ORBX XP11: What are your predictions?

[alpha12125 213]

Orbx dealt with P3D continuous updates....

 

a little off topic. but did the p3d scenery ever get updated ? I mean x-plane is using the osm approach so changes to scenery are quite often happening as it gets more detailed every version. My impression was that p3d never got any scenery recuts during their lifecycle

[carrotroot 77]

 

 

but did the p3d scenery ever get updated ?

 

I don't think it ever was updated since FSX Service Pack 2, furthermore all of the default airport layouts haven't changed since 2006. At least X-Plane's airport database is up-to-date and the scenery gateway now has something like 7000 airports with 3d buildings.

 

Where X-Plane is really lacking is custom landmarks, and it's always been something that I wish that Laminar Research would have addressed all these years, hopefully this will be something that Orbx will work on.

[devgrp 1,233]

Orbx will be a great addon, although not necessarily a must have. XP has been doing fine with out them. 

 

I think that instead of praising Orbx, we should encourage other developers by purchasing/donating for their amazing work.

 

 

 

Mister X and others (can't remembers their names right now) have already set the bar. Orbx is going to have to produce something of amazingly higher quality in order to get a piece of my wallet.

No offense to MisterX but I have all his stuff and all orbx stuff, and orbx addons are alot better, from the models to land class and surrounding area. Orbx maybe the only one right now that could capitalize on seasonal textures and I think they will.

[pilot83 387]

a little off topic. but did the p3d scenery ever get updated ? I mean x-plane is using the osm approach so changes to scenery are quite often happening as it gets more detailed every version. My impression was that p3d never got any scenery recuts during their lifecycle

I meant P3d was in continuous update in terms of features and optimisation which was breaking many addons. But in xp11, If Orbx will use its own mesh, ground textures and autogen i cant see how recuts and OSM will affect their sceneries as this is default and will go under orbx stuff in order of priority. I noticed in xp11 if an area does not have scenery (only water) and you add a custom scenery (which includes photoreal, mesh, autogen) you will get the scenery to display correctly regardless default.

[Longranger 148]

I meant P3d was in continuous update in terms of features and optimisation which was breaking many addons. But in xp11, If Orbx will use its own mesh, ground textures and autogen,

I am not sure if this will be as simple, as you imagine. In X-Plane the mesh is tightly interwoven with the rendering engine.

The HD Mesh doesn´t really count since alpilotx uses thre same systems that are used for X-Plane itself, sometimes even newer versions.

 

Since Orbx doesn´t have this kind of access, they have to be prepared that every Update might break their mesh.

The other meshes, that you see around are only slightly modified versions of the standard- or HD Mesh.

 

For OrbX this probably would be a bit risky, so I would expect something in the directon of texture replacement, their own AutoGen and so on without modifications of the base mesh..

[soaring_penguin 428]

I am not sure if this will be as simple, as you imagine. In X-Plane the mesh is tightly interwoven with the rendering engine.

The HD Mesh doesn´t really count since alpilotx uses thre same systems that are used for X-Plane itself, sometimes even newer versions.

 

Since Orbx doesn´t have this kind of access, they have to be prepared that every Update might break their mesh.

The other meshes, that you see around are only slightly modified versions of the standard- or HD Mesh.

 

For OrbX this probably would be a bit risky, so I would expect something in the directon of texture replacement, their own AutoGen and so on without modifications of the base mesh..

This is wrong, everybody can make its own mesh, a good example is ortho4xp, which has its own mesh.

It depends on the developer and his tools to what is possible. The higher mesh has priority over the lower mesh.

 

So Orbx can completely write it's own mesh with it's own textures on top of the default, no problem there technically.

Tony has been experimenting with this, writing his own mesh in similar fashion as FSX, to assign 3D objects to the underlying texture.

But I think it did not work out to be that simple.

 

So it depends solely on how well they understand X-Planes scenery structure, and the tools they use.

Their advantage is that they have some money to throw against it, if they wish so.

[Desaix 235]

Unfortunately this means they will break any other already changed mesh.

 

This is one of the greatest limitation of the actual mesh system which apparently LR doesn't see as a limit. But it's there, anyone changing a 1X1 tile will change it for anything else. If you develop a scenery customized on a particular mesh you can't say how that will work on another mesh and we know there are at least three different ones commonly used: Ortho4Xp mesh, default and HD MESH V3

 

Scenery wide we would really need a way to customize only single part of a tile without affecting the whole tile but it looks not doable without rethinking the whole mesh system as AlpilotX wrote many times.

[tonywob 4,769]

 

 

Scenery wide we would really need a way to customize only single part of a tile without affecting the whole tile but it looks not doable without rethinking the whole mesh system as AlpilotX wrote many times.

 

I'll be very interested in how ORBX will get around this problem. Some of their airports have nice detailed local meshes, but this is currently not possible in X-Plane (unless you model the entire scenery as a hard-surface 3D model).

[alpilotx 505]

I would also add a few cents here.

 

Of course, everybody is free to do his own mesh. It is not - as stated above - in any way "interwoven with the rendering engine". To the contrary, the entire scenery system of X-Plane is quite open and anyone if free to create his own interpretation of it (as long as the result sticks to some technical standards). Ortho4XP is a good example here ... but it would also be possible (although needs quite some coding) to create a stand-alone mesh-generator which would use its own artwork set. Yes, its possible to redefine / create everything on your own ... like autogen, forests, objects, road definitions, ground terrain definitions + textures etc. etc. .... The only limitation here is your own resources (how much coding resources, artist resources etc. you have on hand) but definitely NOT the engine.

 

About Mesh modification. Yes, the way it is at the moment, it is definitely a very delicate topic, and I can't emphasize it enough to developers (who ask for permissions to mod my mesh). I even have a detailed FAQ on this topic (exactly because I urge everybody to think twice before starting with mesh modifications):

• http://www.alpilotx.net/faq/modifying-the-mesh-for-your-own-projects/

In the long run, at least with the current scenery tech, it will be unavoidable to invent some kind of local mesh modification tech (by Laminar) ... and I think they are more aware of this than you might imagine, but its an other question how high it is on their priority list (maybe some 3rp party devs like ORBX can "raise" this priority - just guessing)

 

BUT! Even with a technology for local mesh changes, you will never get a perfect system (and I think, this is a little "known" or "thought of" thing). Why? Because you can never be 100% sure, that two meshes are identical at the same area (for example an airport). Simply because there is no such thing as "absolute truth" in GIS data (and this is definitely very true for most elevation data sets out in the wild!!!).

 

So, maybe a 90m DEM data says that an airport area - on average - is 40m higher than lets say a different 30m DEM data set. Now, if someone creates a local patch for the 90m data to smooth / correct things , then that same correction might introduce a "nice" 40m higher plateau in the other mesh (which is based on the 30m DEM).

 

Of course, the above will happen "only" if the patch is based around "absolute correction" values :smile:. But don't think, relative elevation correction patches (which do not set absolute height values, but instead say, that a point shall be reduced or raised by a given number of meters)  are better off!  In this latter case, you maybe correct a few holes or spikes in the 30m DEM based mesh (and usually, the higher the DEM resolution, the more such "noise" you will get - which needs its own story, why :smile:  ) with a "relative correction" patch ... but those holes spikes then do not exist in the different, 90m DEM based mesh ... there your "relative correction" will instead introduce new spikes / holes ...

 

Nevertheless, I think such local correction patches might still be the best way to go .... But serious developers might need, to deliver a few different sets of patches to take care of the - at a given time - most common mesh products out in the wild.

[Guest]

Man, that sounds complicated... what a mesh...

[ricka47 611]

It does sound complicated.  But, except for landmarks and seasons, much of XP11 looks better than P3D with all the ORBX add ons.  So, personally, right now, I'd like to see them work on those aspects.

[Guest]

JV/Orbx just sort of confirmed that they announced support of the various sims but that it may take a while before there actually will be products. Don't wait for anything before Q4 of 2017...! R&D will probably take a year alone.

 

EDIT

Someone posted this:

 

I doubt you'll see anything soon.

 

ORBX will start to spend R&D resources on the top-secret projects after release of Germany South. Germany South will be due in April, may slip possibly into May and according to my experience this means not earlier than July. Usually R&D does not turn into immediate products (and as John stated in another thread, they will probably not even support all four top-secret platforms after evaluating the state of the art at that time). Realistically, the very first products for some of the top-secret projects might appear around this time of the year in 2017. While, John in another thread clearly indicated P3D3 will remain their primary and first-release platform for the foreseeable future.

 

We may or may not like it, but that's the facts as I read them for now. Certainly good for your wallet, though.

And JV's reply was:

 

This is the most sensible assumption I have seen after reading four pages of mostly conjecture.

Makes you wonder why Orbx posted this announcement... Is it only marketing hype...?!

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

It does sound complicated. But, except for landmarks and seasons, much of XP11 looks better than P3D with all the ORBX add ons. So, personally, right now, I'd like to see them work on those aspects.

There's no reason for that. The source digital elevation data in FS Global Mesh Ultimate 2017 and the land class data in FTX LC products are more detailed and current than those used in the XP equivalents.

[alpilotx 505]

There's no reason for that. The source digital elevation data in FS Global Mesh Ultimate 2017 and the land class data in FTX LC products are more detailed and current than those used in the XP equivalents.

At least the part about the LC data I do doubt :wink:  ...

(with the DEM data, yes, quite likely true ... as only the UHD Mesh uses 30m data)

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours... :wink:

 

Seriously, the land class data for the lower 48 (Canada is similar) is partially based on this:

 

http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php

 

My original point was that XP11 isn't likely to "look better than P3d". Even with your excellent mesh product, it's likely to look more or less the same. In any case, comparing LOD for various terrain products can be somewhat misleading, because although the product itself may have high spatial resolution, the original data may not be of the same caliber. If I take a photo with my iPhone of a screenshot from an old VGA monitor, it isn't going to look any better in the photo.