not actually used in the product.

 

If you wish to learn more about DX, why it's suggested, and OGL's use in Laminar's plans, consult the blog they run. That's me talking to you, not the average consumer.

There's no doubt that things could be worded better

 

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?

 

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

 

I know plenty about OpenGL and DX and I also know OSX is stuck at OpenGL 3.2 and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Apple will move OSX to OpenGL 4.x (so no tessellation, no shader 5) ... so Laminar's plans of what they will do with OpenGL is bound by what Apple do with OpenGL ... or go Linux to get OpenGL 4.x support (provided by AMD/nVidia). Assuming of course Laminar want's to continue with cross-platform.

 

Does LM know that Apple doesn't really do simulations on desktop computers, let alone the even smaller niche market for Flight Simulation? I realize the iOS/Android versions have brought in additional revenue, but it's still less than Desktop revenue. Add to this that Apple haven't updated their MacPro line (something a consumer would need if they want to experience XP10 in all it's glory) for 3+ years with Mr. Cook suggesting maybe sometime 2013 with no specific details?? This is good how? How will LM move to OpenGL 4.x when it's not support crossplatform? What future and how is this "Future proof"?

 

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.

 

As far as wasting YOUR time, think about this ... had that web page simply been accurate and truthful, this thread distraction would never have existed and your time would NOT have been wasted.

....sigh....