It is a nice video. Performance is good and steady. Nice scenery.

Now: how about flying from A -> B, showing us general scenery, outside of that small scenery-circle? All I am seeing around are pretty pictures of sceneries, but rarely flights... am I missing something?

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Neither, I'm waiting for V5 to get stable and TrueSky beta tag removed.  For normal flying I'm using V4.5.HF2

Words of inside knowledge that those that are trying to hack in addons before they are ready should probably consider.

Thanks,

Ted

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

The better comparison should be each individual sim against the real world rather than sim vs. sim. If I look outside and at real world photos I took on my own flights, trueSKY is by far closest to what the real world atmosphere looks like.

The True Simmers never go outside and look at the real world. 

🙂

Hook

4 hours ago, threegreen said:

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/

I don't really have an opinion yet--I just said show me something compelling since I've not yet seen it, something significantly better than what I already enjoy.  

Thank you for that I just had a look and while I see some very good potential a lot of it looks way overdone and very unnatural in the end, but again it points to its potential which is the main value.  If what I saw there was the primary visual improvement in v5 over v4.5 that would not be sufficient to have me decide to install v5 prior to MSFS' debut.  I certainly have no need for that 3080Ti in v4.5, but I will for v5 and probably MSFS, and as mentioned above that will be late 2020 perhaps depending on when the new Ampere GPU arrives, one with at least 20Gb of VRAM.  Now had v5 had improved ATC, and perhaps a better flight planner, those things along w/ what TruSky as implemented by LM might well tip me towards upgrading now.

6 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Neither, I'm waiting for V5 to get stable and TrueSky beta tag removed.  For normal flying I'm using V4.5.HF2

Cheers, Rob.

Wow that is an admission I wasn't expecting - certainly gives someone like me who is sitting on the fence about moving to v5 pause for thought.  At present I am flying in the Carenado Bonanza along the beautiful south coast of NSW Australia near where I live, the area so ravaged by bushfires over the summer, and P3D4.4 HF2 has never looked so good and I find it hard to believe v5 could improve on it.  It seems that for every simmer who thinks v5 is the greatest thing since sliced bread there is another who is asking for a refund!

Bruceb

6 hours ago, mpo910 said:

 

This is what I would like to see in P3D. Look at the shading, lighting, dawn dusk and coloring. In P3D v5 this looks very different. Clouds in p3d look ok for the first beta. But lighting shading and coloring looks awful

There you go--that is what we call 'jaw dropping'.  It's a good engine and has excellent potential it would appear.  How demanding is it on GPU/VRAM/CPU?

 

7 hours ago, threegreen said:

@mpo910 I also fly in VR and I just compared a scene in VR and non-VR. I honestly didn't see anything different. What is it that you think is worse in VR with regards to trueSKY?

2 Things

The Shimmering and Autogen showing through the cloudlayers looks heavier in vr

The wide range cloud layer compared to the earth looks like a flat layer wich not follows the earth horizon. Clearly visible at 350FL and heaving 4/8 cloud coverage. It is like the cloud layer is rising up in far distance compared to the globe

It is the same old story. Whenever a new, disruptive thing comes out, there are those who only criticize it and there are those who embrace it.

Personally, I think TrueSky is the biggest improvement to P3D since the 64 bits inception. It was about time to ditch the 2D-impostors that roamed our virtual worlds since the dawn of flight-simulation.

While I probably won't buy new add-ons for this version, I will definitely keep using it until MSFS is out and about.

 

Edited May 4, 20206 yr by GCBraun

What the very nice video (and many others) simply do not show: that the implementation of TrueSky in regions that are not flat is still far from perfect (I know, it is a beta). Several things I noticed flying around in the Alps with TrueSky on:

- the blending with the mountans results in some ugly shimmering through of the terrain at certain angles/distances

- the clouds are illuminated from below by the sun at dusk/dawn even if the mountains would prevent this. Looks rather silly and really hampers immersion. As fixing this would request to have terrain shadows rendered from a huge distance, I guess this will never be fixed entirely...

- some textures still get a very pixelated/fuzzy border in front of TrueSky clouds at a certain distance/angle.

These are the three main things I observed that resulted in a not so immersive picture as shown in the Rob-Video flying around flat terrain only. Those three points are not real deal breakers (the illumination from below maybe..), so I am still looking forward for AS to be released.

There are differences between an app that utilizes TrueSky and one that generates its own clouds. The benefit of coding the rendering of your own clouds etc. is that the developer writes the code and has complete familiarity with how it works. These days this is like reinventing the wheel. The big name video game shops still do it, because they like having total control and also don't want to pay a licensing fee to someone else.

The advantage of TrueSky (and also the similar product Silver Lining sold by it's main competitor Sundog Software) is that you just call the routines from your app. The drawback is that the actually code is a black box and you have to learn how to best integrate the SDK into your app. As an example, LM licensed the Sundog Software water movement SDK Triton, in previous versions of P3d and could never quite get the water to look that good. They subquently switched to Nvidia Waveworks SDK for P3d5. 

The video game that really captures nature's artistry when it comes to atmospheric visual effects is RDR 2. Here's an article explaining that feature:

https://dailytech.page/2019/08/06/how-red-dead-redemption-2-organizes-visual-effects/

11 hours ago, brucewtb said:

Wow that is an admission I wasn't expecting - certainly gives someone like me who is sitting on the fence about moving to v5 pause for thought.  At present I am flying in the Carenado Bonanza along the beautiful south coast of NSW Australia near where I live, the area so ravaged by bushfires over the summer, and P3D4.4 HF2 has never looked so good and I find it hard to believe v5 could improve on it.  It seems that for every simmer who thinks v5 is the greatest thing since sliced bread there is another who is asking for a refund!

Bruceb

I feel the same way about my v4.5 HF2 setup. I can't figure out what I'm trying to fix...

https://youtu.be/_4KeEHpqDN8

Therein lies the problem w/ chasing updates ad nauseum.  Just go fly it's awesome already, and I'm sure v5.x is awesomer, and v6.x awesomer still!

Edited May 4, 20206 yr by Noel

Like others using latest 4.5 hotfix and very happy. A user of P3D since its infancy and  subsequent versions to- date, always looked at  the sim as a work in progress and V5 is no different with  many bugs and other issues as well as great potential. I prefer to spend my time trying to find out updates and what aircraft and scenery will still work on V5. Reckon that by v5.1 things will get a lot better.

I'm interested in opinions on the video that was posted earlier, especially on certain scenes.

00:25 - I think this is pretty close to what we see with trueSKY in P3D right now.
00:27 and 00:54/01:00 - If you go a bit further in time for this sunset, the contrast or saturation at this point looks overdone to me and it reminds of an oil painting.
01:12 and ongoing - This looks stunning, but even here I don't think this is what even a spectacular sunset in the real world would look like. If this is what you might see IRL, I think it's that one in a thousand sunsets that may look as spectacular as this.
02:00 and 02:48 - looks over-saturated to me again.

The rest of the video looks really good. But, to me, the sunsets (or sunrises) look overdone. This is what I meant by Instagram-filter-effect earlier in this thread. While it certainly looks spectacular and jaw-dropping in that way, I don't think it's necessarily natural, and some parts look like the saturation or contrast is off. LM's implementation delivers a more natural feeling in my opinion.

Edit: The video thumbnail alone looks stunning but not natural to me.

 

Edited May 4, 20206 yr by threegreen