58 minutes ago, ual763 said:

Guys, if you zoom into the image, you’ll see that the building that appears to have comically oversized windows, each “apparent window” is actually 3 separate windows.  They’re not oversized.  Rather they just need to randomize which windows are lit a bit more.  No doubt this will be updated - it is an easy fix.

Ok, good spotting...that's good news then!

1 hour ago, MatthewS said:

How hard can it be to get this right? 

Very.

Otherwise a flight simulator would already exist that didn't suck in X Y Z crucial ways.

Edited February 9, 20206 yr by mSparks

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

Those clouds are actually pretty awful. AC7/truesky is lightyears ahead. Flight model actually reminds me of ace combat.

 

Anyone still in the market for taking these posts seriously?

very good looking, never disappointing.

Edited February 9, 20206 yr by jhnWik

Those hangar shots are absolutely incredible.

I have to wonder how many hangars there are like that.  I suspect at the present time it's one hangar at one airport.  Maybe two or three.  This is likely to increase as time goes on.

I'd hope they make a fair number of "generic hangar interiors" that look that good that they can reuse all over the world, even at small airfields.  P3D has a number of open front hangars, but not that many;  most hangars are textured blocks.

Hook

Edited February 9, 20206 yr by LHookins

I respect everyones opinion but sometimes  i wonder why on earth in a flight simulator some people are  REALLY concern about the size of things not flight related at all like a window in a bulding ? 

lets start asking Asobo  why theres no people with dogs walking on central park .... 

Making a window detection algorithm shouldn't be too hard. Once the image of each side of the building will be put into the model, the model will detect windows, and convert them to lights for nightime scenery. I think window detection is trivial enough to be done without machine learning/deep learning for most building types.

53 minutes ago, noob123 said:

Making a window detection algorithm shouldn't be too hard. Once the image of each side of the building will be put into the model, the model will detect windows, and convert them to lights for nightime scenery. I think window detection is trivial enough to be done without machine learning/deep learning for most building types.

That is true BUT there must be a thousand things more important to the devs before they release beta!

14 hours ago, mSparks said:

I do not disagree.

But not sure flight sim is the right genre for people who find landscapes boring.

 

So you try to prove MSFS' unrealistic look with something that is by far worse ...

Reality:

 

This is what you think looks fine:

 

This on the other hand "looks like my niece got loose with some florescent ink "

Edited February 9, 20206 yr by tweekz

11 hours ago, eaim said:

P3D doesn't have DirectX 12 capabilities.... yet. Unless V5 will in the future?

Yes sorry my mistake, just Aerofly and very soon X-Plane.

4 minutes ago, dtrjones said:

Yes sorry my mistake, just Aerofly and very soon X-Plane.

Xplane 11 uses OpenCL and very soon Vulkan, they have no plans to use DirectX 12.

30 minutes ago, dtrjones said:

I can appreciate Matthews point. It's a fair one. The windows are too big. But I think some slack should be given here. It's the first implementation of this new technology - photogrammetry buildings being lite in the dark and I thought it was a pretty clever and effective solution. Some more variety, possibly extra illuminance from distance and some better interpretation of scale but it's very much WIP I think so hopefully will improve in the coming patches.

Someone has already correctly pointed out that it's not that the windows are too big, it's that they're too uniformly clustered. You're looking at about 6 window groups when you zoom in. They're the right size but they just need to be more randomized.

28 minutes ago, eaim said:

Xplane 11 uses OpenCL and very soon Vulkan, they have no plans to use DirectX 12.

If you read my original post I did say Vulkan or DirectX 12. At this point it's performance I'm after so not concerned with either. X-Plane 11 in particular because my VR experience is just a little short at the moment so the extra gains could make all the difference 🤞

About night lights, the only building that looks weird to me is the “Transamerica Pyramid”. 
 

Maybe that’s the main “problem” with photogrammetry, that at night it still need some hand made touch. But I’m sure they will improve night environment with time. 
 

Anyways, I’m satisfied with it as it is right now. 

Edited February 9, 20206 yr by aleex

11 hours ago, LHookins said:

I doubt they would omit a free camera.  I was talking about having an avatar mode in addition.  

I do not use XPlane.  I have used the avatar in P3Dv4 fairly often as I wanted a first person viewpoint, not a floating camera, and I've done the same as you with it.  For a pre-flight walk around inspection an avatar would be about a million times better than a free camera.

I've had to use a free camera to "pretend" to be an avatar when I wanted a first person view in other situations and it's definitely a pain.

Hook

You never know, look at how default camera in FSX/P3D works compared to XP. Of course we are talking about a vanilla comparison 🙂

Yes, for a walk around something moving horizontally is certainly better. My free camera use is not for walk around checks. It's for screenshots or any other purpose that requires me to move the point of view quickly to create a custom camera without having to fly to that specific point of space 🙂