I will give it a try. I have 16 GB RAM and a GTX780, yeah, old, but with 6 GB.

 

 

You make it sound as if you are already working on it...? I like that 'and more'! Love the logical naming btw LOL

Well, I have been working on the "high building" improvement for Laminar over the last week (on vacation and having a bit more time than usual) ... which by the way is looking really good in many areas (yes, in Europe too - thanks to useful OSM height information for many buildings).

And all this is of course coming to that v4 too ... at some point. But I still stay to what I said some weeks ago: do not expect it in the near future ... (as a minimum, I will wait for XP11 becoming final AND possibly get one more version iteration). At some point in 2017 ... yes, that is a relatively safe bet ...

 

(and I am out over the coming 7 days in the real mountains - so do not expect regular comments from me :wink: )

There is one huge difference between XP11 and P3D where we can make a comparison, and that's level of detail in the distance.

 

 

This is definitely true. LM clamped the view distance LOD setting at the old FSX value of 6.5 (which is still farther out in P3d than at 6.5 in FSX) as a 32 bit programming consideration. This makes the use of photoscenery in P3d a bit limited in scope. On the other hand, P3d has had viable  display of meteorologic phenomena for a while now (XP just got SMP 4 and Enviro-X) so being able to see great distances in P3d wasn't such a big deal. With realistic fog, haze and cloud cover, one can't see "forever" most of time anyway.

This is definitely true. LM clamped the view distance LOD setting at the old FSX value of 6.5 (which is still farther out in P3d than at 6.5 in FSX) as a 32 bit programming consideration. This makes the use of photoscenery in P3d a bit limited in scope. On the other hand, P3d has had viable display of meteorologic phenomena for a while now (XP just got SMP 4 and Enviro-X) so being able to see great distances in P3d wasn't such a big deal. With realistic fog, haze and cloud cover, one can't see "forever" most of time anyway.

Well, IMHO the main difference is that even with bad weather you can see textures being loaded near the plane in P3D. Things in the distance are low res too but that isn't the main problem. In XP the terrain (mesh and textures) are loaded as far as you can see and you never ever see anything being loaded at any time. Even the autogen is shown so far away already that you can't see it being loaded (unless you zoom in extremely). P3D does a better job than FSX in that regard but still the autogen is loaded in a clear circle around you. In XP11 I sometimes zoom in extremely just for the fun of it: it is great being able to read the number plate of a car that is smaller than 1 pixel in normal view. Anyway, this is a difference that kills immersion for me in P3D and why XP is more immersive, despite other less important flaws.

Well, IMHO the main difference is that even with bad weather you can see textures being loaded near the plane in P3D. Things in the distance are low res too but that isn't the main problem. 

 

This is the first thing that jumped out at me with DTG's Flight School last summer. They managed to convert the FSX code base for 64-bits and (theoretically) solved the OOM problems, but they hadn't worked the scenery engine to take advantage of the new address space. Every video I saw was full of texture pop-in near the plane, and very low resolution in the distance.

 

The charitable view is that DTG just didn't have a good handle on the code yet. If they manage to push their DTG Flight Sim out of the hangar next year, they're going to have to deal with this problem. A 64-bit conversion of FSX code shouldn't only be used to eliminate OOMs.

Nothing beats mountains in Xplane. this is where it shines and love mountain flying.  

My first question is, are mountains in XP11 better looking than XP10 mountains?   I have raved many times, about XP10 mountains. Using FSX scenery or XP10 scenery with added meshes, I usually prefer my mountain west flights in XP10. However, there are numerous areas, where the overall effect of FSX combined with Orbx, looks far better in mountainous regions. Just depends where, and what's available as an addon.  I love mountain flying, because that's what I mostly did in real life.  Of course now, I know better, since it was usually single engine, and all of that.... :smile:

My first question is, are mountains in XP11 better looking than XP10 mountains?  

 

I think they do look a little better in XP11. I'm using the same HD mesh I used in XP10, so the landclass and geographic detail is the same, but XP11 has this new lighting and haze model that I think adds to the feeling of being there.

 

Another factor is that weather effects with low-lying clouds and fog in valleys helps sell the look and simulated experience of mountain flying. We now have two competitors in the area -- XEnviro and SkyMaxx Pro v4, both of which will be moving forward with XP11 as the main supported platform. I wouldn't call either one great yet, but they'll get better over time. XEnviro does better in the flight levels, but in the tests I've done so far, it's kind of a toss-up for low level mountain scud running.

 

So I think XP11 beats XP10 both for the native lighting/haze in the mountains, and the fact that we've got these two programs duking it out for low level cloud effects. You can run those weather programs in XP10, but they'll be basing future development on what it looks like, and how well it works in XP11. 

 

 

Well, IMHO the main difference is that even with bad weather you can see textures being loaded near the plane in P3D.

 

Maybe that's what YOU see, but I don't.

My first question is, are mountains in XP11 better looking than XP10 mountains?   I have raved many times, about XP10 mountains. Using FSX scenery or XP10 scenery with added meshes, I usually prefer my mountain west flights in XP10. However, there are numerous areas, where the overall effect of FSX combined with Orbx, looks far better in mountainous regions. Just depends where, and what's available as an addon.  I love mountain flying, because that's what I mostly did in real life.  Of course now, I know better, since it was usually single engine, and all of that.... :smile:

 

Hmm I think they look better but it could be the lighting also playing tricks. 

 

Don't have ORBX and the only time i did mountain flying and enjoyed it  was since XP10.  Probably using ORBX textures makes it a different experience. 

 

I bet you have had your wow moments IRL mountain flying 

 

 

My first question is, are mountains in XP11 better looking than XP10 mountains?

 

I'll add another vote to looking better - but as mentioned by others, I think it really just comes down to the improvements in the lighting and haze. I will note that I have yet to use HD Mesh in XP11 - the default mesh is pretty good for the most part where I've been flying.

 

Mountain flying is one area where I think XP is a clear winner over any MSFS-based platform. The fact that the mesh stays detailed and distinct in the distance makes is what does it for me, and I don't find the textures to be objectionable either. Seeing blurry looking mountain 'humps' sharpen and switch to more detailed mesh as you get closer was always a pet peeve of mine in FSX.

Maybe that's what YOU see, but I don't.

I would say that I simply notice what is there and that you got either used to it or don't bother about it or don't want to see it. But the constant loading IS there. Always. Everytime. On every computer. Because this simply is how the ESP engine works. No matter how fast and up to date your computer is. You can even see it in the best video's. Take for instance Rob's recent Haukasen video: textures being loaded when you almost are there. I randomly clicked to a spot in the video and saw it clearly around 7:40 minutes, all during the entire landing sequence. This never ever happens in XP. I didn't check this in the video but during my flights in P3D I also often saw Mesh being loaded (live morphing of the terrain... total immersion killer). (I think you can see it a little a few seconds before the landing where the start of the runway moves but this might be a video thing.)

 

Obviously this is less of a problem while flying very high but then you will still see it during take off or landing. I am happy for you that you don't notice it but it has always annoyed me, also in FSX and previous versions, specially because I mainly fly low. It is also most clearly when flying alongside mountains: I guess that's why mountain flyers love XP so much more.

 

 

But the constant loading IS there. Always. Everytime. On every computer. Because this simply is how the ESP engine works.

 

The 32bit ESP engine yes, but it will probably load textures and mesh much further out in the 64bit version (when it comes) so that advantage of XP11 will no longer matter.

What I feel is that FSX and P3d do real time loading , but Xplane loads everything up in the RAM correct me if i am wrong

 

 

What I feel is that FSX and P3d do real time loading , but Xplane loads everything up in the RAM correct me if i am wrong

 

X-Plane has a precalculated triangle mesh that is loaded with the entire tile, FSX/P3D I believe generates the mesh as you fly from the DEM data (or something similar). The FSX/P3D approach means the mesh adjusts on the fly to the resolution settings, whereas the X-Plane one is always a fixed triangular mesh which can't be easily edited by users (as discussed above).

The 32bit ESP engine yes, but it will probably load textures and mesh much further out in the 64bit version (when it comes) so that advantage of XP11 will no longer matter.

 

The problem may become less obvious due to a probably larger LOD but as others already stated the underlying technique is different. It is not that XP simply has a larger LOD: it has a totally and imho better system. And I do think this difference will still matter. But we'll see!

X-Plane has a precalculated triangle mesh that is loaded with the entire tile, FSX/P3D I believe generates the mesh as you fly from the DEM data (or something similar). The FSX/P3D approach means the mesh adjusts on the fly to the resolution settings, whereas the X-Plane one is always a fixed triangular mesh which can't be easily edited by users (as discussed above).

 

Yes the progressive loading. 

 

The Xplane mesh seems to be more in depth.