I did write some code for the rendering engine.

 

I thought you wrote XPlane

Thanks, tried that but didn't do anything. I'll post some info on my settings as suggested by Ryan. My in game settings are the default settings on installation.

Complete parts list in particular GPU please.

Anyone else getting this banding?

 

Click on pic to see full image-

 

Yes

There's one thing I don't understand: shouldn't VR be equivalent to two monitors simultaneously rendering two slightly different point of views? In this case two GPUs should be ideal?

Here's why VR is different from multi-monitor: in multi-monitor, you probably have two entirely different sets of scenery in each monitor, because you're viewing different camera angles.

 

In VR, you have -almost the exact same scene-, just projected slightly differently.

 

The modern GPUs have a special path that fits really well with the VR case.* I believe we will be able to basically draw the scene once and let the GPU "double" it for us.

 

The only hitch is fill rate, but the total number of pixels on a VR headset just isn't that huge, compared to dual monitor. (The current Vive and Rift headsets have about 2.5 million pixels, vs 3.5 million in a single 1440p monitor. We need to render a little bit denser to the VR headsets due to warping, but still, dual monitors + 4K is a bigger source of fill rate problems than VR.)

 

cheers

Ben

 

* Instanced drawing, writing to a 2-layer array texture with the layer specified in the vertex shader if anyone is a GPU nerd.

Anyone else getting this banding?

Yep, but it's been acknowledged as a bug by LR, so hopefully it'll be fixed soon.

Complete parts list in particular GPU please.

 

Intel i7-6700K (not overclocked)

16Gb RAM

Win 7 Professional SP1

Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 4Gb

2 x Samsung 850 EVO SSD (1 x 1Tb, 1 x 250 Gb)

I will try XP11 demo on the other laptop as it has 2GB VRAM but only 4GB RAM let's how it performs , though the GT820m is a stupid card and the GT525m is slightly better. 

Have you guys noticed the runway/centerline lights (and others) reflected on the bottom of fuselages?  Ooooh it looks amazing!

 

@ Mitch, John Spahn is already working on and testing SMP 4 for XP-11, if this video is any indication.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Tom

@ Mitch, John Spahn is already working on and testing SMP 4 for XP-11, if this video is any indication.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Tom

 

 

Looks great except the daylight has no spice to it. looks kinda flat you know what i mean  ? or maybe it has to look like that in RL i don't know

any proper moving map app available for ifr flights?

@ Mitch, John Spahn is already working on and testing SMP 4 for XP-11, if this video is any indication.

 

The cloud shapes look good but the color is off. Clouds should be white at that time of day, and not tinged with a light salmon pink color.

 

FWIW, I'm using a color-calibrated monitor here, for graphics work I do on the side. 

any proper moving map app available for ifr flights?

I use External Moving Map v1.0 available on the ORG http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/25569-external-moving-map/

There is still a LOT of work that needs be done, in XP11.  For one thing, they need to give the user, as much control over the sim, the gamma level to lighten up or darken the general sim, the haze intensity (which is way overblown...and actually hides most features of the ground at this time).  Atmospheric haze so badly heavy handed, that the color pallet of the sim has no depth or intensity...totally bland and washed out.

 

No DSF Extend control. No follow contours.  No way to flatten an airport runway or property.  In this beta U.I. it is gutted in user control, compared to XP10.  Way too compounded and high-level simplified.  

 

Ben...Laminar...PLEASE in the final rendition of the U.I.   PLEASE give us back at least, equal to the ability to turn on, or turn off, the features that are in play within control of XP10....------> XP11.  The setup U.I. is too simplified, and therefore crippled.  I hope this is just a quick first draft beta thing.  I sure as h*ll hope this is not much of a final U.I.

 

There are so many good features of this sim, but...there are also, step-backs...and for myself, the User Interface (as seen in this public beta) is one step-back, in a lot of what was controllable by the user in XP10...is no longer available to the user within XP11 Graphics control elements.

 

One thing more.  At night...the actual ground lights (for instance a city under the wing) has a severe lit drop-off..meaning that you can see a clear line of city lights on...and then complete darkness, and no blend slowly out to the horizon. Is not DSF Extention, still part of the sim base? You can clearly see where a tile is lit up...and the one further out from your position is totally non-rendered, and dark.

 

Hi,

 

this all has been discussed already at LR and of course they are open to feedback:

 

• haze will get cut back, I think. Part of the problem is getting used to it/part is not being used to it (XP10). Some middle ground is the goal, I think.
• GUI - severe discussion. I also miss finetuning, but the majority of users is unable to sensibly set their options and then gets themselves into trouble. Compare the rendering options with MOST modern games - they give you a "low - med - high" and thats it. Because for that very reason (most users are ignorant to modern hardware and processing details, that includes me;-)))
• DSF is ALWAYS extended in XP11
• Airport flattening is now handled on a "per airport" basis. If you see an airport that SHOULD be flattened, file a bug in the Scenery Gateway (or fix it yourself with WED, then upload to Gateway. Warning: Only do it if it is really not useable without flattening - dont do it just because you like flat airports.
• Lights cutting out in the distance is the same problem as it was in XP10, no change - but should be fixed in the future, I agree.

Happy flying, Jan