2 minutes ago, Montie said:

Like all other games minimum and recommend specs will be revealed 2-3 months before release.

Yep, no point in revealing them when you still have to optimize the game.

Just now, Montie said:

Like all other games minimum and recommend specs will be revealed 2-3 months before release.

Not to mention that the engine and everything else is still pre-alpha, so it's still being optimized. I expect that it will be optimized to run even better on current mid-range hardware, maybe with some details turned down, but based on what I'm seeing, I don't think that system requirements are going to be outrageous.

I truly don't understand the hate between platforms. Whether P3D, XP, or MSFS, if it gets people interested in the hobby and into simming, I see that as a good thing. These platform wars are ludicrous.

7 hours ago, mSparks said:

Then go ask the author (or just install XP11 for yourself, it has been out for a while now), why are you saying this to me?

The other trick is to cut the video before it reaches the defects.

You know, like

It's not even in Alpa. It's not going to be perfect yet.

 

23 hours ago, mSparks said:

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/51354-winterizer-a-tool-for-snowy-orthophotos/

XP11.30 i think that added for enabling/disabling installed scenery based on season.

Laminar make a great product and are terrible at presenting themselves.

Microsoft are great at presenting themselves....

Dont think there is anyone denying that much.

 

I use XP 11 since it was sold as a Beta access... I also created scenery for XP11 as well... 

The link you provided for the Ortho/Snow tool is one of the manual old school processes of generating extra textures for seasons and activating them manually...

Only the XEnviro 1.13 plugin, despite its unfinished and unpolished aspect, is capable of delivering an advanced and dynamic weather and seasonal mode in the actual engine of X-Plane...

Other freeware or commercial addons / plugins (like the one you mentioned) are based on basic and old tech or unpractical processes (replacing tiles, activating or deactivating a scenery package etc..)

This is way off from what an engine like MSFS is capable of delivering... 

Yes, MS has a big corporate Marketing power but no, It's not a question of presenting itself here. 

It's a question of having the budget and technology as well as choosing the taletned and visionnary studio with a cutting edge graphic/world engine and load it with features and goodies to make a virtual flight experience becomes the most believable experience for its time/tech...

X-Plane 11 or DCS or ESP (V. P3D) or Flight Gear or any other PC flight simulator available today, can`t compete with MSFS in tems of the World Engine power and technology.

MSFS (Asobo) engine is way more advanced than anything we have now on the market for PC simulation... This is a simple technological fact... (Unigine is the only one with a similar technology but it's not licensed for entertainment simulation).

One can install textures, complex addons, scripts, plugins and take a super well controlled 4K screenshot in X-Plane 11 (with the perfect time and day and location) and make it look as if the default / raw X-Plane 11 engine can deliver (out of the box) the same world/environment expirience as MSFS, but, all this remains a false representation of what XP11 can deliver visually.

The default XP11 engine does not look and feel without these multi layers of addons and plugins ($$$)...

So how a company represents itself is not a fair argument here, in my opinion... Because it all comes to the Asobo/MSFS World/Graphic very advanced world engine, that ticks so many boxes the competition can`t tick with their actual engines'  technology.

Edited December 4, 20196 yr by Claviateur

I don't often ask to censor this or that thread...in fact I never did, but what is the reason this one is still up? The only thing going on is XP cultists stirring s*** up and everyone else biting it.

2 minutes ago, DreamSkywards said:

I don't often ask to censor this or that thread...in fact I never did, but what is the reason this one is still up? The only thing going on is XP cultists stirring s*** up and everyone else biting it.

Yep please close this thread…..it's usless.

According to what he says on the other forum he has reached his maximum number of posts per day here. He'll certainly come back tomorrow. Better to close before then.

22 minutes ago, Claviateur said:

 

That was an awesome response to his madness but he really won't care. The new sim will come out and blow everything else out of the water and he'll probably say we've been tricked into playing a CGI trailer.

27 minutes ago, azulkb said:

According to what he says on the other forum he has reached his maximum number of posts per day here. He'll certainly come back tomorrow. Better to close before then.

He does the same in XP forum, knows everything and so on. So nothing new. I thought I could avoid the XP community flavor to switching over to AVSIM, but the same goes further here. 

9 hours ago, azulkb said:

I prefer 100 more time a accurate landscape, accurate building, in accurate place with accurate weather and light with few blob tree, than a landscape where everything is definitely arid and in all aspects.

I would've loved to see what Xplane 11 looked like in its pre Alpha state in comparison.

10+ pages of feeding a troll. So many wasted words.

Just ignore trolls, don't feed them. 

This thread sure served its purpose. Baited all the trolls from the org into vomiting nonsense here. I must say the last few pages have been amusing nonetheless..

2 hours ago, steve310002 said:

it is worth noting that it was developed for console and is very poorly optimized for PC.

I think it’s worth being careful about saying things like this. I read a good article on digital foundry where they were saying that really the issue was poor and confusing labelling of the graphics options rather than outright poor optimisation. For example, I think they worked out that the console setting on PS4 pro was even lower than its possible to set on PC (and it still looks amazing on PS4 pro, I have it), and that the higher echelons of the Pc settings would not really be achievable consistently at 4k60 on current hardware no matter how optimised it is.
 

I mentioned this somewhere else here before but I hope asobosoft are clear about this sort of thing with their game (everything suggests they are targeting native 4k @ 60fps on a 2080ti though). 

3 minutes ago, Superdelphinus said:

I mentioned this somewhere else here before but I hope asobosoft are clear about this sort of thing with their game (everything suggests they are targeting native 4k @ 60fps on a 2080ti though). 

I read in one of the translated Asobo interviews that they had achieved around 45fps in 4K on their 2080ti demonstration machines with max settings (of the build at the time) which they were using at the various showcase events.

The fact that it is being built for PC makes me believe that it will be considerably better than any converted console game. Also when you consider how good bing maps and google maps look in 3D, (try google maps in 3D in VR...it looks incredible) and can run in browsers (not VR), I reckon that with today's systems they can pull off what they are aiming for in terms of environments and physics. 

In any case, the sim has already being played by selected YouTubers who all gave amazing feedback and quite a lot of video shown. I do not understand why there is suddenly a conspiracy theory being floated here. Yes, you might need to have a good rig to enjoy it at its finest but the sim exists, is real, and looks absolutely stunning so far. These are facts. Of course we won't truly know until we all get our hands on it. But the signs are all pretty good so far.