DTGFS scenery is Made by ORBX

[MikeT707 1,181]

 

 

This is a huge disappointment. An up to a decade old scenery technology, really?
Why not take advantage of one of the latest scenery engines available, or at least make an effort to develop something new?
 
How many times do we have to re-purchase a patched, fixed, updated, tweaked, eye-candied, warmed up, regurgitated FSX? 

It is looking like another FSX version. I sure hope there is something that looks like 2016 instead of 2009 with the flight simulator due out later this year. 

[Glynn 405]

 

 

This is a huge disappointment. An up to a decade old scenery technology, really?

Why not take advantage of one of the latest scenery engines available

 

Because non of the 3D engines available can do what the FSX/ESP code can do, unless you want to go back to a flat world / limited area model.

There is a reason Lockheed Martin and DTG chose the same path, only difference is it looks like DTG will be 64bit before LM can get P3D converted.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing

 

So you are disappointed that they are converting the FSX code to 64bit but are happy to run essentially the same code in P3D but limited to 32bit ?

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Because non of the 3D engines available can do what the FSX/ESP code can do, unless you want to go back to a flat world / 

 

What I thought they were developing was a sim that looked like Outerra 

 

64bit - 32bit doesnt matter that much really it was the Outerra graphics quality and visuals that I want in a sim that I would make a jump to - not a sim that looks like what I already have

 

Guess my hopes were to high as DTG full sim is going to look just like the flight school version visually 

 

I have P3D that runs very well in 32bit and I dont think 64bit is going to be earth shattering - more ram available will help a lot but the Outerra stuff is just amazing

 

And one other thing there will be a 64bit version of Prepar3d - lets not forget that

[Silicus 878]

My point was: why do they still use the old FSX/ESP code?

 

Especially when they say that they are in 'for the long haul'. What the heck?

 

Why are they so stuck in the past when it comes to technology? Why not do something that looks like 2016+, especially if they want to attract new users/generations of flight simmers!

 

New users will not be awed by a 'decade old look', because they are used to much better looking sims/games.  

 

I am building a full size sim pit. All the technology is there, even quite affordable these days. The only shortcoming will be the scenery engine used by the flight sims.

 

But again, we are too small of a group. Not worth it to build something new and fresh. Bad investment.

 

 

[OmniAtlas 93]

New users will not be awed by a 'decade old look', because they are used to much better looking sims/games.  

 

I am building a full size sim pit. All the technology is there, even quite affordable these days. The only shortcoming will be the scenery engine used by the flight sims.

 

But again, we are too small of a group. Not worth it to build something new and fresh. Bad investment.

 

Fortunately for us home cockpit builders the engine and graphics matter less - systems simulation are more important.

 

What will you be building? Check out Jeehell FMGS - it's free if you are building an Airbus.

[Silicus 878]

Fortunately for us home cockpit builders the engine and graphics matter less - systems simulation are more important.

 

What will you be building? Check out Jeehell FMGS - it's free if you are building an Airbus.

Yap, Jeehell and Airbus 320-200. That means everything will be really close to reality when it comes to system simulation. But outside the window I want it the same way - really close to reality, at least as close as technology allows!

[Glynn 405]

 

 

What I thought they were developing was a sim that looked like Outerra

 

Richard, DTG announced almost two years ago that their new Sim was based on Microsoft flightsim tech. it was clear back then that just like P3D it was going to be old tech.

 

What is surprising is the speed at which DTG have managed to move the code to 64 bit, something that many said was a monumental task given the age of some parts of the code. and without 64bit we really cannot go much further given the VAS constraints we have today, just ask the PMDG 777 drivers.

[Jimm 437]

 

 

and without 64bit we really cannot go much further given the VAS constraints we have today, just ask the PMDG 777 drivers.

 

Why constrain it to B777 pilots?  A lot of people from around the world have this issue and they aren't even using sophisticated aircraft.  I think people are just pushing their rigs a little too far, kinda like trying to do 140mph in Yugo in 1st gear, it's just not in the cards.  Who's to say that even with a 64-bit version, that will have cured everyone's issues with VAS, OOMs or otherwise?  Even if it does, then does this mean that developer's are going to take their products to the next level which may ultimately cause those dreaded issues again, and then what...128-bit?

[ErichB 3,639]

 

 

 Even if it does, then does this mean that developer's are going to take their products to the next level which may ultimately cause those dreaded issues again, and then what...128-bit?

 

precisely

[Jimm 437]

precisely

Erich, no one can ever fault you for your sense of humor. 

[Paraffin 2,197]

Why constrain it to B777 pilots?  A lot of people from around the world have this issue and they aren't even using sophisticated aircraft.  I think people are just pushing their rigs a little too far, kinda like trying to do 140mph in Yugo in 1st gear, it's just not in the cards.  Who's to say that even with a 64-bit version, that will have cured everyone's issues with VAS, OOMs or otherwise?  Even if it does, then does this mean that developer's are going to take their products to the next level which may ultimately cause those dreaded issues again, and then what...128-bit?

 

Well, we have the X-Plane example that shows the transition to 64-bits can be smooth, and that developers can easily take advantage of the larger address space. Like the functioning circuit breakers in PMDG's DC-6 for X-Plane, which won't be functional in the FSX/P3D version because the memory constraints are too tight.

 

On the other hand, X-Plane is an OS-agnostic project (works on Win, Mac, Linux) where they knew in advance they wanted to eventually move to 64-bits. DTG is working with code that was never intended for that move. They've demonstrated that they can make it work in a minimal fashion (very minimal) in Flight School, but we'll have to see whether it can work as full-featured, powerful 64-bit software with their Flight Sim.

 

One place to look is in ground texture resolution (fixing blurry runways), and whether they can fix the pop-in for more distant terrain, both of which are still a problem in Flight School. There's no excuse for that kind of limitation in a 64-bit flight sim, where there is a huge amount of address space for pre-loading scenery before it should be visible to the pilot.

[ErichB 3,639]

 

 

Erich, no one can ever fault you for your sense of humor. 

 

[Guest]

 

 

Like the functioning circuit breakers in PMDG's DC-6 for X-Plane, which won't be functional in the FSX/P3D version because the memory constraints are too tight.

 

Where did you get this information from?  I'd be EXTREMELY dubious of such a claim.  The primary consumption of VAS is the LOD radius and texture sizes ... circuit breaker logic/implementation would be considerably small in terms of memory usage.  I've posted this many times before, 32bit VAS issues are of memory allocation NOT the data type used.

 

Anyway, not really sure what your post has to do with DTG and Orbx?

 

When you post xPlane derails with inaccurate information like this in a DTG forum, all you achieve is to push users away from Xplane, not to bring new user in to xPlane ... it's kinda a sign of desperation to be honest.  xPlane doesn't need that.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Paraffin 2,197]

Where did you get this information from?  I'd be EXTREMELY dubious of such a claim.  The primary consumption of VAS is the LOD radius and texture sizes ... circuit breaker logic/implementation would be considerably small in terms of memory usage.  I've posted this many times before, 32bit VAS issues are of memory allocation NOT the data type used.

 

Sorry, I may have misunderstood the technical issues, but I'm sure of the fact that the PMDG DC-6 will not be modeling circuit breakers in the FSX/P3D version, like it is in the X-Plane version. This has been known for a while now. Here's my source -- a post by Robert S. Randazzo, PMDG development team, here in Avsim:

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/463714-03mar15-pmdgs-first-product-for-xplane/

 

The PMDG Classics DC-6B for Xplane will have something we have not yet put into any previous PMDG product to date:  Circuit breaker level functionality accessible to pilots.  (In FSX/P3D putting this many click spots into the airplane takes about 20fps... so we simply haven't bothered...  Xplane, however- has no such resource connection to the click spots- and it has given us the freedom to give you the opportunity to really mess up your afternoon!)

 

Anyway, not really sure what your post has to do with DTG and Orbx?

 

Because in post #23 above, it was suggested that even moving to 64-bits wouldn't be enough to cure VAS, OOMs, etc. and I thought this might be an example demonstrating a developer not having these problems. Maybe a better example would be the HD and UHD terrain mesh. 

 

When you post xPlane derails with inaccurate information like this in a DTG forum, all you achieve is to push users away from Xplane, not to bring new user in to xPlane ... it's kinda a sign of desperation to be honest.  xPlane doesn't need that.

 

I'm not trying to promote X-Plane here. It's the only example we have right now, of a full-featured 64-bit flight sim as a baseline comparison to what DTG is attempting. Are we not supposed to mention it at all, in DTG threads?

[Glynn 405]

It's the only example we have right now, of a full-featured 64-bit flight sim as a baseline comparison to what DTG is attempting.

 

 

XPlane full-featured, really  ?