Those at the Conference please tell LR...

[jcomm 5,886]

That XP10 wouldn't be XP10 if it wasn't for...

 

--> Murmur's solution to the infamous "torque bug";

--> OSM and W2XP developments, as well as the alternative Meshes by Andras and the tools for creating photo scenery;

--> The NOAA weather plugin much more plausibly interpreting METAR data specially for winds with a variability and gusting group, and adding turbulence and temperatures aloft, long before these were re-introduced ( with bugs ) around XP10.45 if I'm not wrong...

--> Ventura Sky, which is looking to me as another reference;

--> The recently introduced static aircraft at airports, and the "AFCAD"-like info.... ( thx to LR );

--> The improved GNS, even if few probably really use all of it's features ( thx to LR );

--> Extended DSF ( thx to LR );

 

Please also tell him that the Moon and the Sun are out of sync with reality in his plausible World. If he could just make it as plausible as, at least, MSFS and others in this aspect - heck, it shouldn't be that difficult, and unfortunately it isn't an easy task for a plugin because there are no associated datarefs - must be hardcoded ( ? )

[WR269 367]

That XP10 wouldn't be XP10 if it wasn't for...

 

--> Murmur's solution to the infamous "torque bug";

--> OSM and W2XP developments, as well as the alternative Meshes by Andras and the tools created for creating photo scenery;

--> The NOAA weather plugin much more plausibly interpreting METAR data specially for winds with a variability and gusting group, and adding turbulence and temperatures aloft, long before these were re-introduced ( with bugs ) around XP10.45 if I'm not wrong...

--> The recently introduced static aircraft at airports, and the "AFCAD"-like info.... ( thx to LR );

--> The improved GNS, even if few probably really use all of it's features ( thx to LR );

 

Please also tell him that the Moon and the Sun are out of sync with reality in his plausible World. Please make it as plausible as, at least, MSFS and others in this aspect - heck, it shouldn't be that difficult ?

 

I would settle for weather....unfortunately rumour has it that the 3 layers of wind and 2 layers of turbulence restriction is here to stay. I truly hope this is not the case.

[MarioDonick 752]

 

 

unfortunately rumour has it that the 3 layers of wind and 2 layers of turbulence restriction is here to stay.

 

Where do you have this rumour from?

[alpilotx 505]

as well as the alternative Meshes by Andras and the tools for creating photo scenery;

That does not need to be said, as they (especially Ben Supnik) knows very well what I have done with their tools over the years :smile: .

 

You need to know, that my work and Laminars default Global Scenery work live in a very close symbiosis. I use (and in small parts improved / hacked) the Laminar scenery generator code, which I learned to work with while I did all the Global Scenery rewamping for them before XP10. After that, I branched off my own projects, but they still get back all my improvements (and essentiaslly use them, whenever a new official scenery is cut). For example they - in the mean time - have a completely new set of raw data, as over the years I have made a lot of improvements to the landclass data (which you have often seen in HD / UHD Mesh - and is now completely replaced / updated in comparison to the original XP10 Global Scenery data), but also OSM data has seen a few update cycles (the latest data I sent to Laminar is from August 2016).

 

So, you see ... my role is maybe a bit different from the classic developers (because of my closer ties to Laminar) ... but nevertheless, thanks for mentioning.

[jcomm 5,886]

I know Andras, the same applying to Phillip regarding the GNS implementation :-)

 

Anyway, if it wasn't for your efforts, XP10 wouldn't be as good as it is, IMO :-)

[Scramjet333 39]

@jcomm - I fully agree with your statement.

 

In fact, I believe it would be great for X-Plane if Laminar pulled an Apple, and absorbed some of these features and hired some of these plugin developers. Native features would somehow just appeal more to a new audience than having to use a plugin (although there's the adage 'there's an app for that!), giving newbies the idea: 'huh? The sim doesn't already do that?'

 

Just imagine if XP11 shipped with a weather injector (forget the triple layer depiction for a while) as complex and powerful as the NOAA plugin, and with a scenery generator like W2XP, not to mention an option for HDv3 and UHD meshes.

 

Then XP10 would have to ship physically on a HDD

[Murmur 3,941]

I would settle for weather....unfortunately rumour has it that the 3 layers of wind and 2 layers of turbulence restriction is here to stay. I truly hope this is not the case.

 

I think it's 3 layers of turbulence as well? However as you said, from the video about X-Plane 11 presentation, the weather layout seems unchanged from the current one.

 

Actually I don't think the 3 layers restriction is a decisive limitation, after all it allows the depiction of two cloud layers + a high altitude cirrus layer, that is more than enough for most weather situations.

 

The real limitations of X-Plane weather engine lie elsewhere: lack of cloud types, lack of vertical development clouds (other than stratus), poor and static cloud structures, clouds not moving with the wind. If all of these issued would be resolved, it would be a decisive improvement.

[JGregory 76]

jcomm, on 21 Sept 2016 - 01:53 AM, said:

 

That XP10 wouldn't be XP10 if it wasn't for...

 

--> Murmur's solution to the infamous "torque bug";

--> OSM and W2XP developments, as well as the alternative Meshes by Andras and the tools for creating photo scenery;

--> The NOAA weather plugin much more plausibly interpreting METAR data specially for winds with a variability and gusting group, and adding turbulence and temperatures aloft, long before these were re-introduced ( with bugs ) around XP10.45 if I'm not wrong...

--> Ventura Sky, which is looking to me as another reference;

--> The recently introduced static aircraft at airports, and the "AFCAD"-like info.... ( thx to LR );

--> The improved GNS, even if few probably really use all of it's features ( thx to LR );

--> Extended DSF ( thx to LR );

 

Please also tell him that the Moon and the Sun are out of sync with reality in his plausible World. If he could just make it as plausible as, at least, MSFS and others in this aspect - heck, it shouldn't be that difficult, and unfortunately it isn't an easy task for a plugin because there are no associated datarefs - must be hardcoded ( ? )

Jose,

 

Neither Austin nor Ben visit these forums, so posting here will not necessarily get the information to them. And, if someone "conveys" your message to them, that message will likely not have all the same content that you originally intended and be "watered down" in the process.

 

The absolute best way to assure that your suggestions and complaints get through to Laminar is to contact them directly, either by e-mailing Austin/Ben or, even better than that, by filing a feature/bug report. This way it is all in writing and no one has to "remember" the details of what someone said to them.

 

Use this link to file a feature/bug report...

 

http://dev.x-plane.com/support/bugreport.html

 

Regards,

Jim

 

PS. Any bugs/features reported, especially with regard to the flight model (Austin's responsibility), should be well documented in as much detail as possible.

[Paraffin 2,197]

I think it's 3 layers of turbulence as well? However as you said, from the video about X-Plane 11 presentation, the weather layout seems unchanged from the current one.

 

Actually I don't think the 3 layers restriction is a decisive limitation, after all it allows the depiction of two cloud layers + a high altitude cirrus layer, that is more than enough for most weather situations.

 

I disagree, because modeling "most" weather systems and not the most dangerous ones like CB's is not enough for a supposedly modern, world-class flight sim. A simplistic 3-layer model can't model vertical convection, or discrete weather systems in the distance, within view of the plane. I suppose it's a valid question as to whether resources should be spent to model weather systems pilots are supposed to avoid, However, vertical airflow is still part of the environment a real-world pilot flies in. Sometimes you can't avoid these systems.

 

And even if you *do* want to avoid flying into a CB, changing your flight plan to steer around them, you still need to see where they are! VFR pilots do this all the time. Airline pilots steer around them too, using radar, ATC or visual guidance, because the tops of these suckers can reach or exceed the flight levels. Why can't we do it in a flight sim?

 

If there is a way for 3rd parties to inject discrete 3D weather systems within X-Plane's primitive 3-layer model that's great. But I haven't seen anyone accomplish that yet. It may not be possible at all, unless Laminar rebuilds the weather system from the ground up.

[Murmur 3,941]

I disagree, because modeling "most" weather systems and not the most dangerous ones like CB's is not enough for a supposedly modern, world-class flight sim. A simplistic 3-layer model can't model vertical convection, or discrete weather systems in the distance, within view of the plane. I suppose it's a valid question as to whether resources should be spent to model weather systems pilots are supposed to avoid, However, vertical airflow is still part of the environment a real-world pilot flies in. Sometimes you can't avoid these systems.

 

I don't see why modeling a single convective system would need more than one cloud layer per se. For example, in MSFS you can model a cumulonimbus/thunderstorm using only a single cloud layer. Of course it's not perfect, and using 3rd party addons improves the end results.

 

Let's imagine a weather engine where, in the case of vertically developed clouds, the inputs for each cloud layer are:

.cloud base

.cloud type (cumulonimbus/stratus)

.cloud top

.cloud coverage

.intensity of precipitations (rain, hail, etc.)

 

If the weather engine is capable, it can build believable convective systems (or stratiform systems) even using one single cloud layer. This is basically how the MSFS system works, and infact even if you limit yourself to using only one single cloud layer, MSFS can depict a convective system much better than X-Plane.

 

It's also a matter of priorities. I prefer to have X-Plane improve its depiction of vertical developed clouds, and having moving and dynamic clouds, rather than having 10 different cloud layers.

[Paraffin 2,197]

I don't see why modeling a single convective system would need more than one cloud layer per se. For example, in MSFS you can model a cumulonimbus/thunderstorm using only a single cloud layer. Of course it's not perfect, and using 3rd party addons improves the end results.

 

It's not about increasing the number of vertical cloud layers. It's about the need to move from a 2-dimensional weather system to a 3-dimensional one.

 

Visualize 3 nice fluffy pancakes stacked on top of each other. That's what we have right now, with the plane dead center in one of those three layers. There is no way to model "one pancake over there at 9:00 o'clock through the viewscreen, and another pancake over there at 3:00 o'clock... we'd better steer between them."

 

See? The current weather engine isn't a 3-dimensional system that can model discrete weather systems, and not just what's surrounding our plane. What's needed is a 3-dimensional box grid that can place one weather system over here, and another one over there, instead of everything at once in a single horizontal layer surrounding our plane.

 

Aside from a more accurate visual representation -- we would actually see things like CB's and approaching weather fronts at a distance -- it would help solve the problem of weather changing abruptly because it happens with our plane at the center. We could actually fly into and out of weather systems like real-world pilots, instead of the primitive "all at once" setup we have now, that requires smoothing and interpolation to avoid a sudden drastic change. The smoothing is okay when it works (using various add-ons), but we still never see discrete weather systems in the distance that we're about to fly into.

[Murmur 3,941]

It's not about increasing the number of vertical cloud layers. It's about the need to move from a 2-dimensional weather system to a 3-dimensional one.

 

On this I agree 100%

 

Visualize 3 nice fluffy pancakes stacked on top of each other. That's what we have right now, with the plane dead center in one of those three layers. There is no way to model "one pancake over there at 9:00 o'clock through the viewscreen, and another pancake over there at 3:00 o'clock... we'd better steer between them."

 

See? The current weather engine isn't a 3-dimensional system that can model discrete weather systems, and not just what's surrounding our plane. What's needed is a 3-dimensional box grid that can place one weather system over here, and another one over there, instead of everything at once in a single horizontal layer surrounding our plane.

 

That's not 100% accurate. The X-Plane weather system is bidimensional if using the base weather settings screen, but it has some tridimensional features if using real weather or random weather patterns. Here's an example, where I manually set two thunderstorm with different cloud bases over Boston and over Providence:

 

 

Here's another example where 3d features of the weather system can be seen (I think I used random weather patterns for this):

 

 

Yes, the first thunderstorm shot does not look very good, but the reason is the poor representation of vertical cloud structures in X-Plane, not the 3 layers limit per se. Infact, I'm not even sure that when using real weather, X-Plane is limited to 3 cloud layers, or if it's onlly limited when using the base weather setting screen.

 

 

[Paraffin 2,197]

Murmer, on that first shot, were you "painting" cloud layers on the weather page? As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), all that does is draw puffy clouds in what looks like the middle cloud layer, so you can't get a towering CB that crosses two or more of the layers. 

 

I just tried it, drawing the most intense-looking weather I could get ahead of my plane on that "paint weather patterns" menu. Lots of nasty red inside. All I get when returning to the plane are thin puffy clouds at a middle altitude layer. There's lightning being triggered, I suppose from the red areas, but it looks silly in bright daylight coming from a thin, puffy white cloud. Also some added turbulence flying nearby, so X-Plane apparently thinks it's a CB. But the visuals just don't cut it, and there is no vertical convection effect on the plane.

 

I take your point that this does indicate some degree of 3D positioning of discrete "weather," but it's apparently just placing clouds within the existing layers, and not capable of simulating an approaching weather front or a chain of CB's on the horizon.

 

[Murmur 3,941]

Yes I agree with you, the end result is extremely poor. I hope they improve the depiction of vertical developed cloud, along with the other issues (static clouds, etc).

 

I'd be pleasantly surprised to see a revamped weather engine in X-Plane 11, but I'm not holding my breath. Heck, they could take "inspiration" from MSFS. Here's what FS2004 _default_ weather could do 13 years ago (and that's just a single cloud layer):

 

[Jimmy RFR 406]

All this about cloud representation is great, but if the performance issues  that come hand-in-hand with dense cloud cover isn't solved, then to me it's all for naught. You could have all the layers you'd like, intricate cloud systems up the wazoo, but if no-one has the hardware to display them, then why?

 

 

That said, the original post could be largely summed up by "XP10 wouldn't be XP10 if it weren't for the time and energy given by countless community members."  Now that... I'm pretty sure they are fully aware of that part. :smile: