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

[torium 207]

3 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Does it really make any sense to have worldwide high resolution orthoimagery? Think about the waste of storage space by using imagery in deserts, open oceans and jungle areas. No one could tell the difference. Just try Google Earth in one of these locations of homogeneous landclass. 

You're absolutely right. 

[torium 207]

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

One poster here stated "don't compare apples with pears", and he's right, you really can't compare FSX/P3D with Aerofly FS2 because one is in the Little Leagues and the other in the Major Leagues.

You read my comment out of context.
It was about scenery - "how much it would cost to cover just Europe and the United States with the TrueEarth type scenery:"

What I mean is that we can not compare Aerofly FS2 "TrueEarth Netherlands" with P3Dv4 "TrueEarth Netherlands" (I have both). This scenery for AFS2 recreates the real landscape much closer to reality than P3Dv4 (landclass scenery).

[Guest]

Here's the video (recorded at 4K 60 fps) I made ... just flying around mostly with integration of ForeFlight on my iPAD.  1300KTs at <500 AGL and the scenery keeps up ... it's impressive and I enjoyed flying this area for several hours ... below the cost of going out to see a movie with my wife 😉

 

Cheers, Rob.

[dave2013 1,130]

2 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I've never claimed to know anything about "most flightsimmers" ... I was presenting you with the costs and time investment in scenery development.  If cost is an issue for you, then all 3 platforms (P3D, XP11, AF2) provide you with the tools to make your own scenery using free lower res public domain sources.  If you look at MSE scenery (FSX/P3D) for US and multiple versions of that scenery, that cost me about $3000 and that's without any Autogen (which is a huge time/expense when making scenery).

So how is development supposed to "speed up" if you and/or others aren't buying the product for what it is?

We all know AF2 is missing much, they've never pretended to go head to head with other platforms on a feature by feature basis ... where they exceed other platforms is performance to visual ratio ... is that enough for flight simmers?  I have no idea, not even going to pretend that I do.

As features are added, I'm certain FPS will drop, nothing comes for free on the computational front ... during my flights with AF2, just flying thru a smallish cloud and my FPS dropped from 120 to 72 then picked up as I exited the cloud.  Vulkan is a great API, but it can't perform miracles and optimization compromises will be need just like any other platform.

No I'm not being a "clapper" but I have realistic expectations based on what I know about what's involved in scenery development and the size of development teams.  I've gone over the $$$ involved in making a flight simulator and this market just isn't big enough to carry $100 Million development projects.  If it were, we'd already have seen the results in 2018.

AF2 is NOT the same as what DTG and FSW were trying to achieve, very different environments and definitely NOT Apples to Apples.  Look at the Bush Pilot product due out sometime this year, that's all fictional scenery ... for obvious reasons, saves on costs.  That's why LC exists, do we really need "snap shot in time" scenery? ... it's only really accurate for whenever the images were taken ... not to mention it comes with cars/trucks that need to be overlaid with vectored roads other wise we have cars driving over cars, etc. ... and we're back to the blind eye.

Being a software engineer my perspective is perhaps different and coming from a background were a few outlined polygons to represent a runway with 2 colors and beeps for "sound" of a prop engine, I'm amazed at where we are today ... I guess it's all in your experience and expectations.

Cheers, Rob.

First, please excuse the "out of touch" jab - that was uncalled for and I apologize for saying it.

I, like you probably, have been flightsimming since the mid 80s, I started with Sublogic's Flight Simulator II on my Commodore 64.  And, yes, I actually read that big manual it came with. I, too, am amazed at how far this hobby has come and I'm excited about what's in store in the years to come.

I've also made a good bit of freeware scenery available in the AVSIM library. This is part of the reason I am uber critical of all payware developers. I spent hundreds of hours of my time to make FSX scenery and didn't charge anything for it, so I expect a lot from payware developers.

I hope that Aerofly FS2 is successful and eventually covers most of the world and actually will compete with FSX/P3D.  For that, I think scenery development will have to greatly speed up and other features will have to be added.  Until then, I still see it as just a niche simulator with a small following. I could be wrong of course.

Dave

Edited August 20, 2018 by dave2013
Added paragraph

[dave2013 1,130]

2 hours ago, J van E said:

How much would it cost to cover just Europe and the United States with the TrueEarth type scenery in FSX/P3D? 😉

If you are talking about scenery only even FSX/P3D itself, with its landclass scenery, will never be able to equal FSX/P3D plus TruEarth. Even if "something drastically changes in the way it's developed". And btw FSX will never ever equal AFS2+TrueEarth because FSX can't even handle it.

You are comparing "apples with pears" because you are comparing AFS2+TrueEarth with FSX/P3D+landclass scenery. Everything you say goes for FSX/P3D as well if you do an honest calculation.

BTW AFS2 could be made equal with FSX/P3D pretty quickly (scenery wise) if IPACS also went the landclass way. Luckily they didn't. And luckily Orbx didn't either.

I myself don't care for worldwide coverage so I am lucky. Even in P3D I spend YEARS in PNW alone and in Norway alone. I can understand the disappointment though if you only like to do long hauls but those are already possible in AFS2.

I do agree with your overall point though, and the slow progress. I also share Michael's concerns but I think EVERYONE does. But I don't want to be the cause of IPACS going out of business in 4 months so I'll better leave it at that.

I understand what you're saying but the difference is that FSX/P3D *already* covers the entire world.  It includes 24,000+ airports and basic scenery, including terrain mesh, landclass, autogen, roads, rivers, etc., for the whole world.

I don't plan on buying TrueEarth for the whole FSX/P3D world either!  Well, maybe over 10 years.

Here's the thing, though - if I do buy some TrueEarth stuff for a number of small areas that I'm interested in, then when I make a long flight between those areas it just ain't gonna look right.  Maybe ORBX can have them blend well somehow with the openLC scenery, but those areas will probably still stick out like a sore thumb.

The TrueEarth scenery is pretty cool, but I just don't know how practical it is for me. I suppose I could juyst deactivate those areas when doing longer flights, which is probably what I'll do.

Dave

[Guest]

1 hour ago, torium said:

What I mean is that we can not compare Aerofly FS2 "TrueEarth Netherlands" with P3Dv4 "TrueEarth Netherlands" (I have both). This scenery for AFS2 recreates the real landscape much closer to reality than P3Dv4 (landclass scenery).

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. TrueEarth for P3D is the same as TE for AFS2. The only difference is that the AFS2 has some updated content in the meantime. (I think the P3D version will receive an update shortly.) Both products share the same photoreal ground textures. TE for P3D is absolutely NOT landclass! So they CAN be compared!

33 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I understand what you're saying but the difference is that FSX/P3D *already* covers the entire world.  It includes 24,000+ airports and basic scenery, including terrain mesh, landclass, autogen, roads, rivers, etc., for the whole world.

Yes, I understood that and the point you were trying to make. 😉 However, AFS2 in TrueEarth quality won't equal default FSX/P3D. You made it sound like that. 😉 But I knew what you meant.

33 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Here's the thing, though - if I do buy some TrueEarth stuff for a number of small areas that I'm interested in, then when I make a long flight between those areas it just ain't gonna look right.  Maybe ORBX can have them blend well somehow with the openLC scenery, but those areas will probably still stick out like a sore thumb.

They will indeed. Right now already it's not nice to fly along the borders at 2000 ft... Not a single meter of extra ground into the neighbouring countries has been added so flying in for instance Limburg is a bit horrible pretty soon already because of the extreme low res and empty default scenery outside of the country. Just like you (I think) I also don't like scenery of different qualities in my sim: in fact, I rather have everything mediocre than small parts perfect and the rest totally bad. For me though TE Netherlands is large enough to enjoy my low and slow flights every now and then for quite some time. I simply won't fly anywhere else anymore in AFS2. I am looking forward to TE PNW already though. 😉

Edited August 20, 2018 by Guest

[HiFlyer 9,359]

1 hour ago, J van E said:

I simply won't fly anywhere else anymore in AFS2. I am looking forward to TE PNW already though. 😉

What about Aerofly TrueEarth GB?

[Murmur 3,941]

4 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Here's the video (recorded at 4K 60 fps) I made ... just flying around mostly with integration of ForeFlight on my iPAD.  1300KTs at <500 AGL and the scenery keeps up ...

Very high FPS, but I'm surprised to see many stutters throughout the video. Not very frequent, but enough of them, and all very noticeable. I wonder though if any of the following would decrease or get rid of them?

.) using OpenGL instead of Vulkan?

.) using lower graphic settings?

.) capping framerate to, say, 60 fps? (I think it can be done with a manual editing of the AFS2 configuration file, the analogous of fsx.cfg)

 

[HiFlyer 9,359]

55 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Very high FPS, but I'm surprised to see many stutters throughout the video. Not very frequent, but enough of them, and all very noticeable. I wonder though if any of the following would decrease or get rid of them?

.) using OpenGL instead of Vulkan?

.) using lower graphic settings?

.) capping framerate to, say, 60 fps? (I think it can be done with a manual editing of the AFS2 configuration file, the analogous of fsx.cfg)

 

Vulkan is still experimental. For many, OpenGL (which was also improved) is still considerably faster. (For me, openGL is still MUCH faster)

Lowering graphics settings...... Reducing shadows to below "insane" will also hand back quite a lot of FPS.

I thought he already capped the FPS?

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Murmur said:

I'm surprised to see many stutters throughout the video

Per video, I was operating at 120 FPS using Vulkan Beta option (see FPS overlay from MSI).  Tried to operate at Vsync ON which would be 60Hz/60FPS but that introduced what looked like partial frame renders.  If I were to hazard a guess iPACS need to adjust and/or manage the swap chain to ensure synchronization (Vulkan version of Triple Buffering) with the Vsync signal, especially when FPS is so high.  Here are the details regarding Vulkan swap chain: https://vulkan-tutorial.com/Drawing_a_triangle/Presentation/Swap_chain

The mirror reflections in the aircraft also had a little "delay" in updates which would often cause a long frame or two.

Cheers, Rob.

 

[HiFlyer 9,359]

By the way, I forgot to mention. Those slight hesitations you see are almost certainly caused by scenery loading. And there is a LOT of scenery to load, waaaaaaay out into the distance as the plane is flying.

FOR ROB: The tanker ship with domes carries liquid natural gas http://www.liquefiedgascarrier.com/type-of-gas-carrier.html

(when I first saw them, I wanted to know whut the heck they were, too.)

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

What about Aerofly TrueEarth GB?

I will definitely get that one too but afaik TE PNW for AFS2 will be released sooner than TE GB. Which is why I am looking forward to PNW mainly now. 😉 Besides, from what I've understood GB will be divided in packages so I expect TE England to be released first and that one is also mainly flat... It'll be a lot like more of the Netherlands LOL. PNW has a lot more interesting scenery. GB will become more interesting for me with the release of Wales and Scotland but given the choice I'd probably spend more time in PNW than in GB. Time will tell. 😉

Anyway, for now TE Netherlands will have to do. I can't be bothered with (current) IPACS scenery anymore, I have to say... Now I have flown over scenery where almost everything has been modelled and where trees are placed very precisely, I can't be bothered with scenery that has trees in random places and a lot of spots (or even area's the size of the Netherlands) without 3D buildings. So I hope the next release of TE for AFS2 won't take TOO long because the Netherlands is a small country and I doubt if it can keep me entertained as PNW and Norway did in the past (in FSX/P3D). (Actually, I am sure it can't.) Luckily I've got other sims to keep me entertained too. 😉

7 hours ago, Murmur said:

I'm surprised to see many stutters throughout the video

As HiFlyer said this is due to objects loading in the distance and there is nothing you can do about it. Until IPACS finds and implements a way to load objects smoothly AFS2 will have stutters in area's with a lot of objects. And TE Netherlands has a LOT of objects. It's the price we have to pay for scenery like this. Luckily the stutters aren't constant and frequent as in P3D (and in between them things are EXTREMELY SMOOTH) but they can be 'long' (almost like a pause) and immersion breaking nonetheless. It is THE biggest drawback of this scenery. But I can live with it because the scenery is really awesome in AFS2. A hundred times better than it is in P3D.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Guest

[Murmur 3,941]

 

8 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Per video, I was operating at 120 FPS using Vulkan Beta option (see FPS overlay from MSI).  Tried to operate at Vsync ON which would be 60Hz/60FPS but that introduced what looked like partial frame renders

I was suggesting capping to 60 fps without using vsync, but rather doing a manual edit of the AFS2 config file (since AFS2 only provides 240 or 120 fps in its settings). But the stutters in the video seem to be too long, and would probably still be present even with fps capped at 60 fps.

41 minutes ago, J van E said:

As HiFlyer said this is due to objects loading in the distance and there is nothing you can do about it. Until IPACS finds and implements a way to load objects smoothly AFS2 will have stutters in area's with a lot of objects. And TE Netherlands has a LOT of objects. It's the price we have to pay for scenery like this. Luckily the stutters aren't constant and frequent as in P3D (and in between them things are EXTREMELY SMOOTH) but they can be 'long' (almost like a pause) and immersion breaking nonetheless.

Yes completely agree with you. I wonder if setting all graphic sliders to minimum would get rid of stutters, and then increasing settings one by one until they reappear. In case stutters are still present with all sliders at minimum, then yes, only IPACS could do something.

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Murmur said:

 

Yes completely agree with you. I wonder if setting all graphic sliders to minimum would get rid of stutters, and then increasing settings one by one until they reappear. In case stutters are still present with all sliders at minimum, then yes, only IPACS could do something.

 

If there is a slider that will disable all 3D stuff then I am sure you will get rid of the stutters. I never ever have stutters when flying over the barren plains of Utah either. 😉 But setting sliders to lower settings would completely spoil the fun of TE in AFS2 of course. Since the stutters aren't constant I'll live with them. I don't want to lose a single piece of scenery in AFS2+TE! Would be great if IPACS could find a way of loading things smoother but I doubt they will. As I said before, there is a limit to everything, even the AFS2 graphics engine. 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

during my flights with AF2, just flying thru a smallish cloud and my FPS dropped from 120 to 72 then picked up as I exited the cloud.  Vulkan is a great API, but it can't perform miracles and optimization compromises will be need just like any other platform

IPACS said the clouds are placeholders and will be replaced if (🙄) they ever decide to create a weather engine. They didn't make those clouds themselves and can't (and won't) work on them to make them better. So don't count on any optimization in this regard.

I personally fly without clouds and only use (high) cirrus. Not only because the clouds hurt performance but also because the little circle of clouds that travels along with your plane looks terrible to me. So it's always a sunny summer's day in AFS for me. 😉 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Guest