1 minute ago, vgbaron said:

As I have said a thousand times over the years when this SAME discussion arises - unless you borrow MY eyes you cannot see the same thing as I do. Noel doesn't see what I see and he never will and nothing will convince him. He's not wrong and I am not right.

So how about we all enjoy what we see and move on.

 

Vic

Vic,

The visuals were the last thing I thought about when I was watching the video because I know the kind of computer that Rob has allows for much higher settings. I was thinking more about what it could be.

Jose

I like what I see in V5.  It runs very nicely for me.  It looks better.  It runs better.  It has a future.  Now give me all the aircraft and I'll be switching over completely.  

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Come on bring it on--ANYTHING jaw dropping that I don't already see.  Standing by...

Here you go, in the very first few frames.  Looks rather spritely doesn't it!

 

Yes. I saw it on my rig with v5 too. If you fligh hi, all over the place. Awful isnt it.......

2 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

Yes. I saw it on my rig with v5 too. If you fligh hi, all over the place. Awful isnt it.......

The sim (v5) is only a couple of weeks old. You need to give it some time to mature as eloquently stated by Rob in the video.

Edited May 3, 20206 yr by DJJose

A lot of what I'm saying derives not only from being recently impressed w/ 4.5, but I have a serious distain for constant updates, tweaks, setup, etc that comes w/ any very new platform which v5.x is  V4.5 is essentially the mature tail end of evolution of that platform, everything works out of the box including all of the 3rd party content added.  After I got v3.4 fully setup I never touched it for 4 straight years essentially which again speaks to my distain for continuous updates, adjustments, hot and cold fixes, etc ad nauseum.  I actually fly the sim on average 4-6h daily on most days and love it hugely still.

10 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

 What does seem odd is that when DTG's FSW demonstrated TrueSKY most simmers loved it, when LM demonstrate the same TrueSKY, simmers claim "I don't see any difference"?  Seems rather inconsistent. 

 

I was definitely not among them, I found DTG's incarnation pretty poor. The most annoying aspect were the snow-covered landscapes if looked upon them through clouds.

While LM certainly has a way to go (I observe a lot of flickering e.g. at cloud-tree interfaces and would like a haze control) I like their implementation much better than DTG's already today. That's just me (as a VFR flyer).

Kind regards, Michael

25 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I'm interested to see what HiFi can do, but LM's TrueSKY implementation still has many bugs ... I'm sure LM will eventually get them sorted out and LM can remove the "Beta" tag from TrueSKY.  What does seem odd is that when DTG's FSW demonstrated TrueSKY most simmers loved it, when LM demonstrate the same TrueSKY, simmers claim "I don't see any difference"?  Seems rather inconsistent. 

I wasn't a huge fan of TrueSKY, but again the details are in the implementation ... after looking at the Simul TrueSKY SDK there is lots more to come.

TrueSKY clouds will evaporate and condense (legacy clouds do not, they can only rotate and/or be shaded) ... setup a weather theme with wind and just watch them move and morph.  Once LM figure out how to implement crepuscular rays correctly, that should add another nice visual dynamic.  They also need to get the sun size correct.  

As far as VRAM, get as much as you can afford (this applies to all current and future platforms) ... sure you can use less VRAM but you're not going to see nice long distance visuals.  LM have tried to optimize VRAM usage that seems to have a negative impact for those of us that don't need the optimization (i.e. performance drop).  I know this is not a popular statement, but it's a harsh reality that VRAM rules the day for Flight Simulators IF one wants realistic view distances with LOTS of buildings and high quality textures.  Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just providing my experience with 3 main FS platforms I use/test.

There are various ways to reduce VRAM usage, none of them is good for a better visual experience and better performance.  I've done a compare with the three main sims approaching KSEA from the South and what I see is NOT the same, in one heavily anticipated sim Seattle City/buildings are not rendered even at max settings ... smaller LOD in order to keep VRAM in check and performance up.  

Cheers, Rob.

I fiind the TrueSky implementation of LM awful Rob. It has huge Potential.  But the implementation is very poor done.

• Raindrops optical just drop down even if you fly highspeed
• Raindrops inside the stock planes
• Dawn and sunset colors are awful (red, yellow, blue....)
• Dawn and sunset lighting awful (Darkens, Lightens and darkens again)
• Autogen shimmering through the clouds
• Shimmering on building/object textures
• Clouds show raster patterns
• Eye Adaption effect has huge negative impact on lighting/brightnes with enhanced atmo
• .....
• .....

That is kind of immersion killing and I really hope they would go a huge step forward within next 1 - 2 months. 

The potential is there...but if they dont use it, its worthless

PS....I am on a 8700k 5.1 GhZ HT Off/On on all cores. Would a stock RTX TItan X on aircooling be a huge step up from a rtx 2080ti? Or are they heating up to much and therefore useless?

Cheers Marcus

 

Edited May 3, 20206 yr by mpo910

34 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

LM have tried to optimize VRAM usage that seems to have a negative impact for those of us that don't need the optimization (i.e. performance drop).

Rob, Considering this, are you using P3Dv5 HF1 or staying with the original release version for now? I am curious as there are a lot of other fixes in HF1.

Ted

2 hours ago, Noel said:

These are the responses one gets when the responder can't respond to the challenge--cute little decoy.  Come on Alex, bring it on show me the jaw drop I don't already have in spades in 4.5.  Standing by...

I just posted a screenshot thread with 16 pictures. Have a look. I'm not trying to say your opinion is wrong or anything like that, but the pictures show how earth-shatteringly different trueSKY is from the old system in v4.5 (and v5).

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/574548-truesky-is-amazing-16-pictures/

19 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

The potential is there...but if they dont use it, its worthless

Like was said above - bugs are there and it's early days, yes. But awful? Worthless? Take a look at my thread I just posted and play around with it live in the sim. This is no attack on yours or anyone's opinion, but I raise my eyebrows every time I read something like this. I mean, some posters even came up with "Default FSX looks better"...

6 minutes ago, threegreen said:

Like was said above - bugs are there and it's early days, yes. But awful? Worthless? Take a look at my thread I just posted and play around with it live in the sim. This is no attack on yours or anyone's opinion, but I raise my eyebrows every time I read something like this. I mean, some posters even came up with "Default FSX looks better"...

People just love to be sensationalist for some attention, I reckon, to drive their displeasure home. 

6 minutes ago, threegreen said:

Like was said above - bugs are there and it's early days, yes. But awful? Worthless? Take a look at my thread I just posted and play around with it live in the sim. This is no attack on yours or anyone's opinion, but I raise my eyebrows every time I read something like this. I mean, some posters even came up with "Default FSX looks better"...

Yes. Sorry. I found it awful. Also flying at fl 350 or little higher. The clouds look as they are rising up from the earth as a flat layer. At near they loom good. But at high distance they seem as they rising up in the air and not keeping the same highet level compared to the earth. Very strange. Shading is also not done properly. 

I respect your opinion. So fine to me. But they should really do something about these issues

2 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

But they should really do something about these issues

And they will - because it's still only in beta.

12 minutes ago, threegreen said:

Like was said above - bugs are there and it's early days, yes. But awful? Worthless? Take a look at my thread I just posted and play around with it live in the sim. This is no attack on yours or anyone's opinion, but I raise my eyebrows every time I read something like this. I mean, some posters even came up with "Default FSX looks better"...

No offense, but those screens really don't look that impressive. In fact, some of those clouds look fs2002 quality. And my FSX clouds look a whole lot better then that. 

As per Vic's comments further up in this thread, there is a thread on .org that has a similar but more generic discussion of TrueSky and includes comments regarding not only XP11 but also P3d:

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/168657-ace-combat-7-weather-shows-x-plane-what-its-missing/#replyForm

This thread contains a bunch of comments by our comrade mSparks and provides a slightly different perspective on the importance of realistic clouds in flightsims.

There are three items that always spoiled the immersion for me in various flight sims. The trees look like billboards, the clouds looked like blurry photos and the ATC was unrealistic. Most sims now have fixed the first two problems and there's always hope that Asobo will fix the ATC.