windshearDK

Mild complaint about the P3D platform

Recommended Posts

As an avid simmer for 20 years I am impressed with the progress P3D v4 has made and 64bit environment. Except again for 20 years ATC is the same as it was in FSX.

I don't mind using UTLive for AI but I cant use ATC for SID and STARs procedures although easily built into the flight plans. And most of the Airports' AFCADs in P3d are not correct in terms of gate size and numbering.

Since LM expects Simmers to add on Heavies like PMDGs and FSLABS and Quality Wings and so on, why not give ATC a little boost/priority in future updates. I believe the less addons the better performance and 

Thanks

Bill Hagag

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

4 hours ago, 0Artur0 said:

Every time a see a screenshot from XP, DCS and AF2 recently I cry a little. I'm a long time FSX and P3D user but I must admit our beloved platform is starting to look very outdated.

Every now and then take a look at our screen shots forum, you'll be pleasantly surprised. 😀

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I have been on the cusp of dropping P3D in favour of XP for the past six months. I've dabbled with XP but sadly have returned to P3D V4.3. However, I am still frustrated as hell with the platform. Sure, it looks beautiful and the performance I get from my rig is very good, rarely do I see less than 30fps with smooth performance under any situations. BUT, the texture loading, particularly photoscenery, is abysmal and completely ruins immersion for me. Some will have seen posts from me on several forums over the past year or so, trying to get to the bottom of this issue. LM say they are aware of it, but never seem to get any closer to a satisfactory conclusion. Even with all slider to zero, and running photoscenery on a single 1920x1200 monitor, makes no difference whatsoever. So for me, the one thing I would hope to see before I lose interest completely, is for this issue to be resolved.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rockliffe said:

I have been on the cusp of dropping P3D in favour of XP for the past six months. I've dabbled with XP but sadly have returned to P3D V4.3. However, I am still frustrated as hell with the platform. 

Howard, I am with you here. The issue is not at all with bad screenshots. The fact that there are a couple of XP screenshot spammers in the screenshot forum doesn't say they are better, just more. Even more, as some of the most annoying P3D issues can't be discerned from screenshots at all.

I am afraid LM will surprise us in version 5 with a new RENDERING engine, perhaps taking advantage of PBR and DX12 and stuff. In my opinion, P3D renders quite nice (and imo better than XP) and would be in much more need of a completely rewritten TERRAIN engine.

In this repect, there are at least 4 issues having been reported to LM on their forum over and over without virtually any (yes, any) improvement over the last years:

  1. Blurry photoscenery, that's the one you name. I can take all sliders down in France VFR, switch off all autogen - the terrain remains blurry and does not even come close to crisp LC-based textures.
  2. Textures snapping into place. The higher resolution the mesh the more ugly this looks. I was told (probably right) this comes from different mesh resolutions being loaded in order when approaching a hill etc. Good example: ORBX Norway fjords.
  3. Chewing-gum like distorted textures on vertical faces like steep rocks.
  4. Black buildings. Fly into Toronto from Lake Ontario. The city center will pop up at once -  and in black. Textures will appear a couple of seconds later.
  5. Autogen loading late and in patches with any distance setting above medium. I even uploaded a Silicon Valley videoclip to the LM forum a year ago.

Not anyone will see all of these issues. I'd guess, 80% around here fly tubeliners mostly or exclusively. They certainly will not notice terrain snapping into place 10km below them and most major airports are just flat anyway. I fly mostly VFR and have seen all of these issues, at least since version 2, and some of them are even an inheritance from FSX, as far as I recall.

And don't tell me these issues are unavoidable: XP may have no seasons and weather, development of AeroflyFS2 may go slow as molasses - I still have to find any of those issues in either of them (while I recall having seen at least some of them in FSW!). 

And we didn't speak about 12 (twelf) years old default airports and navaids yet.

I really would like to go on with P3D, however those unsolved issues make it less and less competitive. I often hear the argument that "we" are not LM's target group. However, aside LM internal use, don't their external commercial customers (flight schools, public motion platform sims and the like) consider these issues in their judgement of a preferred platform? 

Sorry for the long posting, Michael

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, pmb said:

Howard, I am with you here. The issue is not at all with bad screenshots. The fact that there are a couple of XP screenshot spammers in the screenshot forum doesn't say they are better, just more. Even more, as some of the most annoying P3D issues can't be discerned from screenshots at all.

I am afraid LM will surprise us in version 5 with a new RENDERING engine, perhaps taking advantage of PBR and DX12 and stuff. In my opinion, P3D renders quite nice (and imo better than XP) and would be in much more need of a completely rewritten TERRAIN engine.

In this repect, there are at least 4 issues having been reported to LM on their forum over and over without virtually any (yes, any) improvement over the last years:

  1. Blurry photoscenery, that's the one you name. I can take all sliders down in France VFR, switch off all autogen - the terrain remains blurry and does not even come close to crisp LC-based textures.
  2. Textures snapping into place. The higher resolution the mesh the more ugly this looks. I was told (probably right) this comes from different mesh resolutions being loaded in order when approaching a hill etc. Good example: ORBX Norway fjords.
  3. Chewing-gum like distorted textures on vertical faces like steep rocks.
  4. Black buildings. Fly into Toronto from Lake Ontario. The city center will pop up at once -  and in black. Textures will appear a couple of seconds later.
  5. Autogen loading late and in patches with any distance setting above medium. I even uploaded a Silicon Valley videoclip to the LM forum a year ago.

Not anyone will see all of these issues. I'd guess, 80% around here fly tubeliners mostly or exclusively. They certainly will not notice terrain snapping into place 10km below them and most major airports are just flat anyway. I fly mostly VFR and have seen all of these issues, at least since version 2, and some of them are even an inheritance from FSX, as far as I recall.

And don't tell me these issues are unavoidable: XP may have no seasons and weather, development of AeroflyFS2 may go slow as molasses - I still have to find any of those issues in either of them (while I recall having seen at least some of them in FSW!). 

And we didn't speak about 12 (twelf) years old default airports and navaids yet.

I really would like to go on with P3D, however those unsolved issues make it less and less competitive. I often hear the argument that "we" are not LM's target group. However, aside LM internal use, don't their external commercial customers (flight schools, public motion platform sims and the like) consider these issues in their judgement of a preferred platform? 

Sorry for the long posting, Michael

Absolutely 'on the money' Michael. I have experienced all your observations. What you say regarding airline flying as opposed to GA is a good comparison. I fly far less GA flights than ever and concentrate more on flying the NGX moreso than ever before, mainly due to what you have said regarding how less obvious poor texture loading is when flying airliners.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, pmb said:

I am afraid LM will surprise us in version 5 with a new RENDERING engine

Do you base this opinion on some facts or is it just a hunch?

I, on the other hand, very much doubt that. Why would they put so much effort (time and money) in bringing the current engine to 64bit? Wouldn't it be easier to make this big step with a new engine, instead of "repairing" the old one? I don't know, just thinking out loud.

The fact is this engine is ancient and most of the problems are direct result of that. The engine is the main reason the progress is so slow because there's probably not much more they can do with it. In 7 years, what did they add to it feature wise? Cloud shadows and dynamic lighting. It looks tiny bit better thanks to shaders but that' probably about it. But making a brand new one is like making a brand new sim. Is there a reason for LM to do that in the near future?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, 0Artur0 said:

Do you base this opinion on some facts or is it just a hunch?

I, on the other hand, very much doubt that. Why would they put so much effort (time and money) in bringing the current engine to 64bit? Wouldn't it be easier to make this big step with a new engine, instead of "repairing" the old one? I don't know, just thinking out loud.

The fact is this engine is ancient and most of the problems are direct result of that. The engine is the main reason the progress is so slow because there's probably not much more they can do with it. In 7 years, what did they add to it feature wise? Cloud shadows and dynamic lighting. It looks tiny bit better thanks to shaders but that' probably about it. But making a brand new one is like making a brand new sim. Is there a reason for LM to do that in the near future?

If you listen to the interviews conducted with LM at FSEXpo, Adam Breed did refer to a new rendering engine being on the cards.  Vulkan was mentioned but nothing was confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, 0Artur0 said:

Do you base this opinion on some facts or is it just a hunch?

Yes, Erich is right. I refer to a couple of interviews by Adam Breed at FSEexpo (just google for them). They were quite vague (as always with LM interviews) but pointed into that direction.

Kind regards, Michael

Share this post


Link to post

Am I correct in thinking that Vulkan would only be compatible with Windows 10?

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Am I correct in thinking that Vulkan would only be compatible with Windows 10?

Yes correct

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, pmb said:

Really? I know DX12 will be Win10 exclusively, but shouldn't Vulcan work on 7 as well?

https://developer.nvidia.com/vulkan-driver

Kind regards, Michael

Sorry I misread the question! I missed the only part. You of course correct Vulkan is win7 & 10 compatible as well as Linux I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

A new rendering engine is the next obvious step, and since they make much of its VR capabilities, and the resolution of VR is something which is inevitably going to go higher, it's pretty much going to be a necessity, as we know it really has been since FSX came out and processors stopped getting exponentially vastly quicker on an almost weekly basis. Had Bill stayed at the helm of MS, they doubtless would have done it since Bill, being a plane buff, didn't care about FS development expense being a goodwill loss leader for MS. Lockheed Martin's net income last year was over 2 Billion Dollars, so it's not like they really have to worry about the cost of it denting the bottom line too much.

Edited by Chock
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't ever use MS Flight,  but those who did, thought it was far superior to FSX.  How much ground has LM covered in closing the gap between the two sims - apart from 64 bit and new VR capabilities ?

Did MS Flight have a new terrain engine?  I would love to see the end of the terrain snap, crackle and popping effects

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 2:36 PM, windshearDK said:

ts sad as the industry has gained so much momentum and are seeing more users than we ever saw in the history of simming.

You may be wrong there. From my persepective the FSX/P3D addon market has been in steady decline these last years, the last one of the "fat" years being 2013 - and for FSX at that. It not only seems like the hobby itself has lost its appeal, but the advent of other platforms made people wander off to new pastures, reducing the marketplace time and again.

Slow "progress" with addons usually has one main reason: the effort involved in making big changes cannot be backed by appropriate income. Either it is just too much work to make it feasible - or the income generated by sales is so low, that you can't hope to break even in an acceptable time frame (or in fact just to get a little compensation). Just look at how many successful developers have given up and how many more not-so-successful ones have disappeared silently. If you sell 1000 copies of anything these days, that is already considered a success. Of course there is a handful of really successful people - but they usually are a time limited minority.

I am just assuming that the P3D platform is being developed according to professional standards and best practices. So there will be a master plan, a backlog list of features that is constantly revised and checked against priority and feasibility. The platform progresses according to that plan, and if our wishes as simmers aren't addressed, they probably just aren't that important in the grand scheme. I am pretty sure that features that are requested by commercial and military customers are worked on with high priority, for example the recent CIGI and DIS implementations. Those probably took a lot of effort, so there was just nothing left for much else.

Best regards

Edited by Lorby_SI
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

I am just assuming that the P3D platform is being developed according to professional standards and best practices. So there will be a master plan, a backlog list of features that is constantly revised and checked against priority and feasibility. The platform progresses according to that plan, and if our wishes as simmers aren't addressed, they probably just aren't that important in the grand scheme. I am pretty sure that features that are requested by commercial and military customers are worked on with high priority, for example the recent CIGI and DIS implementations. Those probably took a lot of effort, so there was just nothing left for much else.

That's sad news, but matches my impression indeed. And, btw., from a glance over their forums, this master plan scheme doesn't seem to only apply to P3D only but to XP and Aerofly as well, notwithstanding military customers or not.

So I feel I should rather stop simming and start collecting stamps. One (heavily buying addons) simmer less, then.

Kind regards, Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ErichB said:

I didn't ever use MS Flight,  but those who did, thought it was far superior to FSX.  How much ground has LM covered in closing the gap between the two sims - apart from 64 bit and new VR capabilities ?

Did MS Flight have a new terrain engine?  I would love to see the end of the terrain snap, crackle and popping effects

I flew MS Flight before they pulled the plug on it. When you flew with it, you really felt like you were flying. Back then, the vast majority of the FS community bashed it continually because it did n't have every bell and whistle and bit of eye candy that FSX had, so MS said "the heck with this, and pulled the plug".  Sad. 

Edited by Bobsk8

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, ErichB said:

If you listen to the interviews conducted with LM at FSEXpo, Adam Breed did refer to a new rendering engine being on the cards.  Vulkan was mentioned but nothing was confirmed.

We can only hope so....fingers crossed!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I flew MS Flight before they pulled the plug on it. When you flew with it, you really felt like you were flying. Back then, the vast majority of the FS community bashed it continually because it did n't have every bell and whistle and bit of eye candy that FSX had, so MS said "the heck with this, and pulled the plug".  Sad. 

Yes, oftentimes we appear to be our own worst enemies.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Back then, the vast majority of the FS community bashed it continually because it did n't have every bell and whistle and bit of eye candy that FSX had, so MS said "the heck with this, and pulled the plug".  Sad. 

No, actually they pulled the plug on it because it launched with an awful business model  which no-one was interested in supporting - not surprisingly.  But it's a pity the tech that supported it wasn't picked up by LM 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ErichB said:

No, actually they pulled the plug on it because it launched with an awful business model  which no-one was interested in supporting - not surprisingly.

The community never gave it a chance. They demanded everything yesterday, period. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Bobsk8 said:

The community never gave it a chance. They demanded everything yesterday, period. 

 

This community isn't forgiving - and the business model killed it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, 0Artur0 said:

But making a brand new one is like making a brand new sim. Is there a reason for LM to do that in the near future?

I am guessing like everyone else but I think they have had a plan all along to maybe not introduce a totaly new engine but a highly modified engine of some sort. The reason, if that is the case, is the desire to be better positioned to make use of VR for training in the sim.

Edited by shivers9

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, ErichB said:

This community isn't forgiving - and the business model killed it.

This already started during the ads campain when people asking for hard facts got a brainless trailer "Did you ever want to realize your dream to fly?". Dovetail went a similar path which just didn't pay off either. 

Just tell potential users honestly what to expect and what not, they'll find it sooner or later anyway.

And yes, while Flight! looked pretty cool indeed, the busines model was doomed from the very beginning.

Kind regards, Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, pmb said:

In this repect, there are at least 4 issues having been reported to LM on their forum over and over without virtually any (yes, any) improvement over the last years:

  1. Blurry photoscenery, that's the one you name. I can take all sliders down in France VFR, switch off all autogen - the terrain remains blurry and does not even come close to crisp LC-based textures.
  2. Textures snapping into place. The higher resolution the mesh the more ugly this looks. I was told (probably right) this comes from different mesh resolutions being loaded in order when approaching a hill etc. Good example: ORBX Norway fjords.
  3. Chewing-gum like distorted textures on vertical faces like steep rocks.
  4. Black buildings. Fly into Toronto from Lake Ontario. The city center will pop up at once -  and in black. Textures will appear a couple of seconds later.
  5. Autogen loading late and in patches with any distance setting above medium. I even uploaded a Silicon Valley videoclip to the LM forum a year ago.

 

Number 2 is my favorite complaint also, along with the occasional scenery loading pause.

This is indeed a holdover from FSX and visually very distracting.

I am sure that LM is well aware, but if it was simple to fix (by blending in the change or some such technique) I would think they would have tried it by now..

Lets keep telling them and hope for the best :cool:

Edited by Bert Pieke
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now