Sign in to follow this  
Pugilist2

Alebeo C195 released

Recommended Posts

Was looking on the Alabeo website and noticed they released the C195.  Looks beautiful and will have to pick it up soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

What is much more sad than rain effects is that here it is very visible that X-Plane does not have the same kind of fake environment reflection FSX has. On FSX, on bare metal aircraft it gives you the feeling that the metal reflects the sky and ground. It is not real reflection, but just some fake textures are applied by FSX on the aircraft for that. Looks good, anyway.

 

On X-Plane, this is missing by default (but theoretically possible by plugin, but no aircraft developer has done that yes), making it very hard to impossible to get good metal effects. Just compare on the Alabeo website the screenshots of the FSX and X-Plane versions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is much more sad than rain effects is that here it is very visible that X-Plane does not have the same kind of fake environment reflection FSX has. On FSX, on bare metal aircraft it gives you the feeling that the metal reflects the sky and ground. It is not real reflection, but just some fake textures are applied by FSX on the aircraft for that. Looks good, anyway.

 

On X-Plane, this is missing by default (but theoretically possible by plugin, but no aircraft developer has done that yes), making it very hard to impossible to get good metal effects. Just compare on the Alabeo website the screenshots of the FSX and X-Plane versions ...

Correct. The effects are created using cube maps. They mimic nicely what resembles environmental, dynamic reflections. The problem is not enough X-Plane users have put pressure on Ben Supnik to implement this. I know of two developers who have taken their requests to Laminar and they have fallen on deaf ears. This is unacceptable. If these effects can be achieved on an 8 year old sim, there is no reason or excuse to deny users this feature for X-Plane.

 

Get your act together Laminar, we're in 2014!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. The effects are created using cube maps. They mimic nicely what resembles environmental, dynamic reflections. The problem is not enough X-Plane users have put pressure on Ben Supnik to implement this. I know of two developers who have taken their requests to Laminar and they have fallen on deaf ears. This is unacceptable. If these effects can be achieved on an 8 year old sim, there is no reason or excuse to deny users this feature for X-Plane.

 

Get your act together Laminar, we're in 2014!

I can assure you that it did NOT fall on deaf ears. Your implication is that they have refused to address this at all and that's simply not true.  Read this. It is a matter of priority, and your priorities are probably significantly different than Laminar's.  No one knows better what needs to be a priority for implementation into the sim than Laminar. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


No one knows better what needs to be a priority for implementation into the sim than Laminar. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

 

Are you sure about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that?

Am I sure about Laminar's priorities? Yes, it couldn't be any other way.  Since users do not have access to the code, Laminar are the only ones who can know best what the priorities need to be.  End users may have a wish list of priorities but since they don't do the actual work on the sim code they can't possibly know better than Laminar in what order things need to get done.  ie.  It's quite possible that 5 or 10 other things need to be coded before reflections can even be considered.  This is not to say that users have no influence on the priorities, but they can't possibly know better than Laminar what the priorities should be.

 

Am I sure about some users not liking the priorities that Laminar set?  Yes, your response proves it :)

 

Note:  I'd be happy to continue this discussion, but this thread was about the C195 and has gotten off track.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it couldn't be any other way.  Since users do not have access to the code, Laminar are the only ones who can know best what the priorities need to be.  End users may have a wish list of priorities but since they don't do the actual work on the sim code they can't possibly know better than Laminar in what order things need to get done.  ie.  It's quite possible that 5 or 10 other things need to be coded before reflections can even be considered.  This is not to say that users have no influence on the priorities, but they can't possibly know better than Laminar what the priorities should be.

 

But you are forgetting that Austin is extremely stubborn and he's doing with X-Plane whatever he wants, without listening to the userbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you that it did NOT fall on deaf ears. Your implication is that they have refused to address this at all and that's simply not true. Read this. It is a matter of priority, and your priorities are probably significantly different than Laminar's. No one knows better what needs to be a priority for implementation into the sim than Laminar. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Ben's blog posting you are linking to is quite interesting. Most of it is about real reflection, but in the end he talks about exactly the kind of fake reflections that would be a nice addition:

 

For example, imagine if the airplane contained a single “reflection” texture – this texture would contain a fake ground texture and alpha transparency where the sky color goes. X-Plane could then fill in the sky color (where there is transparency) only when the weather conditions change, and then apply the texture keeping the plane’s orientation in mind. Such a proposal would give the plausibility of reflections (correct coloring on all parts of the plane across lighting, orientation and weather conditions) for a fraction of the cost of “real” reflections. I’m not saying this is the best idea, just that there’s a lot of intermediate ground between “full reflections” and “make a static texture”.

Unfortunately, that post is already 7 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are forgetting that Austin is extremely stubborn and he's doing with X-Plane whatever he wants, without listening to the userbase.

Austin is not the only person at Laminar.  Austin is primarily involved in the flight model/aircraft characteristics.  Although he owns the company, there are others, especially Ben Supnik, who has a significant amount of say as to what goes in the sim, especially related to the "scenery".  This would include reflections on aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really want to rock the boat but LR implement only what they want to implement.

 

Customers have been requesting legitimate features for years, mostly to bring it on a par with FSX, but these have been repeatedly poo-pooed by LR as not being important or high priority in their eyes.

 

Some sceptics would say that this has lost them many potential customers, but LR don't seem too interested in dominating the flight sim market anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben's blog posting you are linking to is quite interesting. Most of it is about real reflection, but in the end he talks about exactly the kind of fake reflections that would be a nice addition:

 

 

Unfortunately, that post is already 7 years old.

The point was that Laminar has looked into this and it did not "fall on deaf ears".  Again, it's obviously not on the top of their priority list (probably for good reasons) and may be a "different" priority from the users. Things may have come along over the seven years that have pushed it down the priority list… that's Laminar's choice. As I stated before, they would know best how things need to get prioritized internally.

Don't really want to rock the boat but LR implement only what they want to implement.

 

Customers have been requesting legitimate features for years, mostly to bring it on a par with FSX, but these have been repeatedly poo-pooed by LR as not being important or high priority in their eyes.

 

Some sceptics would say that this has lost them many potential customers, but LR don't seem too interested in dominating the flight sim market anyway.

It's just hilarious how many people think they know how to design, code, price, market, create a business plan for, and distribute X-Plane better than Laminar.  It is a private business that is very successful and they will run it as they see fit.  You entitled to your opinion, but you can't possibly "know" what they are interested in or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just hilarious how many people think they know how to design, code, price, market, create a business plan for, and distribute X-Plane better than Laminar.  It is a private business that is very successful and they will run it as they see fit.  You entitled to your opinion, but you can't possibly "know" what they are interested in or not.

I think you misunderstand my point.

I honestly don't give a monkey's how LR is run, distributed etc. As a paying customer I am only interested in certain improvements and features which LR may or may not introduce. If LR put them in fine, if not I live with it or vote with my feet, end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S

 

I can assure you that it did NOT fall on deaf ears. Your implication is that they have refused to address this at all and that's simply not true.  Read this. It is a matter of priority, and your priorities are probably significantly different than Laminar's.  No one knows better what needs to be a priority for implementation into the sim than Laminar. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

 

Wow they were talking about this 7 years ago. Guess we are halfway there now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was that Laminar has looked into this and it did not "fall on deaf ears". Again, it's obviously not on the top of their priority list (probably for good reasons) and may be a "different" priority from the users. Things may have come along over the seven years that have pushed it down the priority list… that's Laminar's choice. As I stated before, they would know best how things need to get prioritized internally.

 

I believe you're the one who's missing the point. I stated I knew of at least two developers who are quite unhappy this has not been addressed. As a customer, I am also very disappointed Laminar won't change their minds about coding it in this run of X-Plane. You can put all the systems you want in a plane but you need to follow the competition also as far as cosmetics go.

 

One thing for sure is, Laminar are brilliant mathematicians but lousy marketers. This should have been done long ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I believe you're the one who's missing the point. I stated I knew of at least two developers who are quite unhappy this has not been addressed
I haven't missed anything.  Aircraft "developers" don't work for Laminar.  They may have slightly more influence than a customer when asking for features, but Laminar will still set their own priorities as to what and when things get coded.  There have been many things introduced in the sim that are not "systems"... don't know why you went there.   Again, "...should have been done long ago..." is YOUR opinion… you're entitled to it… Laminar will probably take it into account, but in the end they will prioritize things the way they NEED TO in order to run the business properly. End users and developers don't have any knowledge of the inside workings of Laminar's business and therefore shouldn't try to tell them how to run it.  Make suggestions?.. sure!.. but telling them what "should" be done… not going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't missed anything.  Aircraft "developers" don't work for Laminar.  They may have slightly more influence than a customer when asking for features, but Laminar will still set their own priorities as to what and when things get coded.  There have been many things introduced in the sim that are not "systems"... don't know why you went there.   Again, "...should have been done long ago..." is YOUR opinion… you're entitled to it… Laminar will probably take it into account, but in the end they will prioritize things the way they NEED TO in order to run the business properly. End users and developers don't have any knowledge of the inside workings of Laminar's business and therefore shouldn't try to tell them how to run it.  Make suggestions?.. sure!.. but telling them what "should" be done… not going to work.

 

Neglecting things like seasonal textures, better ATC and AI, a more user-friendly interface and airport buildings is running the business properly? If they focused on huge deficiencies like this, X-Plane would prove a better alternative to FSX/P3D and draw in more customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't missed anything.  Aircraft "developers" don't work for Laminar.  They may have slightly more influence than a customer when asking for features, but Laminar will still set their own priorities as to what and when things get coded.  There have been many things introduced in the sim that are not "systems"... don't know why you went there.   Again, "...should have been done long ago..." is YOUR opinion… you're entitled to it… Laminar will probably take it into account, but in the end they will prioritize things the way they NEED TO in order to run the business properly. End users and developers don't have any knowledge of the inside workings of Laminar's business and therefore shouldn't try to tell them how to run it.  Make suggestions?.. sure!.. but telling them what "should" be done… not going to work.

 If you don't care about or do not want to implement this feature in your aircraft, fine. However, don't tell us what we can and cannot ask Laminar. Again, this should have been done long ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neglecting things like seasonal textures, better ATC and AI, a more user-friendly interface and airport buildings is running the business properly? If they focused on huge deficiencies like this, X-Plane would prove a better alternative to FSX/P3D and draw in more customers.

 

You've seem to forgotten that XPX is now 64bit, and that itself is an enormous step forward.

 

Look at FSX/P3d forums, they are plagued with problems arising from the fact that FSX/P3D are still 32bit and I don't see LM migrating to 64bit in the near future, I would even go as far as to say not with in the next 2+ years.

 

As long as P3D stays 32bit, it will never be able to reach the smoothness of XP, sorry but that is a fact. I've seen people with $3K top_of_the_line systems, post performance issues in P3D forums, what a waste of $$$. 

 

Here I am with my outdated AMD Phenom II X4, still with 8gig of 800mhz memroy, GF670 running HDR locked at 30, and still enjoy the smoothness P3D/FSX users only dream off. 

 

 

Thanks LR, cause I don't have to spend a fortune in order to achieve smoothness with enough eyecandy to satisfy my preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've seem to forgotten that XPX is now 64bit, and that itself is an enormous step forward.

 

Look at FSX/P3d forums, they are plagued with problems arising from the fact that FSX/P3D are still 32bit and I don't see LM migrating to 64bit in the near future, I would even go as far as to say not with in the next 2+ years.

 

As long as P3D stays 32bit, it will never be able to reach the smoothness of XP, sorry but that is a fact. I've seen people with $3K top_of_the_line systems, post performance issues in P3D forums, what a waste of $$$. 

 

Here I am with my outdated AMD Phenom II X4, still with 8gig of 800mhz memroy, GF670 running HDR locked at 30, and still enjoy the smoothness P3D/FSX users only dream off. 

 

 

Thanks LR, cause I don't have to spend a fortune in order to achieve smoothness with enough eyecandy to satisfy my preferences.

 

OOM errors are a thing of the past with Prepar3D 2.2. The vegetation autogen received massive optimisations which means 32-bit is going to be fine for quite some more time, and there's still potential for more optimisations. You can keep going on about performance issues, but Prepar3D is in continual development, and 2.3 will focus on performance.

 

64-bit is a great step forward, but what's the point if there's other stuff that should have been added long ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


but Prepar3D is in continual development,

 

...and so is XPX. I'm sure we can both agree on this one.

 

Now back to the original topic...Alebeo C195 released!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOM errors are a thing of the past with Prepar3D 2.2. The vegetation autogen received massive optimisations which means 32-bit is going to be fine for quite some more time, and there's still potential for more optimisations. You can keep going on about performance issues, but Prepar3D is in continual development, and 2.3 will focus on performance.

 

64-bit is a great step forward, but what's the point if there's other stuff that should have been added long ago?

Last time I used 2.2 I had really bad stuttering and an OOM error 2 minutes into my flight. 2.2 is the latest update ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you don't care about or do not want to implement this feature in your aircraft, fine. However, don't tell us what we can and cannot ask Laminar. Again, this should have been done long ago!

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that I wouldn't implement this feature in my aircraft.  And, I didn't say that you couldn't make suggestions or, if your prefer, "ask" Laminar anything you want.  What I did say was that "telling them" how to run their business would not work.  And again, saying "this should have been done" is telling them how to run their business.

 

Neglecting things like seasonal textures, better ATC and AI, a more user-friendly interface and airport buildings is running the business properly?

It's not rocket science, there's more than one way to run a business.  If they are successful and that's their approach then yes, that would be running the business properly. And, just because it's not what you would do, doesn't make it improper.  If Laminar were failing at all of this you might have a point, but they're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, saying "this should have been done" is telling them how to run their business.

 

John, Jim, James (sorry I don't know your first name), we are telling them how to run their business. That's what customers usually do, ask for features that are important to them. If a company doesn't listen, they'll be out of business before they know it. Seriously, as much as I love X-Plane, they're very fortunate MS scrapped Flight and their flight simulation franchise. We're not talking about frivolous demands here, cube maps are old hat in the gaming world.

 

Why am I discussing this with you anyways? As a developer, you should have these tools to enhance your wares, no? Don't you care what your customers would like? Don't you care an 8 year old sim has it and we don't? Now that Laminar has had the bright idea of moving to Steam, they had better get used to customer demands. Steam clients will be ruthless with them, as they were with Flight. What were they thinking? Two and a half years into production and not even half finished, then you put it on the world's toughest vending platform? We better hope they start listening to customers real soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, Jim, James or whatever, we are telling them how to run their business. That's what customers usually do, ask for features that are important to them.

You just contradicted yourself.  Telling and asking are two entirely different things, which is what I've been saying all along.

 

If a company doesn't listen, they'll be out of business before they know it.

I didn't say they don't listen to suggestions or requests.  I said that in the end they will be the ones to set the priorities and determine how they do business. This may be too fine a distinction for you but it is important to understand. 

 

 

We're not talking about frivolous demands here, cube maps are old hat in the gaming world.

Again, that kind of language ("demand") is just not what someone who is in business is going to respond to favorably.

 

Why am I discussing this with you anyways? As a developer, you should have these tools to enhance your wares, no? Don't you care what your customers would like? Don't you care an 8 year old sim has it and we don't?

I will have these tools, just not sure when.  Does it stop me from making aircraft…NO. Would I have more sales… probably.  Would it get me enough additional sales that I should "demand" it from Laminar…NO.  Do I think that shiny aircraft should be the top priority…NO.  Does Laminar think shiny aircraft should be the top priority… apparently not, and that's not a big deal to me.  Of course I care what my customers like, but I've been around long enough to know that it's IMPOSSIBLE to please everyone all the time.  I set priorities in making add-ons, other developers may have different objectives and priorities, Laminar set priorities in creating X-Plane, the users have their own priorities.. these things will never all be in sync, its just the way it is.  Of all the things I think about as a developer, the fact that XP does not have the same reflection technology as another sim is pretty low on the list.  I know we will have it, I don't spend each day driving myself crazy because it we don't have it yet.

 

Now that Laminar has had the bright idea of moving to Steam, they had better get used to customer demands. Steam clients will be ruthless with them, as they were with Flight. What were they thinking? Two and a half years into production and not even half finished, then you put it on the world's toughest vending platform? You had better hope they start listening to customers real soon.

Do you honestly believe that because X-Plane is now on Steam that Laminar is suddenly going to jump through hoops because those users make demands… I doubt it.  They will listen, but they will still run their business the way that THEY feel it should be run, just like any other business would. Please show me a business that is run solely on the wishes of their customers.  Customers are a part of the equation, not all of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this