Well it was nice while it lasted ... 

I agree with most of what was posted in this thread.

We are a very small team, and given the team size, we are currently working on A LOT of new products. X-Plane 10.30 being one of them of course.

Being a small team does have its benefits, though. We have absolutely minimal management overhead, and no Dilbert-style marathon meetings keeping us from doing what we actually need to do.

 

X-Plane 10.30 is already very heavily being tested by selected people using most of the current add-ons to make sure there are no regressions before it goes into public beta. And no, messaging or e-mailing me won't get you in the private beta testing, so don't bother. We are also in contact with many third-party developers to make sure they can make ever-better add-ons with 10.30.

 

The list of additions and bugfixes in 10.30 is currently more than two pages on Austin's monitor. And Austin runs at 3840x2160 resolution, so that should give you an idea how long a page is. Ben has a blog post coming up talking about all the major features of 10.30.

 

Philipp

Thanks for this info. That's what I like about small teams: less noise, better ideas, more peace, more focus on what's important among other things.

Thank you for the update and will be checking for Ben's blog Post!!!

Thanks for this info. That's what I like about small teams: less noise, better ideas, more peace, more focus on what's important among other things.

Idem...but please keep the communications coming we really appreciate it when you keep us apprised! As you guys see from the thread title we are desperate for some good news, and it looks like we may soon be in luck.

As being a little  "cog wheel" in that team, I can also add in a tiny, little, positive "heads up" about the new view distance in 10.30 .... well, yes, it indeed works, and when it does so it looks really impressive :-). And I would even like to elaborate on it a little bit more, as there are some "implications" which you should keep in mind:

• As I told it, the new visibility is working very well, and does what you all expect ... especially in the mountains, you can see now very very far (like Mt. Rainier from KSEA - in all of its details). This is all thanks to the fact, that XP 10.30 can load 12 (4x3) instead of 6 (3x2) DSF scenery tiles.
• Loading times are quite good, despite the double amount of DSFs. This is thanks to some entirely new, parallelised loading code Ben has implemented (and which needed quite some rounds of debugging, as it introduced some "side effects" B) )
• Whats definitely very positive is the fact, that it doesn't hurt FPS too much (well, farther away, its really only the base mesh which gets drawn - and not the more expensive autogen, roads, forests etc.). But this might vary a lot depending on the systems you use (but don't worry, my current machine is definitely not the newest iron either)
• But RAM usage is definitely very heavy (just as expected)! This is something everybody should be absolutely clear here about. Having 12 instead of 6 DSF tiles in memory can't be had for free! My tests showed (this might all still change a bit ... but I think the rough numbers should be correct), that with the default Global Scenery you will be on the safe side with 8 GByte of RAM. With my HD Mesh Scenery v2 I will definitely recommend 16 GBytes of RAM (which I have too - and its sometimes already on the edge ... but still OK). I think, the SimHeave Photoscenery will be in a similar ball park ...
• Of course, this new feature will only be available with 64bit (as 32bit limits you - technically - to 4 GByte RAM usage). Ben already told this too, I just wanted to remind you ...
• After some tests with Ben, I think its quite sure, that Laminar will add a config option (but don't take my word as granted) to switch between loading old style 6 DSF  (back to lower visibility, but also back to "normal" RAM usage)  or 12 DSF (high visibility, but also high RAM demand). This will allow to freely decide what you prefer, or what you can afford without compromising your flying experience (on 64bit)

I have 8 GB ram....  I use your HD mesh.  Will I still be able to run the 6 DSF's?

This is awesome news, thanks the update!  Sounds like 10.30 is really coming together.

 

As being a little  "cog wheel" in that team, I can also add in a tiny, little, positive "heads up" about the new view distance in 10.30 .... well, yes, it indeed works, and when it does so it looks really impressive :-). And I would even like to elaborate on it a little bit more, as there are some "implications" which you should keep in mind:

• As I told it, the new visibility is working very well, and does what you all expect ... especially in the mountains, you can see now very very far (like Mt. Rainier from KSEA - in all of its details). This is all thanks to the fact, that XP 10.30 can load 12 (4x3) instead of 6 (3x2) DSF scenery tiles.
• Loading times are quite good, despite the double amount of DSFs. This is thanks to some entirely new, parallelised loading code Ben has implemented (and which needed quite some rounds of debugging, as it introduced some "side effects" B) )
• Whats definitely very positive is the fact, that it doesn't hurt FPS too much (well, farther away, its really only the base mesh which gets drawn - and not the more expensive autogen, roads, forests etc.). But this might vary a lot depending on the systems you use (but don't worry, my current machine is definitely not the newest iron either)
• But RAM usage is definitely very heavy (just as expected)! This is something everybody should be absolutely clear here about. Having 12 instead of 6 DSF tiles in memory can't be had for free! My tests showed (this might all still change a bit ... but I think the rough numbers should be correct), that with the default Global Scenery you will be on the safe side with 8 GByte of RAM. With my HD Mesh Scenery v2 I will definitely recommend 16 GBytes of RAM (which I have too - and its sometimes already on the edge ... but still OK). I think, the SimHeave Photoscenery will be in a similar ball park ...
• Of course, this new feature will only be available with 64bit (as 32bit limits you - technically - to 4 GByte RAM usage). Ben already told this too, I just wanted to remind you ...
• After some tests with Ben, I think its quite sure, that Laminar will add a config option (but don't take my word as granted) to switch between loading old style 6 DSF  (back to lower visibility, but also back to "normal" RAM usage)  or 12 DSF (high visibility, but also high RAM demand). This will allow to freely decide what you prefer, or what you can afford without compromising your flying experience (on 64bit)

 

 

Thanks for the info !

 

Is there anything new in the cloud dept ? Or the wall of fog ? I hope that gets fixed in 10.30 !

Wow I'm relieved I have 16GB!

I wonder why it uses up so much ram even with the default?

You can see quite far in FSX yet it crams it all in to a 32-bit program.

Not that I'm complaining you understand, I will be delighted to have the visibility improved!

I have 8 GB ram....  I use your HD mesh.  Will I still be able to run the 6 DSF's?

You read the last point in my list? The answer is already there!

Is there anything new in the cloud dept ? Or the wall of fog ? I hope that gets fixed in 10.30 !

My test was really and only about the visibility and performance / RAM usage. But to my knowledge, there is definitely some work going on in the weather department too ... (I didn't see any of it ... just some new fog screenshots :wink: ).

I am sure, Ben will write about that quite soon.

Wow I'm relieved I have 16GB!

I wonder why it uses up so much ram even with the default?

You can see quite far in FSX yet it crams it all in to a 32-bit program.

Not that I'm complaining you understand, I will be delighted to have the visibility improved!

Because X-Planes scenery engine works so much differently from MSFS (some of that i did describe in a very old interview: http://xsimreviews.com/2011/12/10/developer-interview-andras-fabian-mr-x-terrain/ )  ...

 

The main difference is, that X-Plane has most of the scenery structure pre-computed and prepared in the DSF files (while MSFS has a more "on-the-fly" approach, where it creates the scenery from more raw-ish data at flying time ... which has its pros and cons too!) hich means, that it can either load it all or none (thus resulting in a large RAM footprint).

 

And the default Global Scenery RAM usage was around 6-7 GBytes of RAM in a more heavy, Alpine setting (of course, in the flatter land, it can definitely be "lighter"). Thus the 8 GByte rule-of-thumb seems reasonable.

 

 

After some tests with Ben, I think its quite sure, that Laminar will add a config option (but don't take my word as granted) to switch between loading old style 6 DSF  (back to lower visibility, but also back to "normal" RAM usage)  or 12 DSF (high visibility, but also high RAM demand). This will allow to freely decide what you prefer, or what you can afford without compromising your flying experience (on 64bit)

 

This is good news. I'm worried how the increased distance is going to effect World2XPlane scenery (Regarding memory needed). So having the option to revert to just 6 tiles can help here.

This is good news. I'm worried how the increased distance is going to effect World2XPlane scenery (Regarding memory needed). So having the option to revert to just 6 tiles can help here.

Hey Tony, surely at that distance no objects or roads would be displayed?

If that's the case there will be zero impact.

 

 

Hey Tony, surely at that distance no objects or roads would be displayed?
If that's the case there will be zero impact.

 

Well all our objects have sensisible LOD (Level of detail), so it's true they wouldn't be rendered. But, the DSF tiles still have to be loaded, etc. I'm not too concerned about the FPS impact, as it should be fine, I'm more worried about loading times and memory needed. 

Yes, Tony is correct, that with many extra sceneries - especially larger ones like the OSM scenery - the RAM usage might become a real issue. But its too early to speculate about how it turns out in the end .... still, Tonys concerns are not entirely unfounded.