February 20th, 2020 – Development/Insider Update

[FDEdev 955]

15 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

The single next to it looks like a smaller sibling. At first glance I was thinking Pilatus for the single, but that's not quite right either.

That's the new Cessna Denali.

[2reds2whites 827]

9 hours ago, FDEdev said:

I don't know on how many runways you landed on IRL, but speaking from own experience I can tell you that this assumption is simply very very very wrong. 

Yep. People get excited about the weirdest things on here, stuff that no pilot would ever notice or care about. It's greatly contradictory to complain that something isn't simulated accurately enough, when your view on what it should be is completely inaccurate. I had something similar the other day - someone complaining about a night scene not looking as 'good' as a competitor. I had to make the point that the one they said wasn't good was in fact the accurate one!

I can count on one hand the airports I've landed at that have significant or noticeable undulation. 

Anyway, the thing that people should be most excited about is the SDK implementation. Even if your airport of choice isn't included in the 'detailed' ones then it looks as though you may have the resources to fix it simply. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by 2reds2whites

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

You should go back in time and tell that to every MS flight sim publisher ever.

Flightsim has always pushed well beyond the limits of current hardware and long may it continue.

That's true, however, it was what led to MS Flight Simulator's Aces Studio being shut down in the first place back in 2009. Which is the point I was making.

This is because Flight Simulator had traditionally been based upon (if we go all the way back to when it wasn't even Microsoft Flight Simulator, but SubLogic Flight Simulator, before MS got it) the architecture of the program utilising the CPU for the graphics calculations as well as all the other stuff. With each successive version of Flight Simulator, MS continued revamping that basic simulator program architecture rather than re-writing it from the start each time. This was deemed okay at the time, because back then, we were seeing ever-faster CPUs coming out on a regular basis, so the assumption was that they'd just be able to keep on doing that forever and the forthcoming CPUs would handle it. But it was a road which was eventually going to run out. Because...

The problem was that each newer faster CPU was basically created by making the circuitry smaller and more numerous, and materials the circuits were mounted on were smaller too. This was all to enable more calculations to be made; these calculations occurred faster because the electrons had less distance to travel owing to the CPU itself being smaller. But there is only so small you can go before a couple of problems start to crop up, these being excessive heat generation, which itself leads to errors calculations in addition to the problem of dissipating the heat, and quantum mechanical tunneling (which is a fancy way of saying the silicon of the chip is so thin that electric signals could bore through it rather than staying on the circuit track, causing a short circuit malfunction in the CPU's calculation processes).

The way around this initially, was to glue two or more processors together, which is why we started seeing 'dual core', then 'quad core' etc processors. But that too presents a problem: It's like having two people working in separate rooms on the same project; at some point they both have to meet up and combine their efforts into a single project, and it takes time for them to walk up to meet one another. A problem we still see people discussing when they go on about which core to use for what on P3D or whatever.

So, in light of this issue, CPU manufacturers have been seeking other materials to build processors on, but what it led to more immediately, is contemporary games and sims shifting the focus of the calculations to have those games and sims run, to being one where the graphics card (GPU) did the visuals, and the main processor (CPU) did the thinking. And this has been the way it has been ever since. This is why you never saw people on bulletin boards (pre-widespread internet days) banging on about what graphics card they would need to run SubLogic's Flight Simulator 3, or Fleet Defender, or Pacific 1942 etc, because it was all about whether you had a DX-2 or a DX-3 or a DX-4 CPU or whatever, and very little to do with your graphics card, even if you actually had one in your PC rather than having the motherboard doing that stuff.

You may recall on forums such as Avsim back as far as when FS2000 came out, that some people (me for example) were strongly advocating that before FS got too big for it to become an insurmountable task not worth the time involved for the profits they could make, to bin off the base code and re-write it from scratch to utilise the GPU rather than the CPU. Because this was really the only long terms solution to the struggling frame rates it exhibited and it's only in recent years that the brute force solution of a very fast processor has been able to elicit decent frame rates out of FSX with all the whistles and bells turned on, in spite of the program having been released 14 years ago. You only have to look as Aerofly FS2 to know that you can have something much more graphically spectacular than FSX run at blistering frame rates if it uses the GPU to best advantage.

So it's one thing to say that FS should always push the hardware requirement boundaries to utulise the next fancy bit of hardware, but nobody was meaning that should require a wait of over a decade before it would be feasible to do that, but that's what transpired with FSX.

But unfortunately by the time FSX was being made, Bill Gates, who had always been a fan of Flight Simulator and one of its strongest advocates, was getting to the point where he was going to relinquish control of MS, leaving the corporation with a CEO who did not share Bill's 'word not allowed the expense' love of flight sims and was more concerned with the bottom line. The result was that by the time FSX came out, MS were so far down the road of being the makers of a CPU bound flagship product, that they eventually dropped it, because they did not want to spend money on doing a complete re-write of it. Fast forward to now and with the way the liesure market is, and the advances in technology available and the applications it may be suited to, and it now makes sense for them from an economic standpoint to get back in the game and make such a commitment.

What we have seen in the interim, is efforts to shoehorn parts of FSE-SE, FSW and P3D (which were all based on that older methodology) onto using the GPU a bit, but there is only so much that can be done unless you are going to start from scratch and use a completely different underlying architecture, which is what MS are now doing with their new simulator.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Chock

[dazzystar 23]

Latest airports episode looks exciting. Wish the video was longer. Would have also been good for them to mention the possibility of some more alpha invites!

[mSparks 2,086]

28 minutes ago, Chock said:

and re-write it from scratch to utilise the GPU rather than the CPU

Its bigger than that now.

There is WAAAaaaaaaaay more computational power in a 3990x  than any GPU on the market now or any time soon. The problem has been, for the last decade or so, most developers, particularly games developers - have seen multcore as a "thing some highly overpaid wierdos do that no one understands".

The only reason Asobo can do it now, is because Microsoft finally bundled not absolutely terrible multi threading for applications into MSVC++ 2018, and AMD finally lit some competition in the multicore market.

It is nice to see them catch up, also very funny knowing in intricate detail the years and years of road ahead of them.

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by mSparks

[Victoroos 205]

AlAnd. Some people comment a lot of the big airports. Runways look flat (if there isn't a huge hill) what do you think? 

[Bottle 663]

Aspen: Nice realistic snow effects with residuals after clearing. However, someone should clear the snow from the entrance before one of those rich passengers slips over and sues. Still no annual trees yet. The mobile stairs on the far right have clipped into the ground a bit.

Juancho: Perfect for a Tracy Island mod. Who will be the fist with a Thunderbird 2 addon?!

KLX: Nothing to report. Lovely view distance.

Courchevel: Nothing to report. Lovely clouds.

Mount Hawley: You wouldn't get me driving over that bridge (left foreground) or off to the right (has there been a recent earthquake?).

Donegal: Is that cherry picker to the left for de-icing I wonder? Anyone up for some windsurfing? Nice flash of lightning in the clouds, but a little slow?

Queenstown: Where are the sheep on the hills?! Is that a very late rotation?

St Barthelemy: The grass looks correctly proportioned here and is that mixed in with some sort of bracken?

Chiquitos: Thank god for GPS because I'll never find that otherwise.

Marrakesh: I wonder if there'll be heat distortion from the ground?

Kadhdhoo: Nice place for a picnic.

Alice Springs: It's so hot there some of the planes hover 10 feet above the ground. Strewth.

KLAX: Do they have Tesla autonomously driving busses there?

Punta Cana: Is golf sim back?

Gatwick: Why is it not raining? It's always raining when I go there.

Ambient life: We need Object: Tarmak_Worker_Boogey, Tarmak_Worker_Groove

 

 

[dfanucci 127]

*Shaking my head*

What has been shown regarding this sim is so far beyond anything *any* civilian sim has brought to the table is just jaw dropping.

And folks are complaining about blades of grass.

In a flightsim.

Blades of grass!?!?

Unbelievable.

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by dfanucci

[bonchie 2,305]

4 hours ago, roarkr said:

This looks more like a RC flightsimulator to my eyes.  The grass is too big compared to the aircraft and and buildings.

Not that impressed:(

It blows my mind that anyone can watch the video in comparison to what we have now, claim it looks like an RC simulator, and say "I'm not that impressed." 

Honestly, I commend Asobo for not losing their freaking minds with some in this fanbase at this point. I'd have been tempted to throw my hands up a long time ago and I certainly see why ACES disconnected from the community back during FSX's production.

[Groovy_Kincaid 71]

WOW!

[abranpuko 369]

Its so wonderfull! 

How about cloud immersion? 

Entering into a cumulus and surfing between lights and dark.

Does anyone know? 

[Dominique_K 10,138]

20 minutes ago, bonchie said:

It blows my mind that anyone can watch the video in comparison to what we have now, claim it looks like an RC simulator, and say "I'm not that impressed."

I am with you here.

The Sirena ranger station pics generally show a mowed lawn where the aircraft park but tall wild grass along the runway. We are at 8° 28’ of latitude and by the ocean which mean a hot and humid weather.  The grass grows fast and tall ! This contreversy about the size of the grass makes no sense whatsoever.

Edited February 21, 2020 by domkle

[aleex 551]

21 minutes ago, dfanucci said:

*Shaking my head*

What has been shown regarding this sim is so far beyond anything *any* civilian sim has brought to the table is just jaw dropping.

And folks are complaining about blades of grass.

In a flightsim.

Blades of grass!?!?

Unbelievable.

 

If people didn’t complain, we will still having 2D graphics. Complaining is not always a bad thing.

Edited February 21, 2020 by aleex

[Casualcas 830]

18 minutes ago, abranpuko said:

Its so wonderfull! 

How about cloud immersion? 

Entering into a cumulus and surfing between lights and dark.

Does anyone know? 

This should help

 

[Rimshot 1,135]

2 hours ago, Chock said:

I take issue with this opinion and would like to have a pointlessly heated argument with you about it, for no readily-discernible reason! 🤣

 

2 hours ago, Casualcas said:

Yeah, Include me, but dont ask for proof as I'm cleaning my computer today. 

Ok then, let's have it fellas! 😁

2 hours ago, bashope said:

If they do better, fine by me, but for me, it *MUST* be there, otherwise I go back to X-Plane. I cannot stand, for reasons unknown to me, perfectly flat runways.

By the way, not sure if you know about Ortho4XP, but starting at v1.30 it has a "smoothing" functionality which will interpolate elevation points in the mesh, add points in between (tesselation?) and smooth them out. So I never encountered a runway with "overdone" undulations anymore in X-Plane. By the looks of it, I'm guessing you didn't know about this feature or about Ortho4XP?

Yes, I've read about what Ortho4XP can do. I was talking about X-Plane 'out of the box' as that is the only fair comparison with default MSFS.