Oculus Rift 4k i

 That's going to be fun.  There is an LG QuadHD phone out now.  Oculus must have noticed that.  

 

It just makes all this beta testing more important.  If they get it right now they'll glide right through the Oculus work down the road.  I bet Prepar3d interested will skyrocket with Oculus Rift. 

Idk on my monitor which is a 27" its easy to see the textures that aren't fully loaded in the distance like as in 4-5 miles. I fly IRL too and I can see detail for at least 10-15 miles thats all I want in the sim too

 

Hmm. I don't think I'll be changing to P3D anytime soon then. With FSX and the LOD radius default 4.5, with me sitting in my cockpit just 6 feet away from my projected 10 foot wide screen (at resolution 1080p), the textures are realistically sharp for many more than 4-5 miles -- why at most all flying levels after takeoff you can't even see that close in any case as it's effectively right under the nose.

 

Depending on the weather, the textures can certainly remain sharp for a lot more than your 10-15, gradually fading into the haze which is always present in Europe -- except high in the mountains and those stick out nice and sharp amongst it all.

 

I'll keep a watching brief on P3D hoping it will one day surpass the best that FSX can offer. For me it isn't there yet.

 

Pete

I often wonder when I see this type of post -just what the poster is looking for

 I'm looking to see stuff further in the distance.  LOD is VERY important for photoscenery.  I've calculated that if I could just get my 16.5 LOD I'd be very hap... happier.

 

 

Maybe YOU are and a few others, but I can assure you there will be enough people that don't know what they are doing and will not take responsibility for their actions

 This is SO TRUE.  If you put any software out in the wild, it has to be truly idiot proof.  Especially when there are children and busy parents involved, and childlike adults.  People just want everything McEasy, in reality they should then have to settle for McPerfect.  Still, there should be a key to some controls for the adults.  Easter egg it; if you make it part of the controls, then you get to say "Undo that [you idiot]".  State it very clearly, don't hide it.  If it's going to be an issue then put it on the center of the table so you can see who hand is messing with it.  Seriously, If I wanted simple I'd get an XBOX.

 

"(it's starting to feel like a job)"  I wish I could have that job, but I have a client now that acts like a precocious but demanding 6 month old.  Heh.  You're banking a lot of good will and admiration here, that's for sure.

(it's starting to feel like a job)

 

That's BETA testing for you I'm afraid... no pay but lots of work. I was on the FEX team during the FEX v REX HD cloud wars, and it was a bloody nightmare... I had to bail-out in the end as it affected my 'real' life, the inquisition and animosity was that intense. Its also a joke when people find faults in the product, and the first accusation is 'what the heck were the BETA testers doing?' type comments.

 

Anyway, keep up the good work, your efforts are appreciated.

 

 

Its also a joke when people find faults in the product, and the first accusation is 'what the heck were the BETA testers doing?' type comments.

 

THAT'S the one that really gets me going, especially when the problem is of their own making and has nothing to do with any beta testing.

 

Vic

For me it isn't there yet.

 

Sorry it's not there yet for you, but your continued support is appreciated.

 

I honestly don't have an issue with a 6.5 LOD cap, would be nice to have more especially if one runs photo real scenery.  When I was running FSX at LOD of 12.5 it felt consistent to actual visibility of the real world on nice clear days - can't run at LOD 12.5 for very long, but it distance detail felt about right.  

 

But if I ran any PMDG aircraft in FSX, I couldn't exceed 6.5 LOD as it would OOM pretty quick (within 10 mins) - even with AutoGen turned OFF.  In P3D v2.x I've done some very long flights (as a test) using CS 777 without changing a single thing graphics wise and was able to complete 16+ hour flight without any issues ... something I could never do in FSX.  So for my goals, P3D v2.x has already exceeded FSX by a fairly significant margin.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

EDIT: higher LODs is going to require 64bit -- just ask Austin M. -- regardless of platform, code optimizations, and what not.

This video is not a true test or display of improvement. Most experienced simmers will have a system that can fly in the wilderness with the same settings and add-ons and get excellent frames and smooth performance like in the video. This video displays "having fun" flying around.

 

Try KJFK with full AI, graphic, and scenery sliders, add some thunderstorms, and then this will be a true test of performance improvement. Plan an IFR flight in that 777 from KJFK to KATL with full sliders and watch the stutters and OOMs continue.

 

Until P3D is 64 bit, its going to remain a fun game like displayed in the video.

 

Sorry to have to break the truth, but somebody has to until we finally get a truly remarkable improvement instead of these baby steps.

This video is not a true test or display of improvement. Most experienced simmers will have a system that can fly in the wilderness with the same settings and add-ons and get excellent frames and smooth performance like in the video. This video displays "having fun" flying around.

 

Try KJFK with full AI, graphic, and scenery sliders, add some thunderstorms, and then this will be a true test of performance improvement. Plan an IFR flight in that 777 from KJFK to KATL with full sliders and watch the stutters and OOMs continue.

 

Until P3D is 64 bit, its going to remain a fun game like displayed in the video.

 

Sorry to have to break the truth, but somebody has to until we finally get a truly remarkable improvement instead of these baby steps.

 

I guess you missed all the other videos where I do exactly that ... you also ignored my comment about doing a 16+ hour flight in the CS 777 without any issues nor having to change my display settings.

 

Your statements have nothing to do with "truth" only your desire mixed in with some misinformation.

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of your conviction that software has to be 64bit or else it's just a game (whatever that means) ... you will not be the first, nor the last that has pre-judged a product before actually using the product or investigating into what the product can actually do.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

EDIT: but you have demonstrated my point about why the LOD is capped - some unrealistic expectations

Sorry to have to break the truth, but somebody has to until we finally get a truly remarkable improvement instead of these baby steps.

Your comment is very negative, it's better to make those "baby steps" than an almost dead platform without support from a developer like FSX. So be happy with LM and their investments in the Flightsim community.

higher LODs is going to require 64bit

 Totally agreed.  However, I don't think we have the throughput with current procs to work with it optimally anyways.  Memory is a limitation, but if it's giving an error message it's also an unhandled error.  Don't need 4GB+ to do that.  I think we'd find if we had procs just a we bit faster, even just 20%, just a generation away, we'd have enough memory for the current configurations everyone wants.  

 

Memory is just where you park the work; it has nothing to do with how fast it is getting done.    

 

Again, I wonder how that could be handled if there was some kind of RAM drive P3D could tie in to. 

 

I knew this guy in the 90's that made a 3D mapping of Mars with photography able to go down to 6 centimeter resolution mesh.  I think it was for his PhD dissertation.   I think you used to be able to trade memory from another process, and he had a bunch of these little deamon processes running for that.  This was in Windows.

 

 

Sorry to have to break the truth, but somebody has to until we finally get a truly remarkable improvement instead of these baby steps.

 Real weather, realistic cloud depictions, fog, reflections, waves, shadows, accurate lighting, night lighting, textures, airspace, aerodynamics, 3D modeling, an unlimited "play" space, unlimited actors, communications, instrumentation, certification.  Most commercial games have teams of 50+, many up to 200, and are not even 1/3 as complex.  You cannot compare P3D with any other program.  Other than an outright OS, there isn't anything as complicated out there.

 

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” 

― Theodore Roosevelt

Hmm. I don't think I'll be changing to P3D anytime soon then. With FSX and the LOD radius default 4.5, with me sitting in my cockpit just 6 feet away from my projected 10 foot wide screen (at resolution 1080p), the textures are realistically sharp for many more than 4-5 miles -- why at most all flying levels after takeoff you can't even see that close in any case as it's effectively right under the nose.

 

Pete

 

You'll be more than happy with P3D then as it is now. You'll most likely notice a significant improvement.

 

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of your conviction that software has to be 64bit or else it's just a game (whatever that means) ... you will not be the first, nor the last that has pre-judged a product before actually using the product or investigating into what the product can actually do.

Touche...

 

And Pete, it doesn't have to be either/or. Yould could wait till 2.3 (which hopefully isn't too far off) and run it alongside FSX to judge for yourself.

I guess you missed all the other videos where I do exactly that ... you also ignored my comment about doing a 16+ hour flight in the CS 777 without any issues nor having to change my display settings.

 

Your statements have nothing to do with "truth" only your desire mixed in with some misinformation.

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of your conviction that software has to be 64bit or else it's just a game (whatever that means) ... you will not be the first, nor the last that has pre-judged a product before actually using the product or investigating into what the product can actually do.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

EDIT: but you have demonstrated my point about why the LOD is capped - some unrealistic expectations

 

I responded to THIS post "beta 2 testing", I don't live to wait for your posts, I stumbled on this one and my response is what I would tell you to your face. You can call it a "test" all you want but its not a true test, it is just flying around in an obvious high FPS/smooth area. Do this same test with the F22 at high speed all around New York with full sliders and  prove my "(mis)information" wrong. You should save your breath trying to make me look wrong with a bunch of big words.... show us a video proving me wrong do a vid in NYC *full sliders* since beta 2 is so great....you will see how correct my information is.

 

I responded to THIS post "beta 2 testing", I don't live to wait for your posts, I stumbled on this one and my response is what I would tell you to your face. You can call it a "test" all you want but its not a true test, it is just flying around in an obvious high FPS/smooth area. Do this same test with the F22 at high speed all around New York with full sliders and  prove my "(mis)information" wrong. You should save your breath trying to make me look wrong with a bunch of big words.... show us a video proving me wrong do a vid in NYC *full sliders* since beta 2 is so great....you will see how correct my information is.

 

 

Calm down princess....we're only discussing flight simming 

You'll be more than happy with P3D then as it is now. You'll most likely notice a significant improvement.

 

You think I've not been trying it, each version, each Beta, as they appear? So far it doesn't look as good, to me with my system setup, as FSX. I'm not concerned about how aircraft look from the outside, or inside either (my cockpit is hardware). I'm only concerned with scenery and weather and performance. That's all that there is in front of me. 

 

I find with P3D 2.3 Beta 2 the scenery is okay but still too dark compared to FSX, and certainly too shimmery -- even using Robains' settings the AA isn't working well at all. And the shimmers I removed in FSX by using transparency supersampling doesn't seem to help much in P3D.

 

The weather is good, but it is good in FSX too, with ASN doing a marvellous job these days.

 

The performance is better in sparser areas, but, for me, a lot poorer in heavy areas, such as at UK2000's latest EGLL with realistic AI traffic levels. It's unflyable there in heavy weather and only scrapes into the low teens in clearer weather. Again, this is with Robains settings. I can reduce sliders by then it is looking worse than FSX by a very noticeable margin.

 

It'll come good i'm sure. But as I said, it isn't there for me, yet.

 

Pete