I wonder why...such great Global 1.30 performance in FSX, but not P3D.x

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

This is the first time ever, that I can remember seeing such a difference in the output of one product that says it can be installed-full out, in either sim.

 

I'm typing about ORBX Global v1.30

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

 

You only have to see this updated version play out in FSX, and simply be amazed at the rendition of reality...and the most noticeable is the almost OpenLC'ish placement of suburban street-scape (neighborhoods), as well...as urban properties and forested zones, tree placement, etc.

 

ORBX...John V....the streets now as placed....look REAL...I mean...that is a REAL subdivision below my C337....wow..and wow again....

 

The product is simply eye-rocking FABULOUS!   

 

But...this translation from v1.20 to v1.30 in P3D?   Totally absent.  In P3D, the placement of suburban houses, and their street- orientation is simply (as per FSX installatin)...sadly not there. It is scattered, here and there, not the true North American Grid architecture as per reality.  I can see plainly, and I think that a lot of folks that are still flying both platforms on a regular basis, are seeing this too...that the P3D-based engine for textures, etc..does NOT optimize and display v1.30 as per the FSX engine does.  I think that ORBX should really look into this.  I know that I am not the only one seeing this...but perhaps more vocal than most.  As a matter of fact, the most EXCELLENT rendered Orbx Global v1.30 has drawn me back to FSX, much more on a per-flight basis, than anything else. P3D simply rocks, for what it brings to the table...HDR, well..all of it.  It is wonderful...but I have to tell ya...the first time I flew out of KFNT, bound for Akron, Ohio...and I flew over the G.D.A (Greater Detroit Area)...it blew my mind....WOW....you talk about suspension of belief.....ORBX...this is a masterpiece for a full global replacement..and you should have the kudos spoken to your entire team on this upgrade project....it is simply magnificent, driven within FSX.  I can't wait for this product to be defined with a true OpenLC North America.  Wow....

 

But P3D?  It is broken....and unless a person still has FSX fully installed on their system...they won't have anything else to compare their P3D drivern v1.30  rendition to. So...FSX is still on so many fronts...alive and well...and simply GORGEOUS to the eyes....with the latest ORBX Global. So much so...that you have drawn me back in a big way, to this DX10 (Steve's Fixer)/ ORBX Global v1.30 platform. I simply...can NOT duplicate what Global looks like...and does for suspension of belief...in P3D version anything.  I am now running P3D v2.4, and it still makes no difference from having seen it installed in v2.3  It still looks fractured, no continuity of graphics...and no most GORGEOUS suburban landscapes OUT...clear out to the horizon...and looking so real....my gawd.....what a product...in FSX, that is...

 

One happy FSX camper...

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Yep...FSX still has tricks...

[Sbacchini 15]

I don't have fsx installed anymore, but could someone make some comparison shots? Pick the exactly same areas and angles in fsx and p3d so we can compare the two. As I said, I can't compare it, but I find it hard to believe that the same installer, installing the same textures, could bring different results on the 2 platforms.

 

Cheers!

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I don't have fsx installed anymore, but could someone make some comparison shots? Pick the exactly same areas and angles in fsx and p3d so we can compare the two. As I said, I can't compare it, but I find it hard to believe that the same installer, installing the same textures, could bring different results on the 2 platforms.

 

Cheers!

OK...here you go:

 

FSX, first.  I am stationed over Flint, Michigan, the downtown...and I shoot all around as well as down towards the downtown.  Look at the clarity, and detail of different buildings, parking lots, trees, plazas (even the cars parked in the parking lots...so clear and well defined)....structures, and then view out north, towards the suburbs just east of I-75...and how clear, the houses and properties are...how clear the streets are..their detail..their alignments...and then the same shots will be shown below with P3D v2.4....   You will see a clear repetition of downtown buildings, not clear of detail, you can see out to the suburbs..how disjointed are the streets, not straight, tiles not properly aligned, Houses not crisp in focus, and lack of details....  Same area...with a base shot for each, FSX and P3D of KFNT in the back-ground...   FSX ORBX 1.30 is rendered so superior....in details shown...tiles properly placed and aligned...and clear, crisp textures...  The same can NOT be said for rendering in P3D....  In FSX, look at the roofs of the houses...how clear, well defined they are..and that each home has a defined and clear property surrounding, and not two to four house sprites all jammed in on one lot, looking like packed sardines....

 

First...FSX:

 

1  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/a9Z

 

2  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/a9o

 

3  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/a97

 

4  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/a9U

 

5  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/a9X

 

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

 

...and now P3D's Orbx v1.30's treatment for Flint, Michigan....the plane position the same...with views all around it,...with a shot of KFNT in the background.  The houses in P3D, are placed this way and that...no form or factor...just all mashed together.  FSX has cohesion...and looks like neighborhoods...homes well placed on the streets, etc.   P3D displaying ORBX Global 1.30 doesn't even come close... go back to the shots of FSX and look carefully where the city, gives way to the suburbs...and look closely at the homes, sitting upon those streets....so very much more realistic than the same city-to-suburb, rendered in the P3D engine.  There are other striking differences in how county and country properties, forests, abutting fields and properties...all are rendered so vastly superior, within FSX.  I hope this can change..... 

 

1  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/a9v

 

2  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/ab6

 

3  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/abG

 

4  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/abN

 

5  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/abT

 

[Sbacchini 15]

Well, we can't really compare, it would be good to have exactly the same shots on both simulators, but looking at these pictures, I must say I don't agree with you. If you look closely, the ground textures (the part that Global deals with) are exactly the same. Now, you clearly have some problems in your P3D scenery library. you can see it by the roads passing over houses, and clearly your settings in fsx are higher than P3D, making it look better (especially autogen ). Besides those 2 things, it looks the same to me.

[Dazzlercee23 68]

I will have a look at this tonight to see if I can get P3D to look close to FSX.

 

I suspect it is an autogen density setting as the textures are the same etc.

 

The vector roads cut across tiles and look quite bad in both sims but this is because the textures and vector data are totally unrelated and so it cannot be any better unfortunately.

 

I agree that in the provided shots (which really should be from the exact same position, angle, time of day etc) the FSX rendition looks better, but I am confident P3D can look just as convincing as the textures are identical, the autogen annotation is identical, the actual autogen models and their textures are identical.

 

The only possible reason why they shouldn't be able to look the same is if LM changed autogen integration in v2.x.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Well, we can't really compare, it would be good to have exactly the same shots on both simulators, but looking at these pictures, I must say I don't agree with you. If you look closely, the ground textures (the part that Global deals with) are exactly the same. Now, you clearly have some problems in your P3D scenery library. you can see it by the roads passing over houses, and clearly your settings in fsx are higher than P3D, making it look better (especially autogen ). Besides those 2 things, it looks the same to me.

I have P3D pegged out.. 1. Extremely Dense, 2. Extremely Dense, 3  Dense.... and all scenery level settings are exactly as they should be as per ORBX....in the Scenery Lib.  Nope...THAT is what P3D Global v.130  looks like...plain and simple...no excuses...

 

The area is the same...and the shots are panned the same...perhaps not the exact x/y...but close enough to show the differences...and the difference is huge...a win for FSX.

[Dazzlercee23 68]

I have P3D pegged out.. 1. Extremely Dense, 2. Extremely Dense, 3  Dense.... and all scenery level settings are exactly as they should be as per ORBX....in the Scenery Lib.  Nope...THAT is what P3D Global v.130  looks like...plain and simple...no excuses...

 

The area is the same...and the shots are panned the same...perhaps not the exact x/y...but close enough to show the differences...and the difference is huge...a win for FSX.

 

Hi Mitch,

 

That first FSX shot - can you provide a shot from P3D showing that same major road junction?

 

Also, any chance of the exact co-ordinates?

 

Regards,

Daz

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I will have a look at this tonight to see if I can get P3D to look close to FSX.

 

I suspect it is an autogen density setting as the textures are the same etc.

 

The vector roads cut across tiles and look quite bad in both sims but this is because the textures and vector data are totally unrelated and so it cannot be any better unfortunately.

 

I agree that in the provided shots (which really should be from the exact same position, angle, time of day etc) the FSX rendition looks better, but I am confident P3D can look just as convincing as the textures are identical, the autogen annotation is identical, the actual autogen models and their textures are identical.

 

The only possible reason why they shouldn't be able to look the same is if LM changed autogen integration in v2.x.

I can't tell you why there is a difference between the two platforms...but your suggestion is as good a reason as any.  The shots are panned all around the same area..and if you look at the grounding shot for both sims..of KFNT in the background, you will see that the plane is over the same spot give or take a mile or two for perspective..but the graphic elements, and area are the same. Both sims have the same settings...as that is what I require for immersion. One would not be less in detail settings than the other, let me assure you. What you are seeing...is the texture engines of both sims...with Global v1.30 as the subject matter.  FSX is clearly (in my view...and I know that nobody is required to subscribe to my view..lol) the winner in this department, for this product.  

Hi Mitch,

 

That first FSX shot - can you provide a shot from P3D showing that same major road junction?

 

Regards,

Daz

I'll try Daz...and look for it..and then do a down shot.  I am right now getting my DSR set up...and it has got to be the all-time (everybody will benefit from this...600/700/900 cards...) tweak champ since FSX/P3D has RTM'd. We all owe the O.P. a case of beer!  )))))))))

[Dazzlercee23 68]

Did I read somewhere that P3D 'culls' scenery directly under the aircraft to help performance (as you would not see it from the cockpit)?

 

However, that would not explain the blocks of residential buildings visible in the FSX shots. Its almost as if the autogen settings we used to alter in the FSX cfg have been employed as default in P3D.

 

These two:

 

TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL

 

You should post these shots in the ORBX forums to see if they can shed any light?

[zmak 331]

Wow I purposely ignored the labels and just clicked to compare. I chose FSX and thought it must be P3D

 

FSX looks more realistic

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Did I read somewhere that P3D 'culls' scenery directly under the aircraft to help performance (as you would not see it from the cockpit)?

 

However, that would not explain the blocks of residential buildings visible in the FSX shots. Its almost as if the autogen settings we used to alter in the FSX cfg have been employed as default in P3D.

 

These two:

 

TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL

TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL

 

You should post these shots in the ORBX forums to see if they can shed any light?

I'm glad that you see it too, Daz...  Trust me...I paused the flight on both sims, with the background KFNT as a base...so, we are not even talking a mile or so from both viewpoints.  The suburb home shot to the north (FSX) is exactly the same area and shot with P3D v2.4 . It is...and the difference is massive enough, that people are obviously thinking..that CAN'T be the same 'area'.  Oh yes it is.....the suburbs suck in P3D, 'plane' (excuse the pun) and simple. You should see FSX with v1.30 anywhere else...drop-dead gorgeous!  It looks real...farms, other cities...towns...villages, connecting and transitioning fields, blah, blah...  If it (the two versions) load in exactly the same texture sets and bases..then it is ONLY the texture engines of both sims, that are parsing and putting together these textures, to give the output I am showing. No tricks...no agenda...but plain and simple to view...  I wish it were not so...P/O'd in fact, that such a great sim platform as P3D, can not do any better than the above...not happy about that...but it is, what it is....  Like I said...since installing v.130 into both sims...my preference to view it, has undoubtedly been to fire up FSX. Why? It looks SO GOOD!   It WORKS.....

Wow I purposely ignored the labels and just clicked to compare. I chose FSX and thought it must be P3D

 

FSX looks more realistic

Yeppers,  Zoran, .......case closed.  With both sims having v1.30 downloaded into them...I saw this immediately when running one after the other to check it out, ..and thought, . #####?

 

Mitch

[Dazzlercee23 68]

 

 

 If it (the two versions) load in exactly the same texture sets and bases..then it is ONLY the texture engines of both sims, that are parsing and putting together these textures, to give the output I am showing. No tricks...no agenda...but plain and simple to view...

 

As I understand it, each texture is annotated for autogen.  To my eyes, the actual textures display exactly the same (other than the lighting differences between the two sims).  We know the autogen annotation will also be the same otherwise there would be two different sets of textures, one for FSX and one for P3D (assumption).

 

The differences must therefore be down to a difference in the autogen engine in P3D not populating the tiles as per intended by ORBX.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

As I understand it, each texture is annotated for autogen.  To my eyes, the actual textures display exactly the same (other than the lighting differences between the two sims).  We know the autogen annotation will also be the same otherwise there would be two different sets of textures, one for FSX and one for P3D (assumption).

 

The differences must therefore be down to a difference in the autogen engine in P3D not populating the tiles as per intended by ORBX.

That could very well be in play, here...as you are correct, I don't imagine they had a different texture set for either sim...but plain and simple, FSX does a much better job of it...globally. It really, really, looks great, and is  a pleasure to fly over and view....

 

Mitch'er

[TheHoser11 39]

I'm not seeing a difference. These "comparison" shots don't appear to be in the same location and both sims have roads going over buildings.

 

Not impressed with either sim's handling of this. Come on ORBX - - You can do better.