xEnviro 1.10 Released!

[Matthew James de Bohun 55]

Had a quick look at it. Looks very nice but comes with a heavy hit on fps.

 

[MSFS Ralf 149]

Doing my test flight right now, I’m not impressed. Frame rate hit but still useable, back to X-Vision and ASX for the better look.

[Colonel X 1,428]

Can we keep this about the product itself instead of discussing why you don't need it or how you don't like it.

My main concern in terms of performance: does it take CPU or GPU time?

[Pastaiolo 1,686]

Colonel, i think it is more Gpu dependant than CPU.

[nikit 20]

I read in some facebook group, that for many, the performance problem is solved by lowering the Antialising in the settings of XP11.Perhaps it helps in something.

[Colonel X 1,428]

So I did a few test runs.

Performance is sketchy. Why increase of GPU load isn't a great concern on a 1080ti, some people might have to dial back on their AA or resolution. GPU load isn't a major issue here. But there is CPU load increase that's partly related to the way X-Enviro draws the scenery (it draws further than vanilla X-Plane under the same conditions, there is less fog), and that poses a real problem to anyone who already has their CPU maxed out with Autogen and traffic. Expect 10-20% additional CPU load depending on conditions (mainly visibility).

As for the visuals, well. There is potential, as there has always been with X-Enviro. It creates stunning vistas at times. However, 1.10 should BY ALL MEANS be considered a beta release - it's ridden with visual glitches and artifacts. The clouds are ok from a distance, but horrible up close, they don't blend well with terrain at all and flicker when they try. The other old advantage, better sky/atmosphere/scattering isn't existing anymore considering X-Vision, which does a better job at these. Only the sun glare really impressed me here.

Overall, it's an instant uninstall. Considering this version has been in private beta for months, I am sceptical we'll see major improvements on these obvious shortcomings in the short term. The reliance on CPU time alone is a deal breaker for me.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Considering that most high end  video games use 3rd party SDKs for the clouds and sky conditions, trying to do 3D clouds from scratch is going to be a big challenge. The companies that have developed these SDKs have decades of experience in fine tuning the algorithms and coding. It's the same rationale that ED and LM used for 3D trees. SpeedTrees have been around for a while and are an industry standard. Why bother to recreate something that took  years of experience to do?

Edited June 3, 2019 by jabloomf1230

[Amon1973 1,421]

59 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

So I did a few test runs.

Performance is sketchy. Why increase of GPU load isn't a great concern on a 1080ti, some people might have to dial back on their AA or resolution. GPU load isn't a major issue here. But there is CPU load increase that's partly related to the way X-Enviro draws the scenery (it draws further than vanilla X-Plane under the same conditions, there is less fog), and that poses a real problem to anyone who already has their CPU maxed out with Autogen and traffic. Expect 10-20% additional CPU load depending on conditions (mainly visibility).

As for the visuals, well. There is potential, as there has always been with X-Enviro. It creates stunning vistas at times. However, 1.10 should BY ALL MEANS be considered a beta release - it's ridden with visual glitches and artifacts. The clouds are ok from a distance, but horrible up close, they don't blend well with terrain at all and flicker when they try. The other old advantage, better sky/atmosphere/scattering isn't existing anymore considering X-Vision, which does a better job at these. Only the sun glare really impressed me here.

Overall, it's an instant uninstall. Considering this version has been in private beta for months, I am sceptical we'll see major improvements on these obvious shortcomings in the short term. The reliance on CPU time alone is a deal breaker for me.

All of this means I'll not buy it yet, I may in the future if they overcome the many problems, I have ASXP so I'll wait and see what HIFI Simulations bring out in the future.

[Paraffin 2,197]

2 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Considering that most high end  video games use 3rd party SDKs for the clouds and sky conditions, trying to do 3D clouds from scratch is going to be a big challenge. 

Well, for the record, SkyMaxx Pro has had 3D clouds for a while now. It's VR compatible too, at least in the spec sheet (I don't have a VR rig so don't know how well that works).

But then you get people complaining about the draw distance of SkyMaxx clouds at high altitudes, which is probably a frame rate trade-off. We're still in early days with full 3D cloud modeling, and X-Plane hasn't even touched full 3D weather system rendering like a series of discrete CBs in the distance (my pet peeve). Maybe our computer rigs just aren't strong enough yet to get everything we want.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that others are doing 3D clouds and VR. I'm looking forward to see what ActiveSkyX will do in this area when they roll out their cloud depiction add-on.

[anden145 2,283]

10 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Well, for the record, SkyMaxx Pro has had 3D clouds for a while now.

Does it? To me, it looks like 'rotating' textures - same system as FSX/P3D uses... Which I wouldn't call 3D, to be honest. No matter the marketing hype.

[Pastaiolo 1,686]

xEnviro is the only one in XP with volumetric noise generated clouds. This is not up for debate. Everyone else is using in a way or the other the usual billboards we got to deal with since FS98.

[Paraffin 2,197]

Well, the clouds in the current version of SkyMaxxPro look 3D to me, whatever the semantics. They don't show the rotating billboard effect I see in weather add-ons that use 2D billboards. 

Anyway, this isn't a recommendation for SkyMaxx Pro. I bought it and don't have it installed right now, because I'm happy with ActiveSkyX and default XP clouds. I bought xEnviro too when it was first released. Everyone needs to make their own evaluations on these programs.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

3 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Well, for the record, SkyMaxx Pro has had 3D clouds for a while now.

Thank you for proving my point. SkyMaxx Pro (which I have) uses the SDK from Sundog Software. Sundog also provides the Triton Ocean SDK which P3d uses for water motion. 

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

56 minutes ago, france89 said:

xEnviro is the only one in XP with volumetric noise generated clouds. This is not up for debate. Everyone else is using in a way or the other the usual billboards we got to deal with since FS98.

This is true. SkyMaxx Pro claims 3D volumetric clouds (just like REX Skyforce and Active Sky do for P3d4). But the cloud models are not generated by particle-based effects as they are in xEnviro. Both SKyMaxx Pro and Active Sky have an in-cloud particle effect which reduces the "screen door" issue encountered while flying through their sprite-based clouds.

Sprite-based clouds are less of a performance burden than particle-based clouds, which is why flightsim developers have opted to utilize the former.

[anden145 2,283]

9 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

This is true. SkyMaxx Pro claims 3D volumetric clouds (just like REX Skyforce and Active Sky do for P3d4). But the cloud models are not generated by particle-based effects as they are in xEnviro. Both SKyMaxx Pro and Active Sky have an in-cloud particle effect which reduces the "screen door" issue encountered while flying through their sprite-based clouds.

Sprite-based clouds are less of a performance burden than particle-based clouds, which is why flightsim developers have opted to utilize the former.

Thank you for confirming, @jabloomf1230