6 hours ago, Paraffin said:

First thing I noticed too. I sure hope they can fix this (and LM too, if they ever move P3D to 64 bits). There's no excuse for pop-in and blurries when you have a 64-bit address space to play with.

I'd say that's more of a rendering issue/ GPU cycles. I suppose there's two options to pop-in autogen; you render it further out so you don't see it pop-in, or you use some transparancy and make them fade in.

I remember LM saying they were going to make them fade in but then pulled it because of the lost frames I suppose. 

8 minutes ago, NZ255 said:

I'd say that's more of a rendering issue/ GPU cycles. I suppose there's two options to pop-in autogen; you render it further out so you don't see it pop-in, or you use some transparancy and make them fade in.

I remember LM saying they were going to make them fade in but then pulled it because of the lost frames I suppose. 

Is the fade, I think they call it alpha fade used by x-plane? I like it with xp, but the fade begins long after the object in reality would be visible based on the weather visibility settings. Is this a sophisticated coding effort?

1 minute ago, N1G said:

Is the fade, I think they call it alpha fade used by x-plane? I like it with xp, but the fade begins long after the object in reality would be visible based on the weather visibility settings. Is this a sophisticated coding effort?

As I understand it, XP pre-loads scenery in RAM so that 1) you don't get stutters if you have enough RAM, and 2) scenery can load to the horizon as necessary.

That may seem like overkill, but consider isolated mountains like Mt. Rainier in Washington State, or Popocateptl in Mexico that can be seen from 100 miles away on a clear day. When flying bush planes in a sim (like I do), it's also great to be able to zoom out and spot a small grass strip among farmlands, or a gravel strip on a sand bar way out in the distance. That is, assuming the viz is actually that good, which it often is in wilderness areas. 

Pre-loading scenery requires enough RAM, and 64-bit scenery engines should be able to make full use of the vastly larger address space.

XP11 now has a minimum system requirement of 8 GB RAM, with 16-24 GB or more recommended. It's interesting that DTG's FSW has a minimum requirement of 4 GB RAM. That may suggest that they're not taking full advantage of pre-loading scenery to avoid blurred terrain and pop-in, or it may just mean that they're still optimizing it. It's too early to tell, until we start getting our hands on the early access release and see how it handles scenery loading. We can only tell so much from the limited videos we've seen so far.

Also, to be clear... distant scenery loading, pop-in, blurries etc. may not matter to everyone. They matter to me because I'm often flying into unfamiliar areas with hard-to-spot bush strips and helicopter landing areas. I like zooming out to see what I'm getting myself into. For an airline pilot, you're up into the flight levels pretty quick after takeoff in a modern jet, and probably using a precision approach for landing. How far into the distance you can see terrain may not matter on that kind of flight.

10 minutes ago, N1G said:

Is the fade, I think they call it alpha fade used by x-plane? I like it with xp, but the fade begins long after the object in reality would be visible based on the weather visibility settings. Is this a sophisticated coding effort?

I'm not to sure about xplane.

i guess coding a solution might be better but the way I was thinking it could be done is to make the smallest mipmap fully transparent and go to fully opaque over a few mips.

so when a texture has mip maps it has pre-generented smaller textures included. So a 512x512 pixel texture would have mips that go 256, 128, 64... down to 2x2 pixels. When an object is far away you only need the smaller texture to save rendering (?) time. 

15 hours ago, Paraffin said:

As I understand it, XP pre-loads scenery in RAM so that 1) you don't get stutters if you have enough RAM, and 2) scenery can load to the horizon as necessary.

Thank you. Nice explanation.

Edited May 5, 20179 yr by n4gix
PLEASE delete the excessive text quotes. We don't need to read the entire post again!

What about the ability to use FSUIPC with FSW?  Has there been any coordination with Pete Dowson regarding FSW and FSUIPC?

Thx,

Al

1 hour ago, ark said:

What about the ability to use FSUIPC with FSW?  Has there been any coordination with Pete Dowson regarding FSW and FSUIPC?

Thx,

Al

Stephen Hood said some time ago that he thought the functionality that FSUIPC brings should exist within the core sim rather than being a separate add-on supported by just one person. Whether this has actually occurred is another matter altogether. I can't remember what was said about SimConnect.

2 hours ago, ark said:

What about the ability to use FSUIPC with FSW?  Has there been any coordination with Pete Dowson regarding FSW and FSUIPC?

Thx,

Al

 

read all about fsuipc and dtg here:

http://forum.simflight.com/topic/81536-dovetail-flight-school-fsuipc/

DX11 with at least a GTX970...that smacks alot like FSX. DX11 is how old, 5 years? They should have gone with Vulkan also for VR.

I'll try the demo to see if the FSX flickering has gone. At least the images look much less cartoonish with real reflections like xplane.

3 hours ago, SamYeager said:

Stephen Hood said some time ago that he thought the functionality that FSUIPC brings should exist within the core sim rather than being a separate add-on supported by just one person. Whether this has actually occurred is another matter altogether. I can't remember what was said about SimConnect.

I agree with that stance and DTG have said this from day 1.  I think it's ridiculous that the functionality to connect to third party addons is not an inherent part of the sim. It should be.

I'm still not entirely convinced by what im seeing.  Adopting a new sim platform is very expensive with everything you need to add to it.  But it seems which ever way you slice the cake, we're all going to be forced to go with either P3D 64 bit or DTG 64 bit if you want to move things forward.  Interesting times.  Looking forward to further news on DTG development and the new P3D briefing at flightsim con.

 

Well it's certainly a nice video, and if that footage is from in-sim we'll have something to look forward to. I'm optimistic but I remember the marketing hype around FSX too well to take anything for granted. But getting the game out to early access must mean that the devs are confident in their product which is another vory good sign.

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

I agree with that stance and DTG have said this from day 1.  I think it's ridiculous that the functionality to connect to third party addons is not an inherent part of the sim. It should be.

I'm still not entirely convinced by what im seeing.  Adopting a new sim platform is very expensive with everything you need to add to it.  But it seems which ever way you slice the cake, we're all going to be forced to go with either P3D 64 bit or DTG 64 bit if you want to move things forward.  Interesting times.  Looking forward to further news on DTG development and the new P3D briefing at flightsim con.

 

Or X11 which is very impressive, best feeling of flight of any simulator I have tried so far. No comparison to X10.

I was on the fence about getting this as I'm pretty happy with XP11, but it looks like my little investment in Flight School is going to get me a free copy anyway. Very nice gesture DTG!

https://fselite.net/news/dtg-flight-simulator/bought-dovetails-flight-school-youll-get-free-copy-flight-sim-world/

Popping up scenery is something our programmers are working on, as it's a challenging thing to fix without compromising frame rates. Regardless, it has been improved vs Flight School and the work is still ongoing.

Does it have native sloped runways, or at least allows for their inclusion in scenery packages ?