MSFS thread for X-Plane users.

[GoranM 3,764]

52 minutes ago, mp15 said:

I saw some video leaks and the ATC there is wonderful the way it is resolved indeed.

 

So did I.  I wouldn't call it "wonderful".  But I will say is more "lively"...and I still prefer real humans on vatsim or pilotedge.  To each his own.

[GoranM 3,764]

1 hour ago, Pastaiolo said:

That is great, however, how many of that feedback came from users and not just third parties? How long have we asked for better water? Not glowing trees? A better atc (and yes, i used the default FSX atc: while not super realistic it gave a good representation of being in a busy airport and that was enough for me when i was flying around with my PMDG aircrafts)?
The feeling i get with Austin and company, every time, is that users talk about nice features and Austin goes like "oh yes, that would be great to do it like that, but i want to do it better" except it never reaches a point in which something is actually developed. Could be a matter of resources, could be a matter of Austin being Austin and XP being its baby, so he only cares about certain specific things and ignores the others. Point is, it's a product they are selling to other people, not to Austin alone 🙂

Austin has listened to many people over the years.  But only to the people who present a reasonable discussion on what they want and why they want it implemented.  Example.  For a while, people were saying the P-Factor was overdone.  Austin's response was something like, "Ok, great.  Show me the math to make it better and more accurate."  No one could.  They just said it was too much.  Well that does no good to Austin.  He doesn't guess things.  Finally, someone approached him with the math.  Within a few weeks, a new update was out with the new P-Factor math implemented.  

You can't just tell Austin "The clouds need to look better" or "The ground needs to look better."

Show him how.  He listens all the time.  But he'll listen to facts.  Not opinions.

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

12 hours ago, Pastaiolo said:

And while XP11 indeed is doing well on the simulation point of view, there are things now in which it is lagging behind and we all hope (gamers, simmers, professional pilots in their basement etc etc) can fix in XP12.

 

 

I sure hope they'll finish version 11 before announcing version 12. Are there any rumors I've missed about a looming v 12?

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

29 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Austin has listened to many people over the years.  But only to the people who present a reasonable discussion on what they want and why they want it implemented.  Example.  For a while, people were saying the P-Factor was overdone.  Austin's response was something like, "Ok, great.  Show me the math to make it better and more accurate."  No one could.  They just said it was too much.  Well that does no good to Austin.  He doesn't guess things.  Finally, someone approached him with the math.  Within a few weeks, a new update was out with the new P-Factor math implemented.  

You can't just tell Austin "The clouds need to look better" or "The ground needs to look better."

Show him how.  He listens all the time.  But he'll listen to facts.  Not opinions.

Are we supposed to develop it as well? There are some things which are obvious enough and don't require users (not developers) to create a way of changing them. I pay for a product, i am not paid to improve it myself.

I am not talking about flight models, in which indeed a deeper knowledge might be required.

Clouds: i think that even Austin, if i remember well, liked xEnviro when he made a video in which he was trying it. He was the one actually saying how billboard clouds were awful.

Water? Ben posted this in 2016. 4 years ago. https://developer.x-plane.com/2016/10/developer-blooper-reel-water-world/

Glowing trees: people complained about this for a long time, scenery developers too.

Lighting: it is alright still (night lighting is still holding), but i think we see on MSFS how lighting can deepely affect the overall picture 🙂  Ben mentioned something about this, so i am hoping to hear something about it.

I also remember Austin talking about some meetings they did every 6 months or so, i remember we had some recaps about them too. Do they still do those (even online?)

 

 

@Swe_Richard: just some quick mentions on some comments in the developer blog for now. I think the XP11 cycle will end once Vulkan is up and ready.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Pastaiolo

[mSparks 2,086]

 

1 hour ago, Pastaiolo said:

k. It isn't like that however.

confused face.

what is "it" and what is the "that" it isnt like, and how is this remotely related to the fact that flight 2.0.2.0 has pinned its hopes on DX11, which has been obsolete for 6 years and doesnt work on 99.99999% of the worlds computers in use today - and never will.

Edited July 22, 2020 by mSparks

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

 

confused face.

what is "it" and what is the "that" it isnt like, and how is that remotely related to the fact that flight 2.0.2.0 has pinned its hopes on DX11, which has been obsolete for 6 years and doesnt work on 99.99999% of the worlds computers in use today and never will.

Quote

The point is that a good graphical representation is something everybody can take advantage of.

 

[mSparks 2,086]

3 minutes ago, Pastaiolo said:

 

0.00000001% of computers is a very very very long way from "everyone", wouldnt you say?

theres probably at least 200 cpu's around me this second. all of them can run xplane. none of them have dx11

Edited July 22, 2020 by mSparks

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

0.00000001% of computers is a very very very long way from "everyone", wouldnt you say?

theres probably at least 200 cpu's around me this second. all of them can run xplane. none of them have dx11

This has nothing to do with what i am talking about, and it's a discussion we already had and i have no plan on resuming regarding what people using videogames use on their machines (and how both MSFS and XP, unless used in a professional environement which us people do not, are falling in the same videogames category)

[mSparks 2,086]

16 minutes ago, Pastaiolo said:

This has nothing to do with what i am talking about, and it's a discussion we already had and i have no plan on resuming regarding what people using videogames use on their machines (and how both MSFS and XP, unless used in a professional environement which us people do not, are falling in the same videogames category)

ok, so you are quoting me then complaining that I am not talking about the same thing as you.

More confused face.

My message you quoted simply stated that dx11 is a niche obsolete way to produce a graphical representation of anything and only accessible to microsofties, with the implication that flight 2.0.2.0 fits in the same category.

you not wanting to not talk about something else is probably beyond my pay grade.

Edited July 22, 2020 by mSparks

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

9 minutes ago, mSparks said:

ok, so you are quoting me then complaining that I am not talking about the same thing as you.

More confused face.

Yes, because you are so biased that you either insult users who are using Microsoft flight Simulator  (Xbots etc etc), or its graphics. I used MSFS and XP10 before, i use XP11 currently. That doesn't stop me from noticing that some things are looking better than XP11, some things are better in XP11 instead.

All i am saying is that, to us CONSUMERS, visual quality and usability also matters. And since MSFS is a new product it is bringing certain things that in XP11 are completely missing (or old or underdeveloped) and i am hoping to see them in XP12.

I am not here to debate about DX11, DX12, Vulkan, Flight models, bouncing mechanics at 300 knots and -2500 rate of descent. 

[philmurfin 73]

This thread as gone so hay wire, I'm out!

[mtaxp 666]

34 minutes ago, Pastaiolo said:

Are we supposed to develop it as well? There are some things which are obvious enough and don't require users (not developers) to create a way of changing them. I pay for a product, i am not paid to improve it myself.

I am not talking about flight models, in which indeed a deeper knowledge might be required.

Clouds: i think that even Austin, if i remember well, liked xEnviro when he made a video in which he was trying it. He was the one actually saying how billboard clouds were awful.

Water? Ben posted this in 2016. 4 years ago. https://developer.x-plane.com/2016/10/developer-blooper-reel-water-world/

Glowing trees: people complained about this for a long time, scenery developers too.

Lighting: it is alright still (night lighting is still holding), but i think we see on MSFS how lighting can deepely affect the overall picture 🙂  Ben mentioned something about this, so i am hoping to hear something about it.

I also remember Austin talking about some meetings they did every 6 months or so, i remember we had some recaps about them too. Do they still do those (even online?)

 

 

@Swe_Richard: just some quick mentions on some comments in the developer blog for now. I think the XP11 cycle will end once Vulkan is up and ready.

"Clouds, lightning and weather are the very next thing after vulkan"  he even said they already have some code.

I guess they will also port x-plane mobile's tone mapper ror colors and scattering which is better and modern (that's for people who refuse to understand that new features can be developed for mobile then ported if needed).

They want vulkan first, if ben released this water he would probably have to re-visit this code again for vulkan, does not make any common sense.

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

3 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

"Clouds, lightning and weather are the very next thing after vulkan"  he even said they already have some code.

I guess they will also port x-plane mobile's tone mapper ror colors and scattering which is better and modern (that's for people who refuse to understand that new features can be developed for mobile then ported if needed).

They want vulkan first, if ben released this water he would probably have to re-visit this code again for vulkan, does not make any common sense.

Yes, i saw that comment too. Which is indeed very promising, because those are the things i think XP11 is lagging behind the most. For lighting and weather mostly in regard of MSFS, for water in regard to everything else out there (War Thunder, DCS, P3D, Il2 Sturmovik, Outerra etc etc)

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

A warning has been issued to one member. I don’t want to lock the topic so keep responses civil.

[Colonel X 1,430]

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

 

confused face.

what is "it" and what is the "that" it isnt like, and how is this remotely related to the fact that flight 2.0.2.0 has pinned its hopes on DX11, which has been obsolete for 6 years and doesnt work on 99.99999% of the worlds computers in use today - and never will.

I am really tired with your false statements ("facts") by now. The list is long, but this one really knocks it out of the park. DX11 being obsolete? You do realise that HUNDREDS of current games use DX11, some with cutting edge graphics, such as COD Modern Warfare (which looks and runs the same in DX12 and 11) or Ghost Recon Breakpoint (which runs 6% faster in Vulkan), and every PC runs them? DX11 is the baseline standard, and there is no problem with it at all - DX12 has more features and Vulkan runs faster, but at the end of the day, it's just another graphics API that has no larger meaning to the quality of a game. It's missing Raytracing - but that is a feature we haven't seen in flight simulation.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Colonel X