Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bobsk8

Here we go again.

Recommended Posts

 PBR was relatively easy to implement in DTG FS which is based on the same "engine" ... although PBR was perhaps not implemented very well in DTG FS, it was implemented in a rather quick time schedule, so I would consider PBR as viable (at least coding wise perhaps not performance wise) in a future P3D..

Carefull. It was based on PBR Shaders. But I have severe doubts, if what we saw really followed the PBR rules! It doesn´t ask if they somewhere used PBR shaders. Instead it places certain demands on the BRDF.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

 

 


Wow - my night lighting in P3D looks nothing like that Rob.  Is that with an add-on of some kind?

 

Base default P3D V3.4.x, no add-ons (running from my Test PC which is 3960X 4.2Ghz and 1080 FE) ... keep in mind the far distance lighting is based on terrain texture overlays (some 3rd party products don't work with these), the distance lighting isn't AG based lighting ... but I'd like to see something similar implemented in XP11 so the transition from "real" lighting isn't so abrupt.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post

It is about that time again, too much silence from LM and the end is near speculation starts ... been that way ever since V2.0 release ... and yet here we are 3+ year later.  I guess Microsoft's closure of ACE's really scared many to paranoia.  Relax, it's the holiday season, give LM a break.

 

 

 

P3D already partially has a 3D lights system similar to Xplane, it's just not utilized as much, but there are significant performance implications with such a lighting system and XP11 as good as it looks does take an FPS beating even on my moderately high end PC and that's with default aircraft and default airports no cloud shadows and a few other missing elements.  But my hunch is if P3D did operate a full lighting system like XP11, we'd see very similar FPS hits.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

My system is just a 2500k at 4.6ghz and a 970 and I get 37 FPS over Seattle with objects maxed out (along with most other settings except reflections) at night in the XP11 demo.

 

That's not to say you are wrong about there being a performance hit (oddly enough, I see very little difference between night and day in XP10 or XP11 FPS wise), but I will say that XP does an excellent job at optimizing their lighting system within their engine.

 

Unfortunately, knowing LR's philosophy, I doubt they'll band-aid the situation by using lit textures in the distance. They'll want to wait until processing power allows them to make the lights go out 20+ miles. They've got the same stubborness with seasons. Instead of just using textures, they want to have a fully dynamic system with accumulated snowfall.

 

I admire their vision, but it can be frustrating to not have basic features while they wait for the perfect situation to implement them.

 

As hard as P3D struggles now in many situations, it's hard to imagine there's enough headroom left to have XP like lighting in it without major changes to the rendering engine. But I'm hoping such major changes do happen. If not, that's ok. I'm just personally at a place where I kind of done with P3D as it sits now until they make some major changes.

 

I was a huge P3D user who uninstalled XP10 because I didn't like enough about it, so that's not bias on my part. But we all reach our limit at some point. It's time to make some major advances.

 

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Aren't you just seeing ground textures there? So yeah, it goes further, but it looks bad IMO.

 

When it comes to actual 3D lighting, I've found XP11 goes further then Orbx for example. But I agree that having to render 3D lights 30 miles away isn't really practical, so it's a flaw in a 3D only system that it can't display far out at high altitudes.

 

Unfortunately, with LR's philosophy, I doubt they band-aid the situation with distant lit textures. Their own vision can get in the way of practicality sometimes. Same thing with their refusal to just use texture sets for seasonal changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

I think what I'm describing is the blending of detail lighting with less detail lighting ... I don't need to see detailed volumetric lighting 30 miles out, I just need to see some/any representation of lights from a distant city/town and they don't need to look realistic until they come within range of normal human vision.  The abrupt ending of lighting in XP11 leaves me without any references to cities/town.  

 

For example NVFR flights in the US (VFR night), distant city lights are important visual queues.  

 

As far as implementation of volumetric lights in P3D, just have to wait and see ;)  But agree, XP11 (and XP10 for that matter) volumetric lights within the LOD radius are very nice indeed.  Hoping LR will think about integrating a distance lighting process (not volumetric) in final release of XP11.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post

 But agree, XP11 (and XP10 for that matter) volumetric lights within the LOD radius are very nice indeed.  Hoping LR will think about integrating a distance lighting process (not volumetric) in final release of XP11..

So you hope for it in XP11.5 or 11.6? Or did you mean final version of X-Plane 11.0?

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your inputs Rob, somehow they always give me hope  :P

I never fly during the night in P3D because it just kills my immersion... LM has started going down the path of changing the shaders and rendering bit by bit. I hope they will continue that way.

Share this post


Link to post

If I am allowed to voice an opinion: I hope LM to release something more remarkable pretty soon to not see all my former P3D fellows and more and more addon developers to run away to that other simulator.

 

And yes, I know we are less than a droplet within LM's ocean of income. However, while their intermal users are certainly bound to P3D, even some of their external commercial users might switch to the commercial option of that other simulator if P3D doesn't remain competitive, or better above competition. 

 

Just my 2 Euro-c.

 

Kind regards, Michael


MSFS, Beta tester of Simdocks, SPAD.neXt, and FS-FlightControl

Intel i7-13700K / AsRock Z790 / Crucial 32 GB DDR 5 / ASUS RTX 4080OC 16GB / BeQuiet ATX 1000W / WD m.2 NVMe 2TB (System) / WD m.2 NVMe 4 TB (MSFS) / WD HDD 10 TB / XTOP+Saitek hardware panel /  LG 34UM95 3440 x 1440  / HP Reverb 1 (2160x2160 per eye) / Win 11

Share this post


Link to post

Since Santa is busy taking notes these days I'll send him the following wishes for the new year:

 

1. Aerofly FS 2 gets a pile of cash to continue devlopment of their amazing sim, and FlyTampa and A2A decide to make addons for it.

2. DTG blows our minds and combine FSX, Flight and GTA into an amasing sim with an integrated "The Sims & Sim City" style scenery creation tools that makes scenery and airport creation a breeze.

3. Preapr3D buries the ESP code and starts fresh with a new engine co-created by NASA. It will take a few years, but when released we'll have a full earth simulator like never before.

4. X-Plane 12 goes from plausible to real world scenery.


Simmerhead - Making the virtual skies unsafe since 1987! 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

 

 


even some of their external commercial users might switch to the commercial option of that other simulator if P3D doesn't remain competitive, or better above competition.

 

Unlikely, LM go to VERY different "Trade shows" than typical FS non-commercial non-military users/devs ... I can assure you in those types of trade-shows XPlane doesn't even have a presence ... this isn't a bad thing, we end user reap the benefits of those big $$$ investors.

 

Anyway, you'll just have to wait and see what LM have up their sleeve ... with that said I've always encouraged multi-platform sniffing in areas that show promise (sorry DTG just didn't show any promise) ... current platforms I'm very interested in are Aerofly 2, P3D, XP (had some interest in DCS but that sorta faded).

 

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm interested in Aerofly 2 as well I purchased it from steam and for a sim in development it looks good . It's also 64 bit, looks like a promising future


Angus Rowlands: i7 8700 RTX Asus Strix 2080, 16 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post

Just made two flights in the AFS2 King Air and had a ball. What a great experience. Sure, I wish the flight model was a bit more complete, but when you only have 30 minutes to spend simming, AFS2 is my go to platform. 


Simmerhead - Making the virtual skies unsafe since 1987! 

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoy AFS2, too. However, you guys probably noticed that no single developer - as far as I know - is going to develop add-content for it. I even tried to encourage a couple of them myself, but given the number of users it was pushed way down the priority list.

 

Concerning converts from P3D to XP I was neither worried about the big players nor the ocean of private users, which is said LM not caring about (not sure if this really applies...). I had in mind Flight Schools, Commercial Public Simulators and the like. These certainly have XP on their screen as well. But I am indeed confident LM will convince us again. 

 

Concerning DTG I fully agree. Playing DFS for 2 hours factoring in that odd questionnaire and their childish ad campaign convinced me these are mere amateurs playing in another league. 

 

Kind regards, Michael


MSFS, Beta tester of Simdocks, SPAD.neXt, and FS-FlightControl

Intel i7-13700K / AsRock Z790 / Crucial 32 GB DDR 5 / ASUS RTX 4080OC 16GB / BeQuiet ATX 1000W / WD m.2 NVMe 2TB (System) / WD m.2 NVMe 4 TB (MSFS) / WD HDD 10 TB / XTOP+Saitek hardware panel /  LG 34UM95 3440 x 1440  / HP Reverb 1 (2160x2160 per eye) / Win 11

Share this post


Link to post

I guess everyone has different needs.

I can't stand photoscenery with sparse autogen and that's AF2's system. So it's a no go for me. That and a dozen other reasons.

 

The base engine, especially the atmospheric lighting, does look good though.

Share this post


Link to post

Photoscenery is certainly a mixed bag, especially when there is a lack of 3D autogen, but I like the geographic accuracy it brings. Even the best landclass based scenery from ORBX does a very poor job at recreating populated areas (in terms of accuracy), and performance as we all know is abysmal. Aerofly does a very good job with their photoscenery, and it is color corrected to perfection. When I have flown between SF and LA in AFS2 I have actually gotten to know the real geography of the area. Having done the same in ORBX-land doesn't give me the same feeling of having been there in real life.  

 

Lack of third party developers in AFS2 is a major obstacle in the development of the platform, even though I personally couldn't care less - as long as IPACS continue to refine the stock aircraft and flight model.


Simmerhead - Making the virtual skies unsafe since 1987! 

Share this post


Link to post
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...