ATC won't be here anytime soon (and mod annoyances)

[GHarrall 494]

9 minutes ago, Avidean said:

The only reason AFS2 has such high frame rates is that its photo scenery on a mesh and that's it.

Lol, we keep hearing this. Go look at FTX TE Netherlands for AFS2. Its still hitting over 200 FPS.

Venema has also said that they have so much spare overhead that weather, ATC, aircraft systems will not tax the system at all. He should know, hes working closely enough with IPACS

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

Venema has also said that they have so much spare overhead that weather, ATC, aircraft systems will not tax the system at all.

When someone in the know, who doesn't have a conflict of interests say's it, wake me up!

Edited August 16, 2018 by Guest

[shivers9 1,174]

33 minutes ago, Avidean said:

When someone in the know, who doesn't have a conflict of interests say's it, wake me up!

Not only that....Orbx is just bouncing from Sim to Sim trying to suck up every dollar they can. Guy's we have already seen this Dog and Pony show with DTG. I use ORBX products but may just dump them when I do a rebuild soon. They have not released a product in years now (Edit...here in the US) that improve the general P3D Sim. Yes I know about the Airports... Just not my thing. IMHO as consumers, we would be much better off in the the long run to support our favorite sim with our dollars and stop chasing these pie in the sky start ups. This whole thing about AFS2 graphics and FPS reminds me of Carenado and their flying graphics with no systems to speak of. LOL we have all chuncked money down that black hole!!

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by shivers9

[GHarrall 494]

35 minutes ago, Avidean said:

When someone in the know, who doesn't have a conflict of interests say's it, wake me up!

Sure. I can tell you now that AFS2 has no problem with TE region and still hits 200 FPS. There is no way on earth P3D or any other sim could process that level of scenery and have that performance level. I have no idea if advanced weather and ATC will impact it. Its sure a good place to start from though.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, shivers9 said:

Come on my friend....really?

Yes, really. You clearly didn't read my post well enough. I was talking about the performance and graphics department engine only. ;)

1 hour ago, Avidean said:

Vanilla Prepar3D can easily spit out 100+ frames per second perhaps even 200 and frankly I prefer the look of default P3D land class and autogen over AFS2 photoscenery.

Vanilla AFS2 can spit out 600+ frames per second. And not perhaps. And I don't agree that everything above 60 is completely redundant: it's called headroom. ;) AFS2 has loads of it and that's a very nice thing for the future when more options will be added.

But anyway, since today we have access to an interesting benchmark:
1. install TrueEarth Netherlands in P3D, turn of ALL settings that are NOT related to it and which aren't available in Aerofly FS 2.
2. install TrueEarth Netherlands in AFS2.
3. run both and compare fps: let's see which of the two has the most headroom to cope with all that scenery. ;)

[GCBraun 2,390]

If they would give me at least one advanced GA plane and support something like VATSIM or IVAO, I would give AF2 a chance. Love the VR performance, but there is no way I am going to spend time flying arcade-like planes.

[shivers9 1,174]

5 minutes ago, J van E said:

Yes, really. You clearly didn't read my post well enough. I was talking about the performance and graphics department engine only. 😉

Vanilla AFS2 can spit out 600+ frames per second. And not perhaps. And I don't agree that everything above 60 is completely redundant: it's called headroom. 😉 AFS2 has loads of it and that's a very nice thing for the future when more options will be added.

But anyway, since today we have access to an interesting benchmark:
1. install TrueEarth Netherlands in P3D, turn of ALL settings that are NOT related to it and which aren't available in Aerofly FS 2.
2. install TrueEarth Netherlands in AFS2.
3. run both and compare fps: let's see which of the two has the most headroom to cope with all that scenery. 😉

OK you win!! LOL Here is a similar "benchmark" I have a 2012 Ford F150 that has to potential to fly at hyper-sonic speeds. I just have to wait on Ford to develope the engine and wing design and I will be all set. I will fly over and give you a ride when it is developed and released.

[pracines 823]

13 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Wow...... prophet of doom.... I could nearly see the sulphuric stormclouds gathering in a blackening sky, and smell the brimstone! 😉

Maybe you will turn out to be right, but I like half full glasses much more than half empty ones, myself.

I feel optimism creates lots more hopeful outcomes in the end than the alternative.

It's also more fun, and probably gets you more!

 

 

Check out FSW and MS Flight - still half full huh? Not even an empty glass on the table, for it was shattered and dumped in the trash!

We are so much better off without them "DLC us to death for basics" business models. So I gladly hope for doom, and intended to communicate a valid warning to IPACS that not even MS ACES could survive the "wrath" (by ignoring) of flight simmers; IPACS doesn't have a prayer if they continue in this path.

If you think that IPACS deleting Jeroen's posts of concern (which are totally valid) is a heavenly - holy - good - honest - pure way to do business, then that is your problem....and it is a problem.

There is no sense in being soft, because as long as Orbx spends time on AF2, that is time taken away from P3D (or XP if one prefers it), but also, as long as simmers spend $ on AF2, that is money that could have gone to an add-on for a more complete sim that is not intended as a "game" therefore realism of aviation suffers. Of course a nice scene in AF2 is beautiful, but so is P3D. LM is concentrating heavily on VR and I don't think they will lose, because the basics have been achieved for many years, due to their business model (eco-system).

IPACS has a huge advantage in frame-rates, and I'm certain that they will keep them advanced features (ATC/real Wx/AI) far away because that FPS advantage will go away fast. Flight simmers have always preferred realism over performance and MS delivered that through the decades, this is why it succeeded so well. When MS stopped the realism (MS Flight) MSFS died. Same with FSW.

It does not take a gift of prophecy to see plain facts and historical evidence. Maybe one day you will understand that "gloom and doom" (obliterated glasses) messages serve a very good purpose.

Heeded warnings like 'don't swim in that lake, it has angry hippos that will kill you' results in life saved. However, if not heeded, it results in death. But with your thinking, one may say 'them hippos may not like your presence in the lake so be careful' despite everybody who has died every time....the "half full" message results in death; a more serious example, but the exact same simple principal.  

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

OK you win!! LOL Here is a similar "benchmark" I have a 2012 Ford F150 that has to potential to fly at hyper-sonic speeds. I just have to wait on Ford to develope the engine and wing design and I will be all set. I will fly over and give you a ride when it is developed and released.

I don't think you are getting the point. Or are wanting to get it. 😉 But that's okay. No one is forcing you to use AFS2.

There is nothing odd or strange in comparing the same addon in two sims imho. TE Netherlands P3D can be compared to the AFS2 version because in large parts they are the same. I just flew over Amsterdam in AFS2, fps was 140 (with the Insane setting). In P3D, with similar settings (no clouds, no AI, no weather, no shadows, no effects, no nothing, flying the default Maule) I was struggling to maintain an fps of 25.

I know, P3D has vector roads and a few other things AFS2 doesn't have so a full comparison is hard but still, it's clear that AFS2 has a lot more headroom than P3D.

Don't get me wrong, I know you can't compare both sims: AFS2 is lacking way too many options in order to be even close to a competitor of P3D/XP but it has a huge potential. And it also depends on what you want in a sim: there are enough simmers who abandoned P3D or XP and went for AFS2 completely. And yes, that includes real world pilots. There are a lot of people who simply like to fly around and enjoy the scenery.

And don't mistake me for a f a n b o y (word not allowed?!?) of AFS2: I think I have the highest amounts of deleted posts on the official AFS2 forum by far...! 😉 I am not biased in any way. I just think you need to look at things objectively and know the facts. 😎

Edited August 16, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, J van E said:

But anyway, since today we have access to an interesting benchmark:
1. install TrueEarth Netherlands in P3D, turn of ALL settings that are NOT related to it and which aren't available in Aerofly FS 2.
2. install TrueEarth Netherlands in AFS2.
3. run both and compare fps: let's see which of the two has the most headroom to cope with all that scenery. 😉

well this would still not really be an apples to apples comparison.

I just took a look on my system at 4.8ghz with a GTX 980ti and I saw about 250fps with Vulkan in the q400 over LA. I don't think there is a system that can deliver more than double the FPS my system can so I find 600+ FPS very hard to believe.

I thought of a better way to test "overhead". In AFS2 in the same scenario I set CU cloud density to Low and saw an FPS of 280 and then I set it to High and saw an fps of 180. Flight level was about 300ft below cloud base so noting changed except the cloud volume. So just by adding the full amount of CU clouds the FPS dropped by over 33%. This I think is quite telling as far as this fabled "overhead" is concerned!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Avidean said:

I thought of a better way to test "overhead". In AFS2 in the same scenario I set CU cloud density to Low and saw an FPS of 280 and then I set it to High and saw an fps of 180. Flight level was about 300ft below cloud base so noting changed except the cloud volume. So just by adding the full amount of CU clouds the FPS dropped by over 33%. This I think is quite telling as far as this fabled "overhead" is concerned!

I know this will sound like a cheap excuse (and in fact I think it is!) but the current clouds in AFS2 are placeholders: they suck in all possible ways. IPACS has always said they are bad for performance and will induce stutters. Imho they never should have added to ugly clouds... They will be replaced whenever a weather engine will be created. Unfortunately (don't get me started) this will probably take a few YEARS.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, pracines said:

Flight simmers have always preferred realism over performance

Which is probably why most topics in the P3D forum are about solving performance problems.

Just kidding. 😋

28 minutes ago, pracines said:

We are so much better off without them "DLC us to death for basics" business models.

Where would P3D or XP be without addons...? DLC is just another word for addons. No one on this forums flies P3D without addons. Or do you think P3D would be much better off without addons? Yes, AFS2 doesn't offer the entire world by default and is offering DLC for (small) regions but again, who actually flies over the default world of P3D? All basic stuff has been FREE up to now for AFS2. Even the much anticipated R22 helicopter will be free because IPACS thinks it's should be part of the basic sim.

But hey, I am not trying to defend AFS2 or IPACS because frankly, I have a big problem with that team: I don't even WANT to defend AFS2. I just like the honest truth. 😉

EDIT
Fun objective fact. 😋 When it comes to performance: progress has a cost. AFS2 was well known for it's quick startup. After starting a flight in AFS2 you could be in the cockpit on the runway in 5 seconds or so. I just did a test. It just took me 36 seconds to be in the cockpit on the runway of Soesterberg in TrueEarth Netherlands. That's quite a degradation of perfomance in that regard, isn't it? 6 to 7 times as slow. Maybe someone can do the math and come up with a percentage (I suck at percentages).

See? Honest facts! 😎

Edited August 16, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, J van E said:

Unfortunately (don't get me started) this will probably take a few YEARS.

This is in the essence of the issue for any player who is behind the 8 Ball. Where will P3D be in a few years. By the time AFS2 is where P3D is now (which will be a very ling time), where will P3D be? I think that seasoned flight simmers know where to park there addon dollors if they want a real simulator. If you want a flying game then AFS2 is a good choice. I did buy it! But I am not buying any DLC for it. And to be honest its not a flight simulator. Its a flying game. If I was asked which flight simulator to buy now I would say, if you want something that actually simulates flight and works well out of the box not requiring any payware addons it has to be X-Plane 11 (that's a new opinion for me). And if you want the highest fidelity to reality available and you are willing to spend money on addons its got to be Prepar3D.

[shivers9 1,174]

5 minutes ago, J van E said:

Which is probably why most topics in the P3D forum are about solving performance problems.

Just kidding. 😋

Where would P3D or XP be without addons...? DLC is just another word for addons. No one on this forums flies P3D without addons. Or do you think P3D would be much better off without addons? Yes, AFS2 doesn't offer the entire world by default and is offering DLC for (small) regions but again, who actually flies over the default world of P3D? All basic stuff has been FREE up to now for AFS2. Even the much anticipated R22 helicopter will be free because IPACS thinks it's should be part of the basic sim.

But hey, I am not trying to defend AFS2 or IPACS because frankly, I have a big problem with that team: I don't even WANT to defend AFS2. I just like the honest truth. 😉

Jeroen....You have 1000's of post here. That means that you have "earned the right" to have opinions. I think you are getting a bit of blow back because many folks come here to learn from the vast experience from guys like you. You may just be a little pre-mature in your post. I have said before that maybe in 10 years or so we will all be flying AFS2 but for now they are not even equal to the trash that was DTG. It is just a bit unfare to mislead folks on what may be just another goat rope. All of that junk has done damage to the hobby already.

[HiFlyer 9,333]

6 hours ago, GHarrall said:

The atc I can live without. At least an in built one anyway. It sucks in fsx / p3d.

We do however need the ability to get a weather engine into the mix and very quickly, a full fidelity aircraft.

I would much rather ipacs focus on the core of the sim than DLC ing us to death. 

I will probably get true earth for afs2 but I won’t be partaking in anymore ipacs dlc. I found New York and Switzerland a bit underwhelming to be honest, at least outside major areas. 

You might have liked Florida. The areas are getting bigger.............