Happier than ever with latest betas and now RC1. Performance increased with over 40%, so i'm now swimming in clouds at 30%, puffs at 120%. Also my "wow" experiences are back.

 

Super screenshots  :Applause: , you should post these over in the screenshots section 

Sorry guys is this FSX or some other simulation program ?

 

Thanks,

Regis

 

 

Sorry guys is this FSX or some other simulation program ?

 

It's X-Plane 10.30 rc1, more info here http://www.x-plane.com

I am eargely awaiting the new Oculus plugin, since I got my hands on a DK2.  I love XPX for helos and it the synergy of the DK2 + XPX + Dreamfoil helo + CZST Stuart, should be a grand and immersive experience.

 

DCS and its Huey work well together with the rift, but the performance lags.  I can get 60 fps locked in XPX and can probably tweak things to get 75, but DCS is a whole other animal, and I simply don't have time to learn how to tame it.

 

Fundamentally though, I agree that this support was prioritized due to Austin's personal preference, and the resources could have been allocated to something that would benefit more simmers.

Let's see we have Xavion, a Racing Game, Oculus, but no one can defeat the visibility bug. It is a bug right and not a new feature that must be added, right?

WOW!! Great Shots!!

Agreeing with alpha12125 above, I don't think the Oculus Rift support is really aimed primarily at the current consumer X-Plane. Laminar has contracts with the military, aircraft companies, and commercial simulator companies. I think I read somewhere that that's where most of the money comes from, and the consumer sim is basically a sideline that benefits from the higher-end contract versions.

 

If that's the case, then the Rift support may be driven more by the higher-end Laminar products. The Rift is probably looking like a very cost-effective display compared to gold-plated military VR hardware. It's not taking anything away from what we'd like to see like seasons and ATC, which probably aren't a big priority for Laminar's commercial/military customers, and that's why they're on a longer timescale. 

 

 

Let's see we have Xavion, a Racing Game, Oculus, but no one can defeat the visibility bug. It is a bug right and not a new feature that must be added, right?

 

You can add Steam to that list.  Seems that Laminar would have put some time into that project too.

 

This is one of those things thats hard to understand.  The vis bug (Ben).  The single engine prop torque bug (Austin's area).  I would have thought that Laminar would have put some time and energy into fixing those. 

 

But, that's just an opinion, and we all have one. 

 

And, we are off topic so if someone wants to, they could start a new thread to address the "Elephants in the room".

 

Mike

  The single engine prop torque bug (Austin's area).  I would have thought that Laminar would have put some time and energy into fixing those. 

Errm I don't think that the torque will be a problem for new planes after 10.30, since developers can now counter act according to their wishes. IMHO a very important feature for pay ware developers.

Again , the visibility "bug" isn't a bug, it was designed to be like this when XP was only 32BIT* , to "fix" it they need to draw more DSF's in the distance , Ben stated that he is working on it and the new code isn't finished yet , and it'll come with the new fog in 10.35 or somthing like that.

 

* Ben said in his blog that there will be an option to enable/disable the extended DSF loading in the rendering settings , but that will be only in the 64BIT version.

Having a DK2 myself, I firmly believe this is the future of all things simulation and I am thrilled that they are working on implementing it sooner rather than later. The more experience they have with this dev kit, the more ready they will be for the consumer version which should keep them in the game.

 

That being said, I prefer flying GA aircraft so, for me, it may be a better fit at the moment due to a limited need for cockpit interaction.

.... Or puzzling building assignments based on landclass, like huge trailer parks where residential neighborhoods should be... or clusters of skyscrapers where a few small 2-story commercial buildings exist.

Because it is autogen ... its never something "hand tuned" by any developer (as doing something like this on a planetary scale would be mindboggling work). The problem is, that contrary to - possibly - common believe, its very very very hard to come by good quality, accurate, and high resolution (!!!) data about the "building style" of any small patch in any city/town/village on the planet. Or to be more precise ... such data almost doesn't exist (and if it exists, its usually only good for a country at best). So most of the time I need to fall back to many different "indirect" informations (data sources) to halfway "fake" (derive) the correct urban density info ... this can sometimes work surprisingly well, while otherwise it can fail miserably.

Because it is autogen ... its never something "hand tuned" by any developer (as doing something like this on a planetary scale would be mindboggling work). The problem is, that contrary to - possibly - common believe, its very very very hard to come by good quality, accurate, and high resolution (!!!) data about the "building style" of any small patch in any city/town/village on the planet. Or to be more precise ... such data almost doesn't exist (and if it exists, its usually only good for a country at best). So most of the time I need to fall back to many different "indirect" informations (data sources) to halfway "fake" (derive) the correct urban density info ... this can sometimes work surprisingly well, while otherwise it can fail miserably.

Hi Andras-

 

Yes, I'm familiar with it... the biggest issue for me is that there is no clear way to easily "fix" it. For example - if all land usage data is geometrically defined (I believe it is), give me an interface to click, select a polygon, and reassign landclass and/or building types. THAT would be great and certainly improve XP quite a bit. Maybe there's a relatively straightforward way to do this.

 

But to see a trailer park assigned to a suburban neighborhood seems awfully random!

 

 

I realize this is simplyfing it quite a bit, but one can wish.

 

cheers

Andrew

, give me an interface to click, select a polygon, and reassign landclass and/or building types. THAT would be great and certainly improve XP quite a bit. Maybe there's a relatively straightforward way to do this.

 

There is no such interface, because the basic data structure is heavily intermingled. It is much more easy to overwrite and replace the Auto-Gen. In fact this is more or less what OSM2XP or World2XP do. You are simply looking in the wrong direction.

There is no such interface, because the basic data structure is heavily intermingled. It is much more easy to overwrite and replace the Auto-Gen. In fact this is more or less what OSM2XP or World2XP do. You are simply looking in the wrong direction.

Hi Longranger.

 

I'm just saying that there should be a relatively straightforward way to fix this stuff; I'd be more than happy to see a guide explaining how I can identify, for example, a neighborhood in XP, and set a different building type.

 

[edit] 

 

Imagine an interface like this, where you just click to select a region, and then assign new building types/land type / terrain type etc.

 

 

cheers,

Andrew