This morning, I have been flying over the states of West Virginia around KMRB, and am flying over the state using Orbx's FSXG.

 

Ok, having typed that....can anybody answer for me, how ORBX is pulling this off?  I have scenery below me (forests on the mountains and their valleys) that at 2,500 feet, you can almost make out the actual branches and their foliage.  How in the WORLD has ORBX pulled this off....and with absolutely no hit to my FPS.

 

I've been in this a long time...and as you all know, the more complex (visual acuity) the scenery becomes, the FPS have historically dived into the dumpster.  How has ORBX managed to achieve what FSXG renders, and NO HIT TO FPS...I'm flying over West Virginia at at VERY DENSE for both auto-gen and the Scenery Complexity sliders, and not one FPS frame loss...

 

HOW are they doing it?

 

What has truly changed in scenery rendering from let's say even only 18 months ago.

 

ORBX will tell you nothing regarding this.  You can understand that, but I'm sure there are many others than myself who would like to know the nuts and bolts of it....

 

If somebody in this forum has a true software technical professional experience and can cast some light on this question...I'd be very grateful.  To fully appreciate what I am viewing...I also want to understand in HOW IT IS BEING DONE!!!!

 

I hope I can get this question answered to some extent.

 

Thanks in advance....

 

Mitch

Reads like an ad for FTX Global.

Let me point out GEX has done the same thing  :-)

Reads like an ad for FTX Global.

Truly...that's ALL, you can contribute?   That comment?  Geez...

Let me point out GEX has done the same thing  :-)

The same 'what'?  How did this address anything in what I asked?

 

 

The same 'what'? How did this address anything in what I asked?

 

Just pointing out that I too have better performance with greater detail using GEX, so whatever FTXG and GEX did, it's finally fixed a major issue with FSX after 4 years.

 

How they did it I have no idea, I am just enjoying the results as you are

Just pointing out that I too have better performance with greater detail using GEX, so whatever FTXG and GEX did, it's finally fixed a major issue with FSX after 4 years.

 

How they did it I have no idea, I am just enjoying the results as you are

Glad that you are!

 

Still would like someone who has a technical background to offer their opinion on how FSXG's textures could so populate in density, as to look life-verbatim, but yet not cost anything to render.  I'm hoping that that can be postulated.....

 

 

Still would like someone who has a technical background to offer their opinion on how FSXG's textures could so populate in density, as to look life-verbatim, but yet not cost anything to render. I'm hoping that that can be postulated.....

 

My guess is we arent going to hear anything from either camp as to how they did it. Somethng this game changing is going to be held close, I could be wrong :-)

How much tree type variety is there?

 

If it's very little, ORBX basically used a tweaking possibility present since SP2 (and earlier).

 

If you turn down object variety, you can in turn, and thanks to batched rendering, crank up the numbers of the remaining visible objects.

 

In FSX, this can be done with the reduced AutogenDecriptions files supplied with one of the SP2.

Running the file with minimal variety allows me to max out autogen without any measurable performance impact. At the same density, I can not run the standard variety in trees and houses without losing quite some FPS.

How much tree type variety is there?

 

If it's very little, ORBX basically used a tweaking possibility present since SP2 (and earlier).

 

If you turn down object variety, you can in turn, and thanks to batched rendering, crank up the numbers of the remaining visible objects.

 

In FSX, this can be done with the reduced AutogenDecriptions files supplied with one of the SP2.

Running the file with minimal variety allows me to max out autogen without any measurable performance impact. At the same density, I can not run the standard variety in trees and houses without losing quite some FPS.

There's quite a few different species and elements of such in FSXG.  I actually do not see any 'downsizing', in that I had to actually drop both the Autogen and Scenery Complexity sliders down from 'Extremely to both set to 'Very' Dense to achieve the object and texture injection to look like real life. That was a bonus to me, as I have had no further CTD's or OOM's of any kind since having purchased and installed FSXG, and its resultant turning down of both those sliders.  I see the world now as much more realistic and 'denser' in nature, than GEX produced for me.  That's what puzzles me so....so what did Orbx come up with that nobody else in the last 36 months could not have?  Is ORBX just a company with members and associates that can think outside the box, and therefore can look at a sphere from any and all angles, that nobody else has?  Or...is it that they just have plugged away to arrive at a more pronounced solution by intense R and D that nobody else wishes to commit to?  I would really love to know WHY.....WHY....this type of creation could not have been released at the time of the original R.T.M. of FSX itself?  To think that the originators of the very code that comprises FSX could, or would not have had the proffesional skill and acumen to release graphics as default of this caliber and nature is absurd!  Totally absurd.  Phil and company did not have the technical and professional acumen to give us what ORBX as a texture team had a number of years ago?!?!??  I don't buy in, that 'the technical hardware level of the time dictated' what we got as a final release. I don't buy that at all....code is keystrokes, and with a slider (pinch) system, each user could downplay the texture engine to give them productive performance.

 

So the question remains in my mind. Were the original ACES engineers, not the top of their game? Could Microsoft had done better in staffing that unit?. Each department that contributed to the whole FSX release?  That is what I am wondering....so again my simple question is...what has ORBX done, that it seems no one to date from any other 3rd party contributor could deliver to bring the world as close to reality that their FSXG and regional products have?  What?  What?  I really hope that a software engineer could  offer hypothesis for my topic question. I fly with ORBX FSXG and their region offerings, and feel, good, bad, or indifferent,.... rather cheated and frustrated, that I could have had this level of view realism from the get go of FSX those years ago, and it should have been released (because obviously it could be rendered such....with no new core coding or reverse engineering of such code) in my P.O..  If Phil Taylor and his team, was standing behind the Microsoft franchise motto (...as REAL as it gets....) it should have been released with this level of acuity.  This, again, is what drives my topic....and I will ask once more to the reader...what did a bunch of guys and gals from  Australia do in their office and dens, that a dedicated and highly compensated group of software engineers and graphics engineers COULD NOT SEND OUT WITH THE RTM FSX, Bjoern?

...

 

The design objectives for the ORBX team is way narrower than the one for ACES. That's the difference.

The design objectives for the ORBX team is way narrower than the one for ACES. That's the difference.

 

 

Agreed, MS had a whole lot more to focus on than just the ground textures and the autogen. When you look at the different developers ORBX has and that they have multiple offices, they are probably a bigger team than ACES was.

 

I agree with the first response, sounds like more like an FTXG ad, LOL..

 

 

Were the original ACES engineers, not the top of their game?

 

Besides the focus of the Orbx folks, lets not forget they've had years and YEARS of time to learn and exploit the details of the FSX scenery and rendering engines. They've had years of time to see what works and what doesn't within the FSX engine. Years of time to delve into the details that the ACES folks probably didn't even realize were there. Years of time to optimize, adjust, tweak, and otherwise learn about the unchanging platform put before them.

 

Nearly all the big-name addons in recent months have benefited for the same reasons. Weather generation tools have improved using new techniques and methods not previously thought of. Addon aircraft have expanded into amazing representations of their real-world counterparts with features not imagined in the past. Cloud/environmental artwork expansions continue to drastically improve the sky we fly in.... on and on and on...

 

Theoretically, each of these improvement categories could have been thought of and included in the 2006 release of FSX, but that just doesn't happen.

 

Nearly all flavors of addons have benefited from the time they've had to grow with the unchanging platform that is FSX. When you have a baseline product that isn't expected to change for a long time, 3rd party developers have a LOT of incentive to get creative and exploit as much as they can in pursuit of improvements. This undercurrent of almost forced creativity helps explain the continued and seemingly unstoppable success of the FSX development world.

The design objectives for the ORBX team is way narrower than the one for ACES. That's the difference.

There were different focus groups assigned to varied tasks, and as you suggest,making the umbrella argument, wouldn't fly in my corporate culture...you delegate, and each focus delegate comes together with .deliverables. Those assigned to texture and autogen  should have had the skill set to produce at RTM.  There was no soft focus and generalization I assure you at head's up meetings with department heads. If there was..that would have been grossly lax on Microsoft's part. Where I work, you wouldn't last past one project, and if you were under contract...perhaps early termination, and out the door....bye, bye......

 

We must (in my cooperate culture) execute deliverables that are top notch, and one past the median  research of the competition, or else why am I there, and why are they paying me....and if not delivered, you hit the bread line....   I have seen more than one or more colleagues be shown the door because of their 'soft delivery focus'. To suggest that MS's ACES team had a 'lot more'...to focus on, is the sound of death in any cooperate professional career, if.... stating 'the reason to not deliver excellence...' is/was "we has so much to focus on, Vice President,'at the Team Meeting Oversight. . If ORBX could deliver this quality of texture and autogen...WITHIN the confines of untouched FSX core code WRITTEN by that ACES team... so should they (ACES themselves)  have given the end user/client no less.in visual quality at product release.  A  tasked 'large/soft focus' is no excuse for non performance and delivery in the board room.  But anyways, this is coming off topic.  I still would like someone with the technical expertise to suggest what ORBX did, and in what ACES, did NOT when releasing their FSX default texture sets at RTM.

 

MItch

I agree with the first response, sounds like more like an FTXG ad, LOL..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then my friend, you have just given them (ORBX) the ultimate compliment. I don't think that was your intent in posting that....

 

You have said in your statement within the lines,....they are experts in their field.  My topic was solely on what technical approach did they do, that the originators (ACES did not/could not/ or didn't even try.... not on advertising as at least two now, can only glean from this topic.... I have no financial ties to ORBX, so 'advertising' without compensation is idiotic. I am no idiot...and seek understanding and comprehension in HOW they might have approached this project..and apparently delivered upon it.  Each to decipher what they read into something. As it is...or what they think it is....  The readers decide for themselves. For myself, I posted to get a professional answer, as I am not of this field of endeavor.

 

Mitch 

Besides the focus of the Orbx folks, lets not forget they've had years and YEARS of time to learn and exploit the details of the FSX scenery and rendering engines. They've had years of time to see what works and what doesn't within the FSX engine. Years of time to delve into the details that the ACES folks probably didn't even realize were there. Years of time to optimize, adjust, tweak, and otherwise learn about the unchanging platform put before them.

 

Nearly all the big-name addons in recent months have benefited for the same reasons. Weather generation tools have improved using new techniques and methods not previously thought of. Addon aircraft have expanded into amazing representations of their real-world counterparts with features not imagined in the past. Cloud/environmental artwork expansions continue to drastically improve the sky we fly in.... on and on and on...

 

Theoretically, each of these improvement categories could have been thought of and included in the 2006 release of FSX, but that just doesn't happen.

 

Nearly all flavors of addons have benefited from the time they've had to grow with the unchanging platform that is FSX. When you have a baseline product that isn't expected to change for a long time, 3rd party developers have a LOT of incentive to get creative and exploit as much as they can in pursuit of improvements. This undercurrent of almost forced creativity helps explain the continued and seemingly unstoppable success of the FSX development world.

Excellent and well thought out response. Thank you. I do have to say though, that as the originators of the code, the very genesis of that code, they would have had the ultimate understanding in what they were creating, as their vice-president in charge of this original crew, would also think......  Yes...time to 'look outside the box' can improve any product line...yes...absolutely, but having typed that, I still stand by my opinion, that what ORBX has released in the form of FSXG..could have from the start, should have from the start, been of the level and quality, in texture, as delivered by a franchise that.had years of flight simulation coding and conceptualizing history in its 'vaults'.  I still say. that what ORBX has offered us as 3rd party, was very obtainable by ACES at the forefront. I find the ACES effort at RTM, deficit. I know that many, many others feel this way, as well. THOSE engineers should have been at the top of their game, post FS9.  My purchase money, dictated so....

 

Cheers,

 

Mitch 

As far as I know FTX Global mostly just replaces default FSX textures with better looking ones (and that automatically doesn't mean they consume more resources) and I think they also made some changes to autogen placement or something.

 

I don't think FTX Global did anything magical that GEX hasn't done so far, where the real new stuff will come in are the OpenLC packs which will increase variation of different ground textures used through custom lanclass and totally new textures instead of just replacing default ones. 

 

Also note that when FSX came out nobody could really run it with max or nearly max autogen and high texture quality and still have acceptable FPS. 

 

By the way, do you suggest ACES team should have also covered whole world with Flytampa quality airport scenery just because that's possible?