Well, they call them sprites in SDK (Learning Center.chm) ... to quote:

 

Yes, the SDK names them as sprites.

Nevertheless, technically speaking they are actual 3D objects (just as the gmax example file shows in the FSX SDK) which are FILLED by 2D objects (sprites) but we might name them many other things.

Yes, the SDK names them as sprites.

Nevertheless, technically speaking they are actual 3D objects (just as the gmax example file shows in the FSX SDK) which are FILLED by 2D objects (sprites) but we might name them many other things.

 

I suppose that might just be one of those things that they've named wrong. The term "bump map" is incorrectly used in FSX. The correct name is actually "normal map."

Yes it's a "Group" of 2D planes ... but I suppose technically there really is no such thing as a 3D object in a two axis physical display (one's monitor) ... so we're sorta just dancing around "relative" definitions.

 

In order to do a "volumetric" cloud it would need to operate as a solid and no flight sim does solid modeling for obvious reasons.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I'm getting slightly lost in the semantics of this thread but perhaps someone could avail us all of a simple answer? Is the use of volumetric fog an fps killer or is it purely GPU-specific?

 

Regards,

David,

 

Every option you enable in the graphics settings will have some performance impact and that degree of impact will vary based on CPU/GPU used.  

 

The best answer I can give (don't know if it's deemed simple or not) is to experiment ... no harm in turning it OFF and see what it does, see if you notice the visual difference and if that visual difference to performance hit ratio is significant for you.  Everything about graphics settings is a "balance" and only you can determine the best balance.

 

There is no "magic" setting ... it's all a compromise from high end PC to low end PC.  Most of "FPS" killers I have are all exclusively 3rd party content (aircraft, scenery, AI, etc.) ... that's where I focus most of my performance tuning attention at.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Intuitive and much appreciated answer Rob. The reasoning behind the question was that - although I have no problems with fps or 'blurries' etc., and am perfectly happy with the way that my setup runs - I was wondering if the selection of Volumetric Fog might have been tying up CPU/GPU resources that could best be utilised elsewhere in the running of the sim?

 

Regards,

 

 

I'm getting slightly lost in the semantics of this thread but perhaps someone could avail us all of a simple answer? Is the use of volumetric fog an fps killer or is it purely GPU-specific?

 

Thanks David, I was beginning to wonder what I'd started! 

 

 

Is that what we call volumetric fog ? :

 

Vincent, that top picture you posted looks amazing!

 

 

There is no "magic" setting ... it's all a compromise from high end PC to low end PC.

 

I was hoping you might chime in Rob. The top picture Vincent posted of the external Cessna view is a good example of the endless battle I have with my Sim. I get it running great and then someone posts a picture and I think "I want that!" At which point I crank up the settings, and it all starts again!  :smile:

 

 

Yes it's a "Group" of 2D planes ... but I suppose technically there really is no such thing as a 3D object in a two axis physical display (one's monitor) ... so we're sorta just dancing around "relative" definitions.

 

With due respect Rob, if you say "there's is no such a thing as a 3D object", you merely mix up the final physical display result (the end user's depiction) with the original 3D object, which is indeed done around X,Y,Z therefore 3D, regardless if it is rendered onto a 2D flat surface or a 3D hologram.

A 3D object is what is designed in X,Y,Z. A photo is 2D where no 3 axes exist...
A 3D object is a 3D object, designed in 3D by 3D designers, there's little use to argue that on the pure semantic level. If there were no 3D objects in a flightsim, we (the designers) would be in a very easy position...

Potroh

 

 

A 3D object is what is designed in X,Y,Z. A photo is 2D where no 3 axes exist...

 

Think about that ... a photo is a snapshot of real world 3D objects ... a 2D coordinate system (the monitor) is doing it's best to depict  3D objects whether they are rendered or photo realistic ... but they are not true 3D objects.  A true 3D object is this keyboard I'm typing this response on ... my monitor is a 3D object that is projecting a 2D space.  I was primarily responding to the use of "technically" ... a 3D movie is not really 3D, it's recorded and presented in such a way as to "fool" the eye.

 

So for accuracy, a 2D space is being used to depict a 3D object, but it is not "technically" a 3D object.  I'm not debating this for the sake of argument (even though I'm sure it appears that way), but the word "technically" was used.  I personally think it's important to understand ... there is only a true X and Y which everything being rendered must resolve to ... this is important because it's that resolving from 3D virtual space to 2D real space that produces inaccuracy (precision issues) and introduces some of the oddities we see in flight simulators.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Haha, Rob, when the holographic monitors come to market, I'm positive that you will be the first to post here on how to make it work with P3d. :wink:

Volumetric fog has an impact on your framerate.

 

Even with no fog/clouds, when its Enabled , it costs performance...

Haha, Rob, when the holographic monitors come to market, I'm positive that you will be the first to post here on how to make it work with P3d. :wink:

So will this be called P3D3d?

 

 

Think about that ... a photo is a snapshot of real world 3D objects ... a 2D coordinate system (the monitor) is doing it's best to depict 3D objects whether they are rendered or photo realistic ... but they are not true 3D objects. A true 3D object is this keyboard I'm typing this response on ... my monitor is a 3D object that is projecting a 2D space. I was primarily responding to the use of "technically" ... a 3D movie is not really 3D, it's recorded and presented in such a way as to "fool" the eye.

So for accuracy, a 2D space is being used to depict a 3D object, but it is not "technically" a 3D object.

 

Okay Rob, here is the "official" definition:

"An object that has height, width and depth, like any object in the real world. Also known as "3D".

What you're trying to talk about is the 3D representation (or projection).

 

"Technically" every 3D object is 3D, designed around the three axes, regardless the final representation.

(Just go around the thousands of 3D object related sites, companies, etc. and tell them that they are "fooling" themselves...)

 

Potroh

As long as representations of reality appear to have 'virtual depth' and we can move around them on 3 axes on a 2D presentation, all is good. :smile:

I'm building my Holodeck as I type this ... (not too far from the truth, I'm in the process of converting a spare room into a sim pit).

 

from a wiki quote: 

 

 

 

In the real world there is no such technology although scientists predict virtual reality tools similar to the holodeck (but without the ability to touch) "will become a consumer-ready product by 2024."

 

I think that's highly optimistic ... ok, extremely optimistic ... but what the heck, let the project begin.

 

Cheers, Rob.