Orbx TrueEarth Great Britain South Released for Prepar3D v4

[jon b 2,041]

Actually 20nm viz is the most realistic setting for flying in the U.K. I’ve spent a fair amount of time peering out of real world cockpit windows trying to work out the most realistic setting for the sim visibility, I’m sure there’s some irony there somewhere, anyway 20nm seems just about spot on for an average day. Sure some days you see much further, sometimes much less . Even on days when you can see for miles you can only make out really large features like hills and lakes, whereas the sim will be drawing individual buildings which A) you wouldn’t notice in real life and B) they look so small on a 40inch screen there’s little point . So I have 20nm set as default in both P3D and XP. I think I also read somewhere XP will automatically start misting up and reduce its own visibility if it starts getting too taxed in order to preserve performance.

At night of course things can be different, on these cold clear nights we’ve had of late you can sometimes see right over to  the lights of Liverpool and Manchester from FL380 over Dublin.

Edited February 11, 2019 by jon b

[fta2017 160]

You would be hard pressed to see 30nm on any day in the UK, even with clear weather, so JV’s suggested settings actually make sense and are aligned to his cloud distance and LOD radius settings.

 

i think the elephant in the room is being ignored here... P3D4 just cannot handle large area ortho scenery with millions of 3D objects on top of it like XP11 can.

 

But  everyone seems to be in denial about it and blaming Orbx. Even though LM themselves have admitted a loading time bug, and 4.4 fixed photo real blurry issues, and, and and ... see the issue? Fixing 25 year old code is a never ending task.

 

Buy the very same TEGB South scenery for XP11 and a copy of that sim, and see for yourself just how fluid it runs without the need for a single tweak or slider change between London and Shoreham, Portsmouth or Bala, or anywhere for that matter.

when A2A moves across to XP, the floodgates will open. Not trying to incite anything here but it’s just so,obvious where Orbx sees its future I am amazed nobody sees this.

[simba_nl 34]

On 2/8/2019 at 5:31 AM, GSalden said:

I will wait till they first have released the SP for True Earth Netherlands, which lots of people are waiting for for 10 months now..

Imho : regarding TE NL for P3Dv4 , Orbx has to show that they are also willing to provide service after a release instead of focusing only on selling and avoiding to reply to people asking about    a SP...

Yep, TE/NL looks very nice but leaving out all the main common VFR checkpoints/POI's is a shame. I have them both for P3d and Aerofly and regret the buy.

Of course they can't implement all the small POI's we want to have but you can compare the situation to leaving out Central park in NY or the Golden Gate in Frisco etc.

[DellyPilot 109]

1 hour ago, fta2017 said:

You would be hard pressed to see 30nm on any day in the UK, even with clear weather, so JV’s suggested settings actually make sense and are aligned to his cloud distance and LOD radius settings.

 

i think the elephant in the room is being ignored here... P3D4 just cannot handle large area ortho scenery with millions of 3D objects on top of it like XP11 can.

 

But  everyone seems to be in denial about it and blaming Orbx. Even though LM themselves have admitted a loading time bug, and 4.4 fixed photo real blurry issues, and, and and ... see the issue? Fixing 25 year old code is a never ending task.

 

Buy the very same TEGB South scenery for XP11 and a copy of that sim, and see for yourself just how fluid it runs without the need for a single tweak or slider change between London and Shoreham, Portsmouth or Bala, or anywhere for that matter.

when A2A moves across to XP, the floodgates will open. Not trying to incite anything here but it’s just so,obvious where Orbx sees its future I am amazed nobody sees this.

Nice trolling but there is more to this than just P3D engine issues. For example the scenery slider has not been configured properly by ORBX so that at NORMAL it is displaying the maximum number of scenery objects and max autogen = EXTREMLY DENSE.

If they had bothered to configure this then most of the problems people are seeing would have been avoided, the engine does pretty well but yes there are still many areas it can improve on to catch up with XP.

It will be interesting to see if 4.5 or 5 improves these and whether PMDG and HiFi start developing for XP. Until they do there wont be an exodus.

Anyway ORBX have said they will release a patch to add the complexity slider to the FTX Control Panel, would be better as part of the native in sim slider but better than nothing I guess.

Oh and for the record I have both sims and at full whack P3D seems to display a lot more objects and further away than XP, maybe too far actually, flying 15 miles from central London, full settings at 30FPS in 4k is astonishing and more impressive in P3D surprisingly. The houses look better in XP though.

[Cognita 1,054]

6 hours ago, fta2017 said:

But  everyone seems to be in denial about it and blaming Orbx.

My question is why launch a product with millions of objects over ortho scenery if everyone knows that P3D cannot handle it? Surely if everyone knows this, then ORBX knows this. That said, I generally agree that the underlying issue is the P3D engine. I am hopeful that this will be gradually improved, but my sense is we are a version or two away from that happening. In the meantime, if I wanted to fly VFR over such detailed scenery I think i would just og with the "other" simulator.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Cognita

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Its flyable with the right machine and settings

 

[GSalden 4,655]

In the vid they use a chopper for London ; with a PMDG 737 it probably won’t be that fluid.

And sometimes the companies making those advertisement vids record on 1/2 speed which improves framerare and smoothness a lot.

Never wonderend why all those developers show their products with smooth running Sims...?

[Capt Pugwash 6]

19 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I certainly will not be running TrueEarth GB South at Sparse scenery complexity and autogen density levels. I did not purchase a dense VFR scenery package to remove 75% of the benefits. I will reserve judgment about performance until I have seen it in action on my own PC, and I will report back here with the results.

I have uninstalled TrueEarth GB for now and after seeing Robs great comparison video...I purchased the Just Flight VFR Next Gen South...I was not expecting miracles from it, but within a few mins I was flying my PMDG over it with no problems, fast/normal load times instead of 12 minutes! & absolutely no fps hit and interestingly the roads looked better/sharper than TrueEarth GB...

I then tried it vfr from Shoreham to Goodwood and onto Orbx Southampton airport and yet gain, no stutters & stable fps.

To summerise my thoughts... TrueEarth Gb is very detailed and colours / water masks far better than JF next gen...but...I like the JF next gen as it is a very good ‘halfway house’ that allows me to do vfr in UK in proper and also allows me to use my PMDG kit with no issues....also it blends with all my UK2000 & Orbx airports perfectly…

I do hope P3DV4.5 helps with the performance issues in TEGB, but until then I will keep it, but not use it.

JF vfr next gen is probably what I will use for the time being, it has a configurator panel and all the autogen levels are also scalable/usable as you need them to be via P3D settings, which is not currently the case with my TEGB, it’s all or nothing with autogen currently.

Just my 2 cents chaps...Got fed up tweaking again and jumped on the JF VFR Next Gen out of shear frustration, glad I did, its far from perfect, and I know it’s not at Orbx True Earth’s level of detail but at least it’s flyable with high end airliners and very vfr usable without crashing the sim 👍

Edited February 12, 2019 by Capt Pugwash

[cyberpilot 12]

9 hours ago, fta2017 said:

You would be hard pressed to see 30nm on any day in the UK, even with clear weather, so JV’s suggested settings actually make sense and are aligned to his cloud distance and LOD radius settings.

 

i think the elephant in the room is being ignored here... P3D4 just cannot handle large area ortho scenery with millions of 3D objects on top of it like XP11 can.

 

But  everyone seems to be in denial about it and blaming Orbx. Even though LM themselves have admitted a loading time bug, and 4.4 fixed photo real blurry issues, and, and and ... see the issue? Fixing 25 year old code is a never ending task.

 

Buy the very same TEGB South scenery for XP11 and a copy of that sim, and see for yourself just how fluid it runs without the need for a single tweak or slider change between London and Shoreham, Portsmouth or Bala, or anywhere for that matter.

when A2A moves across to XP, the floodgates will open. Not trying to incite anything here but it’s just so,obvious where Orbx sees its future I am amazed nobody sees this.

fta2017 I think you're right on the money!

I've come to the same conclusion.

P3D4 is no longer fit for purpose.

If A2A and some of the other big hitters moved across to XP11 I would be there in a heartbeat providing, of course, that ORBX had some compatible NZ scenery!

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where ORBX is heading and good on them.

This should be a wake-up call for LM but I doubt very much that they care.

[ErichB 3,638]

36 minutes ago, cyberpilot said:

P3D4 is no longer fit for purpose

Let's just get a grip and not make silly hyperbolic statements.   I have both sims.  But to conclude P3D is not fit for purpose because you have a better flying experience on one or two photoreal patchworks  in XP, is just silly.

How people sim is like the length of a piece of string.  Different for everyone, with vastly different results. Key to this is hardware capability and more importantly,  competence in setting up an optimal experience for your hardware/software combinations.   This is where many show incompetence.

[fta2017 160]

30 minutes ago, cyberpilot said:

fta2017 I think you're right on the money!

I've come to the same conclusion.

P3D4 is no longer fit for purpose.

If A2A and some of the other big hitters moved across to XP11 I would be there in a heartbeat providing, of course, that ORBX had some compatible NZ scenery!

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where ORBX is heading and good on them.

This should be a wake-up call for LM but I doubt very much that they care.

Finally we have some common sense prevailing.

Let's lobby A2A to provide their offerings!

Meantime I have a simple two-fold use of BOTH sims. P3D for my wonderful LC-based Orbx regions, huge airport library and global stuff, and long may they continue to release LC region stuff after AustraliaV2 and Honolulu. 

And XP11 for TE.

It's not a sim war, and not trolling -  it's just choosing the right tools for the job and not having to make an exclusive decision. Why do that when the "other" platform is a measly $60 investment?

[simbol 5,806]

25 minutes ago, cyberpilot said:

fta2017 I think you're right on the money!

I've come to the same conclusion.

P3D4 is no longer fit for purpose.

If A2A and some of the other big hitters moved across to XP11 I would be there in a heartbeat providing, of course, that ORBX had some compatible NZ scenery!

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where ORBX is heading and good on them.

This should be a wake-up call for LM but I doubt very much that they care.

I disagreed with these comments.

When you develop add-on's you need to do so in accordance with the platform standards, requirements and best practices. 

P3D 4.4 enabled PBR for example, which of course increases the performance of the sim in many ways, and yet many add-on's being delivered for P3D continues to be non PBR compliant, however then you have these developers complaining that the same add-on performs better under XP?? is this a joke?. XP will not display any content unless it is PBR, this means the same developer is developing the same add-on using PBR standards for XP but it will not do so for P3D, why is this? because FSX.

I find this very annoying to be honest, if you want to compare like for a like then you need to develop specifically for each platform, stop delivering half way products just for the sake of trying to achieve sales for FSX and P3D at the same time and blaming LM for the laziness of following SDK compliance, LM is giving many tools with the power to achieve many wonderful things, and yet these tools are not being used because it is more convenient to develop thinking in FSX.

However when it comes to XP, then developers have no option than follow their SDK to the letter and they do so.. you see the problem? this is the reason why I have been campaigning at LM developers ears to drop FSX compatibility entirely once and for all.

S.

 

[ErichB 3,638]

3 minutes ago, simbol said:

find this very annoying to be honest, if you want to compare like for a like then you need to develop specifically for each platform, stop delivering half way products just for the sake of trying to achieve sales for FSX and P3D at the same time and blaming LM for the laziness of following SDK compliance, LM is giving many tools with the power to achieve many wonderful things, and yet these tools are not being used because it is more convenient to develop thinking in FSX

Probably one of the most overlooked points in this debate.  

[tonywob 4,768]

What specific part of the P3D-only SDK would make photoreal/autogen scenery perform better? I've not seen anything specific, and considering this is a P3D only product, it would make perfect sense to make use of these features if it helps with performance. I'm genuinely curious, so if someone can answer this with links then please do 🙂

[ErichB 3,638]

6 minutes ago, tonywob said:

What specific part of the P3D-only SDK would make photoreal/autogen scenery perform better? I've not seen anything specific, and considering this is a P3D only product, it would make perfect sense to make use of these features if it helps with performance. I'm genuinely curious, so if someone can answer this with links then please do 🙂

I think Simbol's comment was general commentary - not necessarily photoreal specific.

 At the end of the day, if I want to do an airliner flight, I know which sim I'll use.  If I want to do a GA flight on a Sunday morning, I'll use a different sim.  Each sim suffers an Achilles Heel in these two scenarios. for any number of reasons.  Whatever type of flying you do most will determine which team you'll cheer lead for.   But waving your pom poms here is pointless.