So I thought about firing up P3D and/or XP last night...

[styckx 1,872]

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

Oof. This is literal proof of how far ahead MSFS is with its rendering tech. Your focus on LOD is so far off base that's it's actually embarrassing.

And the fact he's using a "tech alpha" as the "gotcha" proof.  

Breaking NDAs using long outdated software to prove some silly agenda.  Brilliant.

[tweekz 2,165]

I've had the same experience as OP.

Went back to XP to test Vulkan. Conclusions:

• MSFS looks incredibly good. It adds so much to your flying experience that I cannot go back anymore.
• MSFS gives me the same feeling like when I moved from FSX to XP. MSFS makes XP feel like on rails with its vivid simulation of airflow.
• Some complaints I had about the specific flight model are actually pretty much the same in XP.

[Adrian123 1,015]

I don't believe there is any doubt or arguing it "looks better." That is just a certain percentage of what it is.

[mtaxp 666]

From a tech view msfs has more work to do to close the performance gap. Can't talk about p3d though xp 11.50 destroys msfs in that term, no apparent LOD problems and pooups either.

New Lightning, clouds and all those good stuff are a much lower mountain to climb. Not to mention a new generation api obviously has better tech and extension for better graphics. Both p3d and xp currently has better next gen foundations, it's that msfs got to show their stuff earlier, obviously xp/p3d are working on new next gen visuals too.

[DylanM 1,069]

3 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

From a tech view msfs has more work to do to close the performance gap. Can't talk about p3d though xp 11.50 destroys msfs in that term, no apparent LOD problems and pooups either.

New Lightning, clouds and all those good stuff are a much lower mountain to climb. Not to mention a new generation api obviously has better tech and extension for better graphics. Both p3d and xp currently has better next gen foundations, it's that msfs got to show their stuff earlier, obviously xp/p3d are working on new next gen visuals too.

riiight...😆

[tweekz 2,165]

9 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

From a tech view msfs has more work to do to close the performance gap. Can't talk about p3d though xp 11.50 destroys msfs in that term, no apparent LOD problems and pooups either.

New Lightning, clouds and all those good stuff are a much lower mountain to climb.

Useless comparison until LR delivers.

As of now it looks very bad comparatively. MSFS delivers lot of fps as well, when you make it look like XP.

Edited September 23, 2020 by tweekz

[Mace 1,955]

2 hours ago, RobJC said:

I was afraid this thread was a bad idea. 

This will be your second locked thread in less than a week...

[omarsmak30 4,068]

In case we forgot 😊:

 

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

23 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

From a tech view msfs has more work to do to close the performance gap. Can't talk about p3d though xp 11.50 destroys msfs in that term, no apparent LOD problems and pooups either.

New Lightning, clouds and all those good stuff are a much lower mountain to climb. Not to mention a new generation api obviously has better tech and extension for better graphics. Both p3d and xp currently has better next gen foundations, it's that msfs got to show their stuff earlier, obviously xp/p3d are working on new next gen visuals too.

Unfortunately this claim falls apart the second you turn on shadows and reflections in XP.  Was a long time xplane user prior to MSFS and was very proud of my orthos and custom world2xp along with numerous addons so I do know what I'm talking about here.  You can pick at a lot in MSFS, but to claim you get better performance in XP with anything that remotely resembles what the new sim is giving is just not correct.

Its also a bit of a stretch to claim that adjusting performance tables, correcting some pages on the MFDs and Garmin panels is harder than rebuilding a lighting engine and finding someway to match the streaming of petabytes of data to represent the world.  You only need to see the evidence that a team of freeware modders have already done with the A320.  Their work is remarkable, but its also within the reach of a small team of unpaid volunteers.  I don't think you can say the same for what would be needed to bring XP (or P#D) up to match MSFS's visuals.

[mtaxp 666]

5 minutes ago, DylanM said:

riiight...😆

Care for sharing your tech knowledge?

4 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Useless comparison until LR delivers.

As of now it looks very bad comparatively. MSFS delivers lot of fps as well, when you make it look like XP.

Sorry performance are a shame to compare in my system at least, Vulkan beats DX11 by far in this case, native VR performance achieved.

With better features for graphics, new hardware tech is also used, so better graphics in many cases does *not* mean less fps. 

So for clouds, in xp they are ugly 2d "blocks" that are always repeated to make a volume; this is the legacy way, for legacy hardware. Todays clouds engines mostly live on the strong capeable gpus hence performance might be even better than the ugly previously.

For lightning, RTX tech works the same, has their own place on the gpu, can be done while a rasterization (what we mostly know as PBR) is done on another part of the gpu, the final scene is a hybrid ray tracing and PBR, with not so much fps hit.

Those are a couple of examples. This is just how rendering engine tech works and evolves.

Now, dont forget that xp/p3d are under a newer gen api, which obviously come with better features than dx11, both now work on a threaded safe environment, much less cpu overhead.

XP/P3D are in a bit frustrating spot here since they work on their graphics jump, it's just msfs released earlier, but I bet next major versions of both might surprise you all. 

[canuk_22 24]

4 hours ago, Novation said:

Then why are they here? 🙄

maybe because they feel ripped off?

[DylanC 181]

2 hours ago, RobJC said:

I was afraid this thread was a bad idea. 

Not at all.  Great topic.  I felt/feel the same way.  Loved P3D, but I'm spoiled now.  

[mtaxp 666]

21 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Unfortunately this claim falls apart the second you turn on shadows and reflections in XP.  Was a long time xplane user prior to MSFS and was very proud of my orthos and custom world2xp along with numerous addons so I do know what I'm talking about here.  You can pick at a lot in MSFS, but to claim you get better performance in XP with anything that remotely resembles what the new sim is giving is just not correct.

Its also a bit of a stretch to claim that adjusting performance tables, correcting some pages on the MFDs and Garmin panels is harder than rebuilding a lighting engine and finding someway to match the streaming of petabytes of data to represent the world.  You only need to see the evidence that a team of freeware modders have already done with the A320.  Their work is remarkable, but its also within the reach of a small team of unpaid volunteers.  I don't think you can say the same for what would be needed to bring XP  (or P#D) up to match MSFS's visuals.

Sorry you totaly lost me since you talk about garmin? MFD? ehat does this has to do with the rendering engine?

Rewriting the rendering engine to work on Vulkan from opengl, is a much harder thing to than introducing new graphics, in fact in Vulkan they can do that MUCH faster and in earnest

Have you tried x-plane 11.50? Shadows and reflections are cpu bound, so in Vulkan less cpu bound I have no noticeable fps hit. I have ryzen3600x, clearly not a top range cpu rather a med-end modern one with enough cores. I also run max objects and flying LAX with a custom scenery with 45 fps.

Edited September 23, 2020 by mtaxp

[tweekz 2,165]

11 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

XP/P3D are in a bit frustrating spot here since they work on their graphics jump, it's just msfs released earlier, but I bet next major versions of both might surprise you all. 

There is visual fidelity that doesn't rely on graphics APIs, like scenery streaming. MS can stream in orthos or just update the whole planet. This is a huge advantage in terms of flexibility.

Sure XP will look great with version 12, but it will be too late to the party. I guess within a year the MSFS addon eco system will start rolling. Furthermore MS plays on a different level in terms of public marketing. The market shift is already in progress and that affects what platform 3PDs focus on.

I think XP can do what it wants, it will not continue the growth of the past two years, where it was on a path of becoming #1 sim.

Edited September 23, 2020 by tweekz

[ThrottleUp 630]

3 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

To be fair, a majority of the mountain is in the form of 2 petabytes of satellite imagery and photogrammetry that we are given access by way of azure servers and the internet.

If you turn off online mode completely you see what the sim looks like "without it's makeup".  

The tech is no doubt amazing (streaming in sat images and AI autogen) however I have never been a fan of photo-scenery (flattened 2d images ruin my immersion) and Im really curious about Offline Mode, will look for some YouTubes.

Edited September 23, 2020 by ThrottleUp