Why this rush for v5? V4 is still amazing

[Chock 17,769]

I suspect it's not so much a rush, as an expectation of a long-desired fix. It's been apparent, and has been talked about frequently on Avsim since around the time of FS2000, that the base technology which Flight Simulator was built upon was effectively down the wrong road.

Up until around about 2000, it made sense to have the CPU take on the work of a flight sim because we kept getting newer and faster CPUs coming out all the time, but generally speaking, CPUs, like a lot of computer stuff, were made faster by simply making them smaller, so the electrical signals had less distance to travel and therefore worked quicker, well, that and cramming more of the microswitches in there too so they could also do more calculations. But to make such CPUs smaller, you have to shave silicon even thinner, and when you do that, it reaches a point where it no longer serves well as an insulator, and then the processor's electrical signals tunnel through the thin material and cause shorts and serious overheating too. Now we know companies such as AMD and Intel sidestepped this issue of not being able to bring out ever faster processors by shrinking them as they had previously always done, by basically gluing two processors together to give us 'Dual Core', then they glued four together to give us quad core, and so on, meanwhile hoping to develop a suitable substitute for silicon in processors. Thus CPUs got a little bit faster, but not fast enough to run something like a game or sim because the calculations were spilt across several cores and had to be fired back and forth to complete, so we saw the advent of better dedicated GPUs to handle things which are visually demanding, i.e. computer games and video editing programs etc.

And so since about 2002, any decent game worth its salt gets the maths done by the CPU, and leaves the pretty visuals to the GPU, but ESP, which FS and P3D are based on, can't do that because of the underlying way in which it was created.This is why computer savvy simmers were petitioning MS/Aces to redo the base engine of FS to use GPUs as far back as when FS98 was everyone's main sim, but by that time Bill Gates was looking to leave MS, and so the driving force behind what might have got that done was heading for the exit with bigger fish to fry.

But now Lockheed Martin are at a point (and frankly always were, right from the first iteration of P3D) where they really do have to grasp the nettle and instead of tacking more whistles and bells onto an outdated CPU-bound methodology, which just makes matters worse anyway, instead have to start from scratch. This is why things like Call of Duty look amazing on a cheap @ss X-Box, but your flight sim looks rubbish and runs at 10 fps on a computer that cost you two grand. A new version of P3D (and by that I mean a really new version, with the core of it completely redone) is, and has been for nearly twenty years, so anticipated for all of the above reasons.

Two decades of waiting is not really a rush, and if you'll pardon the pun, you don't need ESP to know that a rewrite is the proper solution.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Chock

[Guest]

The challenge that LM face with Prepar3D is to develop a new engine with goodies like PBR, DX12, take full advantage of multicore processing, move more rendering to the GPU etc. and (what for it!) still maintain backwards compatibility with 3rd party content at least in a fashion the minimises the pain the developer and users alike. I am sure that backwards compatibility is core to LM's mission with Prepar3D. They have as much as said so themslves so I would not expect to see a version of Prepar3D that thows the baby out with the bath water. I think LM probably going to phase out legacy support gradually so for example I don't see a version 5 that the NGX would not run without being redone from scratch. sure some modifications by PMDG will likely be required. But also I can also imagine that an NGX v2 that comes along wont be compatible with earlier versions of the sim. So one can for example see a version that support both the traditional Textures and PBR textures for a period of time but once It supports PBR third party developers would stop using the traditional textures on new addons from that point. I think its always been that way to some degree with with file formats etc. But anyway I really don't know what I am taking about LOL! But I am sure LM is really up to the job and I can see Prepar3D just getting better and better. Role on V5

[ComSimPilot 623]

Hi Alan,

My problem is not that I don't want v5 to come, of course I want! I had always updated to the latest version of Prepar3D on day one. My problem is that many people assume v5 is just around the corner and thus they tackle the discussion for v4 as outdated. Some people are always unsatisfied and I bet that 6 months after v5 there will be talking about what v6 will bring. Dreaming and thinking ahead is always healthy, but not when you dismiss what has been already been possible. Its only a year ago that the new era came to P3D being for the first time of the code's history, 64 bit. Developers are still exploring the new features v4 made possible (look at GSX v2). I enjoy this endeavor, I look forward for v4.3 and to me the sim looks beautiful. Yes there are of course rendering areas that can be improved, I could name a handful. However, as long as 2018 is still the year of P3Dv4, lets enjoy it and stop dismissing its evolution because at some point there will be another version. That's all what I'm saying.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Daedalus

[him225 51]

28 minutes ago, Chock said:

I suspect it's not so much a rush, as an expectation of a long-desired fix. It's been apparent, and has been talked about frequently on Avsim since around the time of FS2000, that the base technology which Flight Simulator was built upon was effectively down the wrong road.

Up until around about 2000, it made sense to have the CPU take on the work of a flight sim because we kept getting newer and faster CPUs coming out all the time, but generally speaking, CPUs, like a lot of computer stuff, were made faster by simply making them smaller, so the electrical signals had less distance to travel and therefore worked quicker, well, that and cramming more of the microswitches in there too so they could also do more calculations. But to make such CPUs smaller, you have to shave silicon even thinner, and when you do that, it reaches a point where it no longer serves well as an insulator, and then the processor's electrical signals tunnel through the thin material and cause shorts and serious overheating too. Now we know companies such as AMD and Intel sidestepped this issue of not being able to bring out ever faster processors by shrinking them as they had previously always done, by basically gluing two processors together to give us 'Dual Core', then they glued four together to give us quad core, and so on, meanwhile hoping to develop a suitable substitute for silicon in processors. Thus CPUs got a little bit faster, but not fast enough to run something like a game or sim because the calculations were spilt across several cores and had to be fired back and forth to complete, so we saw the advent of better dedicated GPUs to handle things which are visually demanding, i.e. computer games and video editing programs etc.

And so since about 2002, any decent game worth its salt gets the maths done by the CPU, and leaves the pretty visuals to the GPU, but ESP, which FS and P3D are based on, can't do that because of the underlying way in which it was created.This is why computer savvy simmers were petitioning MS/Aces to redo the base engine of FS to use GPUs as far back as when FS98 was everyone's main sim, but by that time Bill Gates was looking to leave MS, and so the driving force behind what might have got that done was heading for the exit with bigger fish to fry.

But now Lockheed Martin are at a point (and frankly always were, right from the first iteration of P3D) where they really do have to grasp the nettle and instead of tacking more whistles and bells onto an outdated CPU-bound methodology, which just makes matters worse anyway, instead have to start from scratch. This is why things like Call of Duty look amazing on a cheap @ss X-Box, but your flight sim looks rubbish and runs at 10 fps on a computer that cost you two grand. A new version of P3D (and by that I mean a really new version, with the core of it completely redone) is, and has been for nearly twenty years, so anticipated for all of the above reasons.

Two decades of waiting is not really a rush, and if you'll pardon the pun, you don't need ESP to know that a rewrite is the proper solution.

I take xplane11 does not suffer from the same outdated engine technology problem, but it does not look or perform better by as much margin as this make me believe.

[Holdit 551]

1 hour ago, ErichB said:

OMG what is it with everyone today. 

AVSIM. Every day.

[Indy511 686]

I'm looking forward to P3Dv10... P3DVX.😁

[Ident 198]

3 hours ago, Sethos1988 said:

 which could mean fixes for a number of visual issues P3D has been suffering with (cloud shadows disappearing and reappearing when looking around) 

I could be wrong as I thought about this myself, but I dont think that effect is broken and needs fixed. I feel that is one of the ways that P3D has been coded to cheat rendering stuff not seen which results in higher FPS. There is a down side to that but it is my understanding that to optimize the graphics they are working to not draw items that is not within view of the user.

Another item along those lines are that the view around the user is not in a circle but in a square. So being in the center of the square the user is closest to the middle of each side wall and the corners are the points furthest away.  So when the user looks around more shadows come into view at the corner of the viewers eyes which is also in the corner of the distance square. That could be fixed by making it a radius around the user and not a direct line of distance resulting in a square. That or extend the visual range even more.

I do agree its not attractive to see, especially in mountainous areas.

[pmb 5,137]

19 minutes ago, him225 said:

I take xplane11 does not suffer from the same outdated engine technology problem, but it does not look or perform better by as much margin as this make me believe.

The X-Plane engine is as old as the MSFS/P3D engine. Of course both got several facelifts over the years, but basically that's it.

Kind regards, Michael

[Sethos 4,333]

4 minutes ago, Ident said:

I could be wrong as I thought about this myself, but I dont think that effect is broken and needs fixed. I feel that is one of the ways that P3D has been coded to cheat rendering stuff not seen which results in higher FPS. There is a down side to that but it is my understanding that to optimize the graphics they are working to not draw items that is not within view of the user.

You are right that it's a process to cull clouds that you aren't looking at, which in terms removes their shadow. However, that is no 'excuse' for how bad it looks and how big of a visual distraction it is / can be. It's a telltale sign of a simplistic implementation into P3D, because cloud shadows weren't a thing back on the old ESP-platform, so you obviously have to work around some basic shadow and rendering limitations. The ESP-platform does have a lot of limitations. So it's not a bug per say or something they can just fix, however, I will say it's a 'broken' because anyone can look at it and say "that ain't right". Probably the number one issue I've seen reported over the years when it comes to P3D, because people generally find it extremely distracting and kills the immersion.

That's why a new render engine could potentially fix these issues.

 

[Dazkent 113]

Enjoy the product you have today or you could suffer with what i call "pebble syndrome" always thinking a better version is around the corner. The ESP platform has brought us and will continue to bring us alot of enjoyment. I for one am thankful for that and of course it will be interesting to see how V5 will turn out. Who knows it may even have proper AA without the need to melt your graphics card in when flying in overcase/ dense cloudy weather 😃

[WarpD 824]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

but ESP, which FS and P3D are based on

Incorrect.  ESP is based on FSX.  Prepar3D is based on ESP.

Also, when Flight Simulator was originally created you had computeres lie the Commodore 64 with a 6502-based processor and a VIC II display interface that was 160x200 pixels in 16 color mode.  It wasn't a math genius and technically neither was the processor.  The sheer fact that a flight simulation of any type was actually accomplished on a system so astoundingly limited in capacity is something I'm willing to bet not a single one of us would be capable of accomplishing.  In my opinion the design of flight sim didn't take a wrong path but rather it opened up the only path that was possible... without them taking said path, you probably wouldn't have a flight sim at all.

[pracines 823]

This is the first topic I have seen specific about version 5 and specific predictions when it will come out. I have seen posts with questions/speculation about when version 4.3 will release, and there is no harm in the anticipation of a new release from LM. Where are the many posts predicting a soon release of V5? I'm not saying they are not there, I'm just wondering where? But even so, no need to let them disturb.🐍

But also, if version 5 is going to be despised, then stay at version 4 when 5 comes out.🗿

Another fascinating point is, If one praises V3 why aren't they at version 2 or FSX? What got them to get to V3? You see, there is always something that will captivate us, and in flight simulation going backwards is never an option. Yes, we reminisce at times and fly in an older version, but to stay there is not an option for flight simmers. Once the taste of whatever got you to where you are, there is no going back. So why love what is old? It makes no sense at all. If one cannot keep up because of finances that is another matter, but this does not reflect on the value of newer releases! 

LM is on a journey that we can choose to join or not, personal choice. 🗽

I personally would love to skip ahead to version 10 or even 15, but that is because I fly everywhere. Some days I'm flying only Flightbeam with PMDG, and other times I'm flying out of a farm strip with a 152II. The default farm strips; VFR hops to private/uncontrolled, need a major boost (a 'Flightbeam boost' 😁), but I realize this will take time. MS Flight began to approach this somewhat, hence my take on the matter.

Here's' looking forward to what is to come, because if/when V5 is released, it will be more amazing than V4....LM are smart, they know to make it better than before.👨‍🎓 

📈

 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by pracines

[Boeing or not going 578]

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

OMG what is it with everyone today.  I don't think that's the way it was meant.  

I think we should all switch ourselves off and back on again.  

 

and in my view v4 is still new and amazing.

[Boeing or not going 578]

2 hours ago, Daedalus said:

I am referring to some comments of the type "I'm not buying this add-on, v5 is coming soon I'd rather wait" or similar. An attitude from some that v5 is just around the corner that I find confusing when we are still waiting for v4.3. I thought maybe I miss something. Yes, v4.2 is very stable for most people and any update is more than welcome (including v5). However, the truth is rather that v5 is not around the corner, so I find all discussion about it distracting. Lets focus on what we have and what is coming soon and enjoy that. Of course we want PBR and of course we want a new rendering engine. The question is why to bother talking for something that is not coming for another year? I see that quite often lately and I wanted to try to ask and put these rumors to the right perspective. 

I should not have read the text you posted in your first post and read your mind. next time Ill take note of that

Take an hour and read the hardware forum or ctd forum and more to see an obvious reason people are looking to another version

Edited June 20, 2018 by Boeing or not going

[SpiritFlyer 987]

5 hours ago, Daedalus said:

Hi all,

Just wondering, I see many posts of people mentioning that P3D v5 is coming soon.... I don't get why some think v5 is coming the next months. 

 

Where are the many posts?

The only one I have seen that resembles the speculation mentioned is this one. 

True or not (as if that is important these days), great heading for a thread though,

and effective to produce interest and the gushing of many words,

including these! 

😎