eaim

Orbx TrueEarth Great Britain South Released for Prepar3D v4

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, simba_nl said:

I did a check with a friend of my with his TE GB South for Xplane11 (not my choice for a simulator and I can't get used of the "hazy" not vibrant overall colours of the landscape) but performance wise I say a big YES compared to P3D....

Trees in the water and hé... where is the London Eye (?/!)... One of the biggest landmarks for VFR flights in that area...

ORBX TE GB South  is a NoGo for me even tough TE The Netherlands is running very well on my antique system but GB South... No Thanks... 

I am all but one of the X-plane agents, but you can get X-plane vibrant and remove the ugly haze and khaki. You need two (payware) tools, xVision and Ultra Weather. ORBX has corresponding settings published in their forum. On my machine the colors of ORBX TE GB under XP are at least as vibrant as under P3D.

There's some remaining shimmer in the midrange over cities under XP which can't be removed as long as HDR is active, and switching off HDR cancels xVision's effect. However, the overall performance under XP is day and night to the P3D version. It certainly has been a bad port, and I only hope they will be able to improve it. TE NL, which was P3D natively, works and looks excellent on my machine.

BTW, the London Eye is there in both versions. I had it missing (together with a number of more POIs) in one of the two versions intially, too. Unfortunately I don't recall what I did (check for missing files?) but it's there and I find the POIs well-done in both versions.

Kind regards, Michael

Edited by pmb
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Can anyone confirm that TE GB South is in fact a 100% port over from XP11? because I tested the performance of the XP11 version and found out a lot of missing landmarks in London and want to be sure before buying a P3D version

This is what I wrote earlier...

"What a mess with missing critical Landmarks. Speed Yachts are sitting in Bridges, The Tower Bridge (All the bridges are funny things there by the way in TE) is missing and there is a apartment complex there in the middle of the Thames., Trees in the water and hé... where is the London Eye (?/!)... One of the biggest landmarks for VFR flights in that area..."

 

Edited by simba_nl

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, awf said:

Which obvious should have been realized with a reduced drawing distance (read the autogen draw distance slider has no effect here since it's no autogen stuff ;-))

Reducing autogen draw distance from "High" to "Medium" nearly doubled fps starting from a clean prepar3d.cfg.

https://orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/167959-where-does-te-gb-south-p3d-lose-its-fps/?tab=comments#comment-1477464 (requires access to the forum)

This has been confirmed by others since. It just made the difference between "unsable" and "unsuable" for me (without denying there are other issues).

Kind regards, Michael

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Pete Dowson said:

Strange. I think something must have gone wrong with the install on your system. I tried TE GB yesterday. Tower Bridge looked okay, and even the Millennium Bridge looked okay. Didn't notice any 'speed yachts', and certainly no trees in the water.

BUT I saw TWO London Eyes! I can only think there's an error in the Exclude file in TE GBS. And I don't like all those huge long white buildings all over the place in London. I don't know what they are supposed to be. Maybe there are the odd huge office complexes like that, but never that many!

Anyway, I certainly can't use the product on my 737NG cockpit system, but I may do on my VFR setup (Piper Arrow III), once the perfrmance can be improved by scaling.

Pete

 

 

 

Are you talking about the XP11 version or the new P3D Pete?  I have tested the XP11 version on a mirror pc of a friend of my.  everything is ok. ORBX FTX Global says everything is ok, no updates so... I'm not a XP11 user but only P3D and Aerofly fs2 so i am curious of the version you are talking about because i have read that the P3D version is exact the same as the XP11 version.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, simba_nl said:

i have read that the P3D version is exact the same as the XP11 version.

The same landmarks are in both packages, however two differences:

- X-Plane includes by default some landmarks in London that weren't remodelled as they were already very good. i.e. Big Ben, London Bridge, London Eye

- P3D includes newer and more landmarks that aren't yet in the X-Plane version but will be released in SP1

The autogen and trees are from the same data, but both sims have different ways and tech for dealing with autogen, so technically it's not a direct port/copy over

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, simba_nl said:

Are you talking about the XP11 version or the new P3D Pete? 

The P3D version. I don't have XP.  Like you, I believed that the landmarks and autogen positioning would be the same. Evidently not.

Pete

 

Edited by Pete Dowson

Share this post


Link to post

The thread linked to above is temporarily locked, so (like Nick says) make sure that you have checked all of your test documentation and evidence, so that you have plenty of ammunition when it opens again :wink:

Edited by Christopher Low

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

The thread linked to above is temporarily locked, so (like Nick says) make sure that you have checked all of your test documentation and evidence, so that you have plenty of ammunition when it opens again :wink:

The thread has been locked because of a posting (#39) of a brainless guy accusing JV not having TE GB installed.:wink: Nothing to add.

Kind regards, Michael

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

TE GB South has a lot more autogen buildings than TE NL

I suspect that the big problem is that a lot of the buildings that should be autogen (and probably more convincingly rendered at the same time) are actually scenery objects. I am not really sure why they decided on this approach, as I would have thought that autogen would deliver less of a hit to framerates than hundreds of scenery objects. After all, my framerate when facing London from SimWings Heathrow does not change one bit if I switch between Extremely Dense and None with respect to Autogen Vegetation and Buildings.

Of course, I do not expect my mediocre system to perform miracles, but London is a slideshow at the moment with Scenery Complexity set to anything other than Sparse (and who the hell wants to run a flight simulator with a setting as low as that)?

To be honest, I had seen it mentioned that some of the buildings in the XPlane version of TrueEarth GB South are rendered better than those in the P3D version, and I am guessing that those weird "geometrical shape" buildings are the relevant ones. They do not look all that nice to me, and I would hope that they could be changed to something a bit more realistic.

EDIT: Yes, I did notice that, Michael!! I am not sure what he had been smoking when he typed that :laugh:

Edited by Christopher Low

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Pete Dowson said:

Strange. I think something must have gone wrong with the install on your system. I tried TE GB yesterday. Tower Bridge looked okay, and even the Millennium Bridge looked okay. Didn't notice any 'speed yachts', and certainly no trees in the water.

BUT I saw TWO London Eyes! I can only think there's an error in the Exclude file in TE GBS. And I don't like all those huge long white buildings all over the place in London. I don't know what they are supposed to be. Maybe there are the odd huge office complexes like that, but never that many!

Anyway, I certainly can't use the product on my 737NG cockpit system, but I may do on my VFR setup (Piper Arrow III), once the perfrmance can be improved by scaling.

Pete

 

 

 

I agree I see a proper Tower Bridge but yes there are a few trees in the Thames, oh and 4 extra Chimneys at Battersea power station 😂.

Tonight I will disable FTX England and LC manually and see if they dissapear. Could be part of the performance issues if the excludes are dodgy.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I suspect that the big problem is that a lot of the buildings that should be autogen (and probably more convincingly rendered at the same time) are actually scenery objects. I am not really sure why they decide on this approach

JV explained that, its because you cant be very accurate with autogen, to get the level of precision required you must use scenery objects at the expense of performance.

Share this post


Link to post

The autogen houses that I have seen in London (and in screenshots) look quite well placed, and they look a lot more realistic than those weird buildings that I mentioned. It's probably also worth noting here that F737NG criticised the placement accuracy of a handful of 3D Landmark models that he had seen on his travels (Cardiff Stadium and Castle). I am sure that JV is correct, but I am looking for immersion and realism in large scale products like this, and a mass of unrealistic looking buildings can kill that immersion stone dead.

Maybe the TrueEarth project isn't quite as much the "future of flight simulation scenery" that I had hoped it would be :sad:

Edited by Christopher Low
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well, that was interesting......

I decided to remove those "3DM" files that someone mentioned on the ORBx forum. At first I thought that they must be the photorealistic scenery BGL files, but I have just repeated my test (sitting at Gate 257 at SimWings Heathrow, and looking directly towards the centre of London), and I can still see the photoscenery textures being displayed. In addition, the major landmark models in London are visible, and also a sea of autogen houses and trees. However, what appears to be missing are those weird "geometrical shape" buildings that I noticed just east of Heathrow. Strangely, there are now a handful of isolated (presumably autogen) houses in those areas, and the odd looking buildings have vanished.

Further investigation seems to suggest that those strange shaped buildings are in locations that could be related to "autogen exclusion" zones close to SimWings London Heathrow. Just about everywhere else, I see autogen houses. Lots of them. Which begs the question......why are these "exclusion zones" not filled with autogen? If autogen houses are so difficult to accurately place, then why is a large percentage of the London area covered with them? In addition, the framerate is up from 3fps to 12fps.....with exactly the same settings that I stated in my post on page 8 of this thread. In fact, that framerate would be workable for me.

Someone needs to help me here, because I am baffled :huh:

EDIT: It is also worth noting that loading times were much faster with these files removed.

Edited by Christopher Low
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Those "3DM" files are definitely the source of the "tanking framerates" problem. They appear to add lots of "building blocks" in between the autogen houses and trees, and these are scenery objects that seem to require a significantly greater amount of processing power to render.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Well, that was interesting......

I decided to remove those "3DM" files that someone mentioned on the ORBx forum. At first I thought that they must be the photorealistic scenery BGL files, but I have just repeated my test (sitting at Gate 257 at SimWings Heathrow, and looking directly towards the centre of London), and I can still see the photoscenery textures being displayed. In addition, the major landmark models in London are visible, and also a sea of autogen houses and trees. However, what appears to be missing are those weird "geometrical shape" buildings that I noticed just east of Heathrow. Strangely, there are now a handful of isolated (presumably autogen) houses in those areas, and the odd looking buildings have vanished.

Further investigation seems to suggest that those strange shaped buildings are in locations that could be related to "autogen exclusion" zones close to SimWings London Heathrow. Just about everywhere else, I see autogen houses. Lots of them. Which begs the question......why are these "exclusion zones" not filled with autogen? If autogen houses are so difficult to accurately place, then why is a large percentage of the London area covered with them? In addition, the framerate is up from 3fps to 12fps.....with exactly the same settings that I stated in my post on page 8 of this thread. In fact, that framerate would be workable for me.

Someone needs to help me here, because I am baffled :huh:

EDIT: It is also worth noting that loading times were much faster with these files removed.

screenshot please Chris

Share this post


Link to post

I will try and get some screenshots posted tonight, Kevin.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Maybe the TrueEarth project isn't quite as much the "future of flight simulation scenery" that I had hoped it would be :sad:

I'm inclined to agree, but not because of the performance funnily enough. 

I ignored the warnings and did a clean install of P3d, with just TEGB, ORBX Stapleford, UK2000 Southend and the Vertx DA62 fully expecting the slideshow.  Flying from, and around Southend and west toward London before following the M25 and landing at Stapleford with visibility at 20 miles and a single broken layer of stratus, I was mostly getting framerates in the high teens/low 20's - far, far better than I expected on my 6 year old PC! (I know, it needs replacing!)

Where I agree with you Chris, is that the scenery I was seeing looked pretty awful from 3,000ft.  Yes, I could easily recognise places, but the thing that I really dislike is the way roads appear and I really should've taken more notice of the screenshots here.  But if it wasn't for knowing where the buildings represented, I'd have a hard job flying anywhere by following roads!  Most have this washed out green effect that just blurs into the surroundings.

The other thing I noticed was that the trees seem to stand out like a sore thumb, very noticeably bright green when compared to the underlying scenery.

I'll continue to play around with settings, but at this point, I'm feeling pretty underwhelmed to say the least.  I was going to get TENL, but can't help thinking this might be a waste and I'd be better off installing some of the landclass stuff that I've looked at yet, like SOCAL/NORCAL and spend money on more of the airports.

EDIT: Having said the above, I've just looked again at the screenshots of the same area here and must add that this is nothing like I saw last night, so maybe it's just me.

Edited by Paul Golding

Share this post


Link to post

@Paul Golding Did you install Orbx HD Trees? If not that might be way your trees looked bad the default "speed trees" ones look bad. FYI North/south cal are hard on FPS etc. But if your a GA flyer you should be fine.

Edited by Nyxx

Share this post


Link to post

I did a flight from Heathrow via Southampton into Brighton tonight, first in the XP version, next in the P3D one. So most of this was not London or big cities but rural area, grassland, fields, small towns, roads, small wood etc. This was in a C172 (both) around 3000'. XP using the ORBX suggested xVision/UW settings, P3D REX and Envtex, but no real weather and only scattered clouds in both.

XP was a real joy to fly. fps between 30 and 40, no stutter, great visuals and crystal-clear with ground only at a far distance to get a bit more blurry, but there's some haze as in RL.

I stopped the P3D flight halfway because I couldn't stand the blurry ground, whatever suggestions I tried to follow. fps were locked to 20 which the machine could barely hold, but this wasn't the issue, simulation was mostly smooth, thus I could live with it. There were no major stutters, but experience was far from the fluidity of the XP flavor. But most of all, textures drove me crazy, whatever I did. The best I could achieve were more or less clear textures around the plane, but all beyond a couple of miles was pure mood, which blurry roads led into.

I am more and more getting to the conclusion this product is faulty from the base design. I believe this is NOT the "darn old" ESP machine (equally old as XP, btw). You can compare to France VFR, where my machine even can handle Paris (which should be allowed to compare to London, shouldn't it?). It's not a performance monster either, but much better than TE GB, and most of all, I get clear textures, after LM repairing the high-res photo-texture bug in Prepar3d 4.4. ORBX' own product TE NL performs very well and has crisp textures on my machine - and I am not speaking about Amsterdam vs. London, but just rural architecture here.

This said, I am afraid this can't be repaired by a control panel within a week. This one will provide some options for higher performance at the cost of removing some fun which I doubt many will select and enjoy. In my mind, the whole product should go back to the drawing board and redeveloped for another 3 months. Which will not happen, of course.

Kind regards, Michael

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

@Paul Golding Did you install Orbx HD Trees? If not that might be way your trees looked bad the default "speed trees" ones look bad. FYI North/south cal are hard on FPS etc. But if your a GA flyer you should be fine.

Good point David.  I'll install the trees and double check the settings JV has mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post

With a 4 GHz processor, 16 Gb of memory, and an 8 Gb  GTX1070 graphics card, I can maintain a smooth and steady 30 fps with John Venema's settings outside London, and reasonably smooth flight over London. I also found that John's settings eliminate the pus-coloured trees, which I had previously found quite disturbing.

However, I do find that roads in many areas are too indistinct or too heavily masked by foliage to be usable as navigation aids, and I'm not happy with the levitating buildings that I've found in various places, e.g. at Dover harbour and on the Cornish coast a few miles south of Newquay (there's a whole village of floating buildings here, as well as two houses in the sea).

Dugald

PS: And I very rarely see any blurring with John's settings; textures are usually very sharp.

Edited by Muklum
Added information

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Muklum said:

I also found that John's settings eliminate the pus-coloured trees, which I had previously found quite disturbing.

Dugald

Thanks Dugald, that re-confirmed my need to double check my settings, aside from installing ORBX trees. 

Looking at the preview screenshots that show roads in them, I have this horrible nagging feeling of them being cherry-picked to some degree, to try and minimise showing those that look more green/blending with foliage.  Having said that, I don't like stark grey ribbon looking roads that cut through buildings either.....maybe expectations are just too high? 

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, pmb said:

The thread has been locked because of a posting (#39) of a brainless guy accusing JV not having TE GB installed.:wink: Nothing to add.

Kind regards, Michael

So delete it (which they did) and there are 202 posts so I dont think it was post 39 (mine? I didnt know who JV was lol, just some hairy dude saying I should reinstall windows).

They locked it because they have enough feedback and it doesnt look good to have your highest ranked topic with 1000s of replies on their forum titled TE GB South P3D v4 Stuttering/slowing performance issue 😂

1 hour ago, pmb said:

 In my mind, the whole product should go back to the drawing board and redeveloped for another 3 months. Which will not happen, of course.

I believe they might be waiting for 4.5/5 knowing theyd take a hit now. Blurries are part of FSX P3D architecture sadly, when you push too much stuff through the engine its really dumb at prioritising the closest (ahead) textures, it just blindly works through all your previous positions (sometimes 10s of miles behind on long flights). I flew from Dublin FTX Ireland to FTX England EGLL and I had to pause for 15minutes, fans blasting, CPU at 100% to catchup! Ridiculous.

It seems at this point we have to ask LM to look again at the algorithms at the heart of the engine. Perhaps there are good reasons this hasnt been fixed but its threatening the future of the sim with XP catching up on content.

As you point out the BGL decompressoon stage is really CPU intensive (i often see 16 5ghz cores at 100% when flying fast even at high altitdue), I would gladly buy a 5TB disk and have all UK scenery decompressed to achieve smoother faster flight.

Edited by DellyPilot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DellyPilot said:

As you point out the BGL decompressoon stage is really CPU intensive (i often see 16 5ghz cores at 100% when flying fast even at high altitdue)

Not sure this is the case, my understanding of resample.exe is that it uses lossy compression at the time of compiling, like a jpg, as opposed to allowing dynamic decompression of the image at runtime?

Edited by kevinfirth

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