38 minutes ago, nickhod said:

Oh, a real-time ray traced cockpit will look absolutely gorgeous too. 😀

There have been very few in-cockpit shots, which leads me to think that the aircraft aren't as developed as the rest of the sim yet.

As for frame rate drop, yep, get your wallet out for that 2080ti.

Gorgeous in the eye of the beholder 😁. In the picture of your post just above, I find the reflection excessive.  The suspension of disbelief is not augmented, rather the contrary. It looks like an ad in a glossy magazine.  This is going going to be sim not a showcase for rendering prowess. I can afford a 2080ti but this is not the case for everybody and this sim should prioritize convincing flyability over sheer georgeousness. On the long run, beauity is overated 😄 !

 

 

1 hour ago, domkle said:

A contrarian view, if I may 😉.  I am all for eye candy but within reason.

I follow with great interest this discussion between technicians about modeling external reflections. Really ! But as a simmer, do I care ? Not much. I am most of the time in the cockpit anyway. And when I am outside to take a shot, I am most of the time a litlle too far off the fuselage to make a difference. Does that warrant a drop in the FPS ? No.

I may add that when I see sometimes a caricatural use of PBR (aircraft or asphalt), I fear that we'll see the same excesses for RT. 
 

I think we care in terms of performance. And I don’t know most of simmers, but I bought a new PC a couple of year ago an RTX wasn’t even announced. And updating my GPU now isn’t something I have on my priority list, furthermore looking those prices...

 

22 hours ago, 188AHC said:

I feel for you Hook. I have unlimited with 100Mbs and at times it still lags depending on how many are on the same node as I.  It will be interesting on the day of release with 10,000 purchasers trying to download MSFS at the same time worldwide to see if the servers can deal with the traffic. I hope so and I hope your situation works for you.

 

I live in the Arctic, and in my country (Norway), there is fiber covering almost every nook and cranny of the land. I can even have fiber at my cabin in the woods if I i pay for the cable down to the nearest road some 1000 meters away. I feel for you guys...

9 hours ago, HughesMDflyer4 said:

Are you saying you disconnect your internet to run FSX? Can I ask why?

Security. Any work I do on the web is done with a laptop with the best possible security I can buy. And the laptop runs Win 10. My desktops (2) are single purpose for running FSX.

2 hours ago, simmerhead said:

I live in the Arctic

I live in a big city and have 5.6 Mb/s max and it's unreliable, too. Yay.

Deal breaker for me will be poor fps at high graphics settings on a top spec pc.. Even P3d can deliver 100 fps over the Atlantic, but it crawls to 15 fps on final to LHR.. That's the real test.. 

I want AAA graphics and performance in a flight sim.. Enough said.. 

3 deal breakers for me. No replay feature, the need to stay connected to the internet to be able to fly, no advance in FDE design. 

None of these seems to be likely 🙂

my only deal breaker would be 'gaminess' that I can't turn off.  'Gaminess' is characterized by planes that have no cockpit at all, planes that fly as if being held by a small child making airplane sounds, peppy plucky music, and "Congratulations, you've landed!".

I really just want a flight sim where landing with an intact plane is my reward and the challenge is actually flying the plane.

but I think this is what they are going for so this post is moot.

4 hours ago, domkle said:

Gorgeous in the eye of the beholder 😁. In the picture of your post just above, I find the reflection excessive.  The suspension of disbelief is not augmented, rather the contrary. It looks like an ad in a glossy magazine.  This is going going to be sim not a showcase for rendering prowess. I can afford a 2080ti but this is not the case for everybody and this sim should prioritize convincing flyability over sheer georgeousness. On the long run, beauity is overated 😄 !

Yeah, that's what I was talking about in another post, about hoping to see less "glamour" effects in future previews.

That hangar shot with the reflections on the wet floor and the shiny aircraft, for example. The image is enhanced by throwing the hangars in the distance into a light blur with depth of field FX. It adds sexy "bokeh" to the background, and it's not what I want to see in the actual simulator.

I like making nice screen shots as much as anyone, so it's great if tools like that are available for image capture. But let's see what the actual sim looks like as a baseline first. Most of the images are fine; it's just a few of these with forced DOF and shiny waxed showroom reflections on the aircraft and environment that feel a little over the top. Save it for the virtual box art. Just my opinion.

I think the DA42 hangar shot is a cut scene that everyone would see upon selecting the DA42 to fly. Its a movie.  No one will need ray tracing to run it (that part).

Edited August 18, 20196 yr by sightseer

On 8/16/2019 at 2:26 PM, DaWu said:

Bad Performance

This is the main issue for me, but only if the bad performance extends to the latest and greatest hardware (GTX 1080/2080 cards etc.).

I don't mind shelling out extra $$$ to upgrade to the "best" system, but I realize that everyone will not have the ability to do so. Therefore, we may ultimately see a compromise...sliders etc. to trade visuals with performance.

But at the end of the day, if I can't run "max" settings with top end hardware to get a smooth performance, then that would be my only deal breaker on day 1.

I don't want to be wooed with great screenshots and vids if I can't ultimately experience it (even with the best hardware) due to bad performance. I get enough of that deceptive marketing now with the base sims and addons like Orbx.

 

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, nickhod said:

 

I have no idea what you do for a living. Should I?🤔

Look closely at my signature line...

...I've been in the field for > twenty years by now.

I'm not trying to argue that DR is as good as RT, but rather just pointing out that P3D already supports a form of dynamic reflections. As I also stated though, it is horribly expensive in terms of fps, so not commonly used except very sparingly.

1 hour ago, FlyBaby said:

But at the end of the day, if I can't run "max" settings with top end hardware to get a smooth performance, then that would be my only deal breaker on day 1.

I don't want to be wooed with great screenshots and vids if I can't ultimately experience it (even with the best hardware) due to bad performance. I get enough of that deceptive marketing now with the base sims and addons like Orbx.

I believe the fear of bad performance that simmers have mostly comes from how FSX performed (or non-performed?) after it was first released because it was designed for CPUs that never became reality. Even after that initial stage FSX remained kind of a performance hog. P3D is running better and LM have done a good job optimizing it, but it's still the ESP engine and performance is still a constant worry for many. Then, in order to make the best of P3D or FSX, you need tons of addons and the sheer amount of extra stuff will obviously have a certain impact on performance as well.

However, I think performance won't be as much a concern with MSFS. They are not going to make the same mistake again which would see MSFS run horribly on today's hardware, just like FSX back then. They keep pushing out screenshots and clips which make everyone's jaw hit the floor at the speed of sound. It would be unacceptable if you couldn't actually run all the eye candy at 60 FPS in 4k with today's top systems. If you preview these kind of graphics you have to deliver. Otherwise you would turn into an unfunny circus which wouldn't exactly polish your image. Plus, judging by what the stock MSFS looks like, you won't need all kinds of shader, weather, terrain and whatnot sort of addons wrestling with performance.

If it indeed streamed the entire scenery then the fear of bad performance would be out the window anyway.

Crappy performance, not using modern power of CPU threads and etc. to deliver smooth 60+ FPS gameplay 

58 minutes ago, skiamakia said:

Crappy performance, not using modern power of CPU threads and etc. to deliver smooth 60+ FPS gameplay 

And not only CPU. I think gaming industry has a lot of tricks that could be applied to those sims for an smoother experience. 

Lucky MS has some experience on games 😛