Future of X-plane

[Humpty 751]

4 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

I doubt it, xplane 11 is the test bed for 12, they wont go into 12 til they are sure some thing work it would be very foolish of them to do so, Vulkan still has more work though its really good as it is

The point is what Greazer wants would not be included in XP11.  

[mSparks 2,090]

3 hours ago, HumptyDumpty said:

 the cycle of XP11 is almost to an end.

Because there isn't much more to do here:

No/very few bugs, high FPS, lots of high quality aircraft freeware and payware.

But its more complicated than that. Its going to be a while before there is a stable version of the new version, until then XP11 is the flight simulator. Until now people were still considering FSX as comparable with the above, right now they think MSFS can somehow compete.....

Its going to be a long while until a new version of Xplane replaces XP11. XP11 only just now replaces XP10....

Edited January 24, 2021 by mSparks

[Anxu00 176]

On 1/21/2021 at 11:58 AM, Greazer said:

The priority for XP is:

1. Fix the half finished Vulkan port and all the issues that currently exist. And fix performance to what it should be for Vulkan API.  We have multi core for about 15 years or more by now!

2. Fix all the previous Open GL issues and graphics bugs (sudden weather redraws, cloud flickering, jagged shadows, sudden brightness changes etc etc).

3. Fix HDR and make sliders to improve color, contrast, brightness and ability tweak the shader settings etc. Should not have to go after market for everything!

4. Make XP world look proper at ground level (grass, dirt, trees, animations, people). Make proper environment engine (no sound "loop").

5. Create a proper weather engine with seamless transitions etc.

6. Sync ATIS with (injected) weather and (injected) Traffic and ATC.

I second this.  Fix what has not been finished first.  Another major version without real reasons would just cause more churns with the 3rd party market.  I can only so many upgrades with more promises without real delivery.  The number one priority should just be to max out performance first.  Unless one has nothing else to do but upgrading one's sim, the sim experience should be the focus.  There are still 3rd party developers that don't even fully support 11.50 and Vulcan yet, let alone another version, which leave me as the buyer of such add-on frustrate and wonder why the heck what I bought still does not work right still.

[Janov 2,383]

I like to think of X-Plane as a piece of software under continuous development and improvement. Yes, we do have distinct version numbers that coincide with major development steps...but there is still major development going on even within a version (VR, Vulkan, etc.).

Often a new version starts out as a public beta, still full of bugs and inconsistencies. Then there is a phase of stabilization - and then some smaller feature additions with their beta and bug-fix cycles.

I think X-Plane has never been "perfect", as in free of bugs and completely working as designed. There is a level of "close enough" - like right now we have with Vulkan - which means it works acceptably well for most users.

There are few users that would prefer "housekeeping" (fixing minor bugs) over the addition of something new and shiny. People get used to small niggles, but something new and shiny (VR, Vulkan, new flightmodel) is giving LR much better press and user satisfaction.

X-Plane 11 is now at a stage where it will not gain any new features - there will be a few more patches to fix stuff like Vulkan DLE and the handcontrollers for the ReverbG2, maybe another Gateway airport injection, but that should be it.

So technically you could say that X-Plane 11 is now "complete" - but of course X-Plane itself isn´t complete (and hopefully never will be)

 

[mSparks 2,090]

4 hours ago, Anxu00 said:

I second this.  Fix what has not been finished first.  Another major version without real reasons would just cause more churns with the 3rd party market.  I can only so many upgrades with more promises without real delivery.  The number one priority should just be to max out performance first.  Unless one has nothing else to do but upgrading one's sim, the sim experience should be the focus.  There are still 3rd party developers that don't even fully support 11.50 and Vulcan yet, let alone another version, which leave me as the buyer of such add-on frustrate and wonder why the heck what I bought still does not work right still.

I'll "un second it", because

1. Actually no, Microsoft introduced native application multithreading support in 2018 and its still an optional install, before that applications were using multithreading ported over from linux and hacked on, much like windows still hacks on 64bit support to a fundamentally 32bit operating system, unfortunately they have had to support windows for financial reasons and its held everything back - pthreads has been a linux thing since 1995 - that's 26 years.

2. Throw openGL in the trash as quickly as possible, it has more horrible baggage than trailer trash with a history of suicide attempts and a heroin addiction. No one should have to play in that cesspit.

3. next XP version, this is currently practically impossible because of 2.

4. No one works for free.

5. NOAA and EC are just fine thanks, and will do for a few more years yet until the oiks get off Windows 7 and GPUs with less horsepower than a Ford model T

6. 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by mSparks

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

9 hours ago, mSparks said:

Because there isn't much more to do here:

No/very few bugs, high FPS, lots of high quality aircraft freeware and payware.

But its more complicated than that. Its going to be a while before there is a stable version of the new version, until then XP11 is the flight simulator. Until now people were still considering FSX as comparable with the above, right now they think MSFS can somehow compete.....

Its going to be a long while until a new version of Xplane replaces XP11. XP11 only just now replaces XP10....

To be fair, these images really show how much ground Xplane needs to make up if you are talking about the imagery alone (i.e. leaving discussions of who has the better flight model or the need for "eye candy" in their appropriate discussion "silos.")

Its not really apples to apples to compare these screen shots and then discuss FPS performance in comparison with MSFS.  These look decent, but seem 4-5 years+ out of date.  There are screen shots in these forums from MSFS that look nearly photographic because MSFS can handle full shadows, reflections, and atmospheric effects that X-Plane cannot without a serious degradation of performance.  I used X-Plane religiously since v10 and know this first hand.  I've also used VR in both sims.  With X-plane 11.5 vulcan - with full orthos, shadows on full, reflections on max, in NYC I'd be lucky to keep 18-23fps on a top end rig.  I just finished a vr flight a few minutes ago in MSFS with all settings on High (and a few Ultra) in vr and was somewhere between 30 and 40fps, looking much better than the best i was able to achieve in xplane.  I was even able to park the camera on the balcony of a building I lived in while I was in NYC - was pretty amazing .... and yeah, thats important to me, whether that makes me a 'gamer' or not.

120fps with the images you show above is great, but these seem to compare to the output from MSFS's if you reduced all of the settings to "low" in terms of detail.  In fact with regards to shadows, I'm not sure if you can even reduce this far even at low.   If you could, I think you'ld easily match these frame rates, but presumably, if you are using MSFS, you are more interested in the imagery anyway so you probably wouldnt want to.

X-Plane is still a great piece of software and does what it does very well.  I still fire it up occasionally for helicopter flights, but less and less lately.  I'm willing to spend my time in GA and take advantage of FBW and WT mods to the A320 and CRJ whiile MSFS continues to improve.  To each their own of course 🙂

[mSparks 2,090]

3 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

Its not really apples to apples to compare these screen shots

They are both xplane 11 shots.. I wasnt comparing, I was just saying there is nothing crying out to be done in either. (and that it looks fine at VR framerates)

3 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

show how much ground Xplane needs to make up if you are talking about the imagery alone

Meanwhile, in the real world.

TBH, the scenery there makes XP10 look good, wth are those lights on the taxiway?. In fact, no need to answer that, because they speak for themselves.

_______

3 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

With X-plane 11.5 vulcan - with full orthos, shadows on full, reflections on max, in NYC I'd be lucky to keep 18-23fps on a top end rig

Challenge accepted,

freeware btw

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/41479-new-york-city-vfr/

http://www.dmax3d.com/dmax3d/eurofighter.html

Edited January 25, 2021 by mSparks

[Greazer 1,336]

10 hours ago, Janov said:

So technically you could say that X-Plane 11 is now "complete" 

Kindof looking for the down vote button here Janov. Go back and read the Team blog posts. The plan all along was for performance optimization at the end. Many users, Nvidia users with 1080 or 2080 etc, are seeing lower FPS than OpenGL version. Since MSFS was released there was a mad rush to finish Vulkan and move on. They totally skipped performance optimization and bug fixing. So we have a half finished Vulkan port. No it's not even close to "complete".

Edited January 25, 2021 by Greazer

[mjrhealth 822]

1 hour ago, Greazer said:

hey totally skipped performance optimization and bug fixing

And you know that because ......

[1st fltsimguy 466]

3 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

With X-plane 11.5 vulcan - with full orthos, shadows on full, reflections on max, in NYC I'd be lucky to keep 18-23fps on a top end rig. 

Yes exactly.  I get very good performance with my setup outside of vast urban areas though.  Not uncommon to see 30,40 and even 60-70 frames.

But because the default visuals and even with some payware and freeware addons the out the window GA flying is poor unless you are doing what I do which is like you posted, full orthos with overlays and full on objects, shadows and reflections. 

There is much to do still.

[GoranM 3,772]

3 hours ago, Greazer said:

Many users, Nvidia users with 1080 or 2080 etc, are seeing lower FPS than OpenGL version.

Source?

3 hours ago, Greazer said:

Since MSFS was released there was a mad rush to finish Vulkan and move on. They totally skipped performance optimization and bug fixing.

Source?

3 hours ago, Greazer said:

So we have a half finished Vulkan port. 

Evidence?  Benchmarks?  LR statements?

 

I don't know where you're getting these statements from, but on my Windows PC, I get 40fps under OpenGL and 75-80fps under Vulkan when running the TBM.

On my Mac, under OpenGL, I get 30-35 fps and under Metal, I get 60-65 fps.  My Windows PC is more powerful than my Mac.  

Just about every post I've seen in forums, reddit, facebook, people are reporting dramatic increases in performance under Vulkan and Metal.

I've asked you before to post your log file so I can personally take a look and see what could be slowing down your system.  You never did.  

3rd party plugins can very easily slow down your PC if it's running Vulkan, because some plugins are not compatible with Vulkan.  

You are making too many broad statements with nothing at all to back them up.

And I am more than willing to post screenshots of my fps under Vulkan/Metal/OpenGL.

 

2 hours ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

But because the default visuals and even with some payware and freeware addons the out the window GA flying is poor unless you are doing what I do which is like you posted, full orthos with overlays and full on objects, shadows and reflections. 

Your PC specs?

[mjrhealth 822]

I get 38 FPS with wall to wall volumetric clouds, but thats only because the SSG 170 FMS is very FPS hunger takes anywhere between 7 and 16

 

 

[Janov 2,383]

4 hours ago, Greazer said:

Go back and read the Team blog posts. The plan all along was for performance optimization at the end. Many users, Nvidia users with 1080 or 2080 etc, are seeing lower FPS than OpenGL version.

You misunderstood those blog posts (which, I might say, does not surprise me, given your posting history 😆).

First, the intial goal for the move to Vulkan was to achieve identical visuals with no performance loss. This has been achieved.

There are - as with every update - some sporadic reports (= outraged rants on various forums, much less detailed bug reports to LR) from people that somehow mess up their installations/hardware or BELIEVE that they got less fps. To this date there is no entry in the X-Plane bugbase to follow up on a Vulkan fps degradation, because simply no user has been able to provide hard evidence that this is happening (apart from swearing on their mother/car/dog/barbecue that they are REALLY seeing this 😁 ).

Second, the part that you misunderstood, is that Vulkan OPENS up the path to performance optimization, especially new rendering techniques and multicore usage. This was not part of the move to Vulkan, but a motivation to do it.

[1st fltsimguy 466]

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

Source?

Source?

Evidence?  Benchmarks?  LR statements?

 

I don't know where you're getting these statements from, but on my Windows PC, I get 40fps under OpenGL and 75-80fps under Vulkan when running the TBM.

On my Mac, under OpenGL, I get 30-35 fps and under Metal, I get 60-65 fps.  My Windows PC is more powerful than my Mac.  

Just about every post I've seen in forums, reddit, facebook, people are reporting dramatic increases in performance under Vulkan and Metal.

I've asked you before to post your log file so I can personally take a look and see what could be slowing down your system.  You never did.  

3rd party plugins can very easily slow down your PC if it's running Vulkan, because some plugins are not compatible with Vulkan.  

You are making too many broad statements with nothing at all to back them up.

And I am more than willing to post screenshots of my fps under Vulkan/Metal/OpenGL.

 

Your PC specs?

INTEL® CORE™ I7-6700K Processor 8M Cache 4GHZ Base 4.2GHZ Turbo FC-LGA1151 Retail Box Skylake
Corsair Cooling Hydro Series H100I V2 CPU Cooler System LGA1151
ASUS Z170-A ATX LGA1151 Z170 Skylake DDR4 3PCI-E16 3PCI-E1 1PCI CrossFireX/SLI USB3.1 Motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series F4-2133C15D-16GVR DDR4 2133MHZ 32GB(8GBX4)
Corsair 850WATT 12V Power Supply Unit
ASUS GeForce Turbo-GTX1080TI 11GB GDDR5X Graphics Card 11Gig

[GoranM 3,772]

2 hours ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

INTEL® CORE™ I7-6700K Processor 8M Cache 4GHZ Base 4.2GHZ Turbo FC-LGA1151 Retail Box Skylake
Corsair Cooling Hydro Series H100I V2 CPU Cooler System LGA1151
ASUS Z170-A ATX LGA1151 Z170 Skylake DDR4 3PCI-E16 3PCI-E1 1PCI CrossFireX/SLI USB3.1 Motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series F4-2133C15D-16GVR DDR4 2133MHZ 32GB(8GBX4)
Corsair 850WATT 12V Power Supply Unit
ASUS GeForce Turbo-GTX1080TI 11GB GDDR5X Graphics Card 11Gig

Not the most powerful CPU.  Definitely wouldn't want to crank up the details with that system.  Could use more RAM.