Xplane and my simming future

[Guest]

2 hours ago, jh71 said:

Well, the end result is clearly more volumetric, while the other is obvious a flat rotating image. To each it's own.

That wasn't the point: you said P3D uses bitmaps and implied XP didn't, that is has 3D clouds. But that's not the case. And I seldom, if ever, see rotating flat clouds in P3D. Which btw also may have to do with SkyForce (EDIT As Erich posted before me). So it's not that obvious and flat as you think. And btw you can't judge that by looking at screenshots... 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Guest

[GCBraun 2,390]

43 minutes ago, J van E said:

That wasn't the point: you said P3D uses bitmaps and implied XP didn't, that is has 3D clouds. But that's not the case. And I seldom, if ever, see rotating flat clouds in P3D. Which btw also may have to do with SkyForce (EDIT As Erich posted before me). So it's not that obvious and flat as you think. And btw you can't judge that by looking at screenshots... 

Well, using VR you can clearly notice that XP’s implementation is superior. Everything rotates with your head in P3D using AS. In XP11 clouds are much, much more stable. 

[ErichB 3,638]

1 hour ago, GCBraun said:

Well, using VR you can clearly notice that XP’s implementation is superior. Everything rotates with your head in P3D using AS. In XP11 clouds are much, much more stable. 

Yeah, but VR really is a completely different issue.  VR is at best - still experimental. 

[Longranger 148]

5 hours ago, ErichB said:

Not going to happen unless Austin and team provide the (extra) tools to make it happen.

And this will have to wait ,till it has made the jump to Vulkan. It is quite difficult to plan usefull APIs before you can really determine what the engine might do.

[CarlosF 1,234]

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

Yeah, but VR really is a completely different issue.  VR is at best - still experimental. 

Yeah, but VR does not change/modify clouds in any way, so the statement above "XP’s implementation is superior" remains true.

[DeltaWho 67]

In regards to the current state of weather engines in X-Plane (Disclaimer : I own X-Enviro 1.08 beta...take from what what you will)

 

ActiveSky : Have not seen or heard a thing about them for a while, so I can't really comment if they are inferior or superior because there is nothing there atm. Perhaps some inferences can be made in regards to cloud systems and the level of integration with third-party add-ons.

 

SkyMaxx : I've had mixed relationships with. I started v3, which was definetly an improvement over stock. However... cloud systems seem very limited, textures are poor, colours often seem wrong, FPS and draw distance is poor...and I have not really seen any evidence to see that SkyMaxx is actually volumnetric. Perhaps our terminology is different, but I've only ever seen rotating billboard clouds. But again...perhaps I've had a bad experience with the software.

 

X-Enviro : This to me, is where the current interest lies. Having beta-tested 1.08, I can say it is an almost night-day transition from 1.07. Clouds are built up with voxels...though not visually rendered. However, this does mean that 1.08 blocks out city lighting (in answer to @Tonywob ). The sky is physically rendered and is much more accurate to the real thing. The cloud textures are created dynamically, so no two clouds are the same, and cummulus does build up under certain conditions (although the algorythms are not fully there yet.) There is also alot of work to try and get the weather radar implemented (called openwxr) and is going to be adopted by the Flightfactor 320 and other future add-ons.

 

 

 

 

On a closing remark, yes it's painful now, but I believe we're going to see alot of interesting developments with weather coming over the years, with or without Laminars assisstance. Just a little patience needs to be excercised

[tonywob 4,768]

xEnviro badly needs custom weather themes instead of real weather. This is a huge limiting factor for me who likes to fly GA and helis in places like the UK (where the weather is always rubbish) and I don't understand why they haven't implemented this yet. 

 

[GCBraun 2,390]

13 hours ago, ErichB said:

Yeah, but VR really is a completely different issue.  VR is at best - still experimental. 

Disagree. VR is natively implemented on stable versions of both P3D and XP11. Of course VR improvement is ongoing, as its the case with every other technology.

[soaring_penguin 428]

Erich, maybe you can live with this implementation of cloud drawing in MSFS derivates, I can not. The fact that in VR it even stands out more, is enough proof. Maybe I should have called them billboards, instead of bitmaps. But you can call it what ever you like, the clouds remain flat and rotating, there are methods to camouflage it, like Active Sky has done, but it remains the same.

In XP also, I shy away from any "improvement" that pronounce the rotating billboards, even if they, in some circumstances, give pretty visuals and nicer cumulus. Probably because I prefer VFR and do not fly 'tubers.

As I said, to each its own.

And I agree with Tony, for VFR (nice weather flyers), xEnviro badly needs custom weather.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, tonywob said:

xEnviro badly needs custom weather themes instead of real weather. This is a huge limiting factor for me who likes to fly GA and helis in places like the UK (where the weather is always rubbish) and I don't understand why they haven't implemented this yet. 

 

Ah, thanks, forgot about that. Yes, I also need custom (or better said historic) weather badly. I am still unsure about reinstalling XP just for TrueEarth (can't see any advantages in it yet apart from some possible graphical improvements) but I certainly won't add X-Enviro to the mix if it doesn't come with custom/historic weather. (The addon also is a bit too expensive considering I might only use XP for testing, comparing and some GA flights.)

Edited April 6, 2018 by Guest

[ErichB 3,638]

5 hours ago, jh71 said:

Erich, maybe you can live with this implementation of cloud drawing in MSFS derivates, I can not. The fact that in VR it even stands out more, is enough proof. Maybe I should have called them billboards, instead of bitmaps. But you can call it what ever you like, the clouds remain flat and rotating, there are methods to camouflage it, like Active Sky has done, but it remains the same.

I don't disagree.  'Camouflage' is a good way to frame what AS (and SF) has managed to do with it.  And as i don't really have much of an alternative, given the types of aircraft I prefer to fly, I have learned to live with it.

Neither sims are perfect - although sometimes - they come close to being so.    It's more a case of which levels of imperfections you are more comfortable with.  

I've not seen much of flightsim in VR.  I did when the DK2 first came out and I got so ill from the stutters I gave up.  Things have moved on since then quite significantly I guess but I haven't gone back to VR since.  Never did get the CV1.  I couldn't get over the screen door effect.

[CarlosF 1,234]

5 hours ago, J van E said:

The addon also is a bit too expensive

How did you arrive to that conclusion?

Do you realize the complexity and the amount of time it takes to develop?

Im a software developer (medical) and I sell my software 20 times higher and its not even close to the complexity of xE.

Come on, $70, its about the same you would spend on a nice evening in a nice restaurant with the wife and next day that $70 will end up, well you now where. So no, I for one don't think is expensive at all, but that is just me.

Edited April 6, 2018 by CarlosF

[tonywob 4,768]

5 minutes ago, ErichB said:

I've not seen much of flightsim in VR

AF2 is a clear winner for me, the others are just unusable. With X-Plane I have to turn down the settings to minimum and it looks like I'm flying over a lifeless, dull world whilst suffering from cataracts. P3D is better, but the movement is delayed and makes me feel not great.

With AF2, I can run on max settings and it's super smooth throughout. To care rid of the carpet orthos effect, I have to fly quite high up or in an area covered by autogen, but taxiing around KEGE or LOWI for example is really amazing. I'm really happy AF2 is shortly getting a helicopter.

[GCBraun 2,390]

3 hours ago, tonywob said:

AF2 is a clear winner for me, the others are just unusable. With X-Plane I have to turn down the settings to minimum and it looks like I'm flying over a lifeless, dull world whilst suffering from cataracts. P3D is better, but the movement is delayed and makes me feel not great.

With AF2, I can run on max settings and it's super smooth throughout. To care rid of the carpet orthos effect, I have to fly quite high up or in an area covered by autogen, but taxiing around KEGE or LOWI for example is really amazing. I'm really happy AF2 is shortly getting a helicopter.

Of course, AF2 has no weather, no water rendering, no plugins and no real airplanes. Your 1070 is also not ideal for VR in XP11 and P3Dv4.

[tonywob 4,768]

Yep I accept that, but not everyone can afford a 1080ti (Especially with the mining mania going on at the moment)