51 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

 

That looks just like XP11 with Enhanced Cloudscapes.

As the developer of Enhanced Cloudscapes, I can't say the same. Clouds? Maybe, but sky colors, haze, fog and aerial perspective just doesn't look as good in X-Plane. Not surprising though, as X-Plane currently uses sky color textures and lookup tables to calculate sun color, ambient color etc. while trueSKY in Prepar3D uses atmospheric scattering equations with physical Rayleigh and Mie scattering coefficients to calculate them. I hope Laminar Research similarly goes with trueSKY.

Also the point of the post was to show the difference better lighting & atmospherics can make, not to compare it to anything.

Lastly, I'm still working on a similar thing for the future Enhanced Cloudscapes.

Edited January 26, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

1 hour ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Also the point of the post was to show the difference better lighting & atmospherics can make, not to compare it to anything.

I 100% agree with this... You can take a fairly basic 3D model and put it in MFS and it will just look good due to the environment lighting, SSAO etc... the same object in X-Plane would look pretty plastic and bland in comparison.

Once XP gets this, everything (including older airports, regions, orthos etc,) will get an instant upgrade.

 

7 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

I said it looks like a different simulator, not became a different simulator 😛

Weather is the same, time of day is the same, the only difference is trueSKY. You can see the difference in lighting, shading, sky and aerial perspective.

Maybe just using "different simulator" excessively loosly?

To me thats like waking up on a snow day and thinking you might be in a new universe than when you went to bed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

Or maybe I am missing your point, and you are just reflecting on those people who think msfs has better scenery?

Edited January 26, 20215 yr by mSparks

21 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

As the developer of Enhanced Cloudscapes, I can't say the same. Clouds? Maybe, but sky colors, haze, fog and aerial perspective just doesn't look as good in X-Plane. Not surprising though, as X-Plane currently uses sky color textures and lookup tables to calculate sun color, ambient color etc. while trueSKY in Prepar3D uses atmospheric scattering equations with physical Rayleigh and Mie scattering coefficients to calculate them. I hope Laminar Research similarly goes with trueSKY.

As the developer of ECC, I maintain my point that you're much too perfectionist and self-critical. Also, I don't understand why TrueSky is regarded as the ultimate godsend for better skies when its SDK draws nothing but complaints. FlightGear, on the other hand, calculates its atmopsherics via scattering code and combines it with localized weather patterns (but 2D clouds), but it's open source and as much a valid inspiration or foundation as anything.

Also I haven't seen Laminar license any third party technologies (like SpeedTree and TrueSky for P3D) so far, so I deem it very unlikely that an external solution will be used in XP12.

 

Quote

Also the point of the post was to show the difference better lighting & atmospherics can make, not to compare it to anything.

So the look went from FSX to X-Plane.

 

Quote

Lastly, I'm still working on a similar thing for the future Enhanced Cloudscapes.

I know.

Edited January 27, 20215 yr by Bjoern

22 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

Followed the I-95 corridor past DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia then up the Hudson past the Mario Cuomo (formerly Tappan Zee) bridge then the Saw Mill Pkwy through Westchester.  It looked exactly as I remember and landmarks were easily viewed well into the horizon.  And what was so cool was that the buildlngs were the real thing - my old house in Rockville, MD was my house, not just a generic box. 

exactly the same applied to XP11 3 years ago, its nothing special...

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/136225-xplane-1111r1-realism/

22 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

Maybe you just need better hardware?

32GBRAM, AMD 5900X and RTX3070 what would you recommend I upgrade?

22 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

my point is that if you want to get a true apples to apples comparison, you have to add a lot more to xp and you wont be getting the 60fps you're fond of. 

My point is I'm getting 120fps in XP11.51 and not complaining, yet I've not seen anyone even break past triple digits in MSFS.

22 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

Its interesting that you'ld knock msfs for VFR navigation.  If anything THAT is what it excels at.

Its the only thing it does half OK, only half because no VORs/NDBs to practice VFR flight accuracy (getting to the right place at exactly the right time), the NYC bridge you posted in the distance looks like a dam, no powerlines etc etc. Its interesting that you claim to have done tons of VFR navigation and yet neglect to mention these issues.

All things XP11 gets 100% right and has done for years. Therefore, not something for Laminar to think about for the future.

 

 

Edited January 27, 20215 yr by mSparks

Just to be clear, XP11 does indeed use equations for rayleigh and mie scattering. It uses a sort of mixed approach, complementing the scattering equations with lookup textures to draw skydome and determine ambient lighting, etc. The scattering equations are mainly used for scenery illumination (terrain, objects, etc.).

I think this mixed approach is not ideal, infact it produces multiple issues and does not look as good as e.g. MFS. Hopefully it will improve in XP12.

EDIT: I might add that MFS lighting also has its own limitations in realism. Its sunsets always have very dramatic colors, and I couldn't get close to the actual lighting that I experience in real life at sunsets/sunrises where I live. In this regard, the old FSX method of sky+lighting textures was actually more versatile and tweakable. So atmospheric lighting is not an easy matter to tackle.

Edited January 27, 20215 yr by Murmur

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

So the look went from FSX to X-Plane.

Just by changing the atmospherics. It's incredible what good lighting and atmospherics can do.

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

As the developer of ECC, I maintain my point that you're much too perfectionist and self-critical. Also, I don't understand why TrueSky is regarded as the ultimate godsend for better skies when its SDK draws nothing but complaints. FlightGear, on the other hand, calculates its atmopsherics via scattering code and combines it with localized weather patterns (but 2D clouds), but it's open source and as much a valid inspiration or foundation as anything.

I won't deny I'm too perfectionist, but I still just can't find Enhanced Cloudscapes comparable to commercial products like xEnviro or trueSKY. While I don't deny trueSKY and the issues I've experienced with its SDK, I believe it's because I'm a single indie developer who tried to use a really uncommon API. I am sure Laminar Research would get a completely different treatment. FlightGear's atmospherics are similarly nice, which indeed looks much better than X-Plane's sky colors.

2 hours ago, Bjoern said:

I know.

Just wanted to let people know 😛

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

Just to be clear, XP11 does indeed use equations for rayleigh and mie scattering. It uses a sort of mixed approach, complementing the scattering equations with lookup textures to draw skydome and determine ambient lighting, etc. The scattering equations are mainly used for scenery illumination (terrain, objects, etc.).

I think this mixed approach is not ideal, infact it produces multiple issues and does not look as good as e.g. MFS. Hopefully it will improve in XP12.

EDIT: I might add that MFS lighting also has its own limitations in realism. Its sunsets always have very dramatic colors, and I couldn't get close to the actual lighting that I experience in real life at sunsets/sunrises where I live. In this regard, the old FSX method of sky+lighting textures was actually more versatile and tweakable. So atmospheric lighting is not an easy matter to tackle.

X-Plane indeed uses Rayleigh and Mie scattering equations only for scenery illumination. However, the rest are still acquired using lookup tables. It wouldn't be a serious issue, but the lookup table has a painfully low resolution. Lastly, other than saturation, I can say MSFS sky colors are quite close to real life, especially at daytime. For sunset and sunrise Rayleigh coefficients need slight adjustment, but overall it's quite nice and even takes multiple scattering into account.

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

exactly the same applied to XP11 3 years ago, its nothing special...

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/136225-xplane-1111r1-realism/

32GBRAM, AMD 5900X and RTX3070 what would you recommend I upgrade?

My point is I'm getting 120fps in XP11.51 and not complaining, yet I've not seen anyone even break past triple digits in MSFS.

Its the only thing it does half OK, only half because no VORs/NDBs to practice VFR flight accuracy (getting to the right place at exactly the right time), the NYC bridge you posted in the distance looks like a dam, no powerlines etc etc. Its interesting that you claim to have done tons of VFR navigation and yet neglect to mention these issues.

All things XP11 gets 100% right and has done for years. Therefore, not something for Laminar to think about for the future.

 

 

We will forever agree to disagree.  I think your  xplane images look like something from a PS2.  But if that’s fine for your taste then all the power to you.

You’re definitely not really pushing your system much with such generic imagery out of xplane.  The bigger story would be if you DIDN’T get 120fps with such low demands on your rig.

Soon as xplane can get global shadows, reflections, volumetric clouds and a modern lighting model working and the textures of the actual buildings being represented we can run the test again.  Til then the conversation is pretty pointless.

3 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

I think your  xplane images look like something from a PS2.

You should've seen what the world looked like when I did my PPL exam

https://www.thinkaviation.net/levels-of-vfr-ifr-explained/

Quote

3.  Marginal VFR (MVFR): Ceilings 1,000 to 3,000 feet and/or visibility is 3-5 miles inclusive.

MVFR = 1000-3000′ and/or 3-5 miles

This is when VFR pilots kill themselves all the time.If you haven’t flown in MVFR, ask a CFII to take you up so you can scare the sh@*t out of yourself.

But yeah, that was XP11.11, it has got much better in the last 3 years, both in looks, flight model and performance, back then I was struggling to get more than 20fps. Now I'm never less than 60fps in VR with:

So, if MSFS had Helicopters what would that look like (Dobanovci heliport, just west of LYBE to the right of the two water towers)

Edited January 28, 20215 yr by mSparks

16 hours ago, mSparks said:

 

So, if MSFS had Helicopters what would that look like (Dobanovci heliport, just west of LYBE to the right of the two water towers)

That would require the same custom scenery being put in the same spot on MSFS, since your XP shot i assume is not vanilla (judging from the trees, the objects placements and so on)

Edited January 28, 20215 yr by Pastaiolo

17 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

Soon as xplane can get global shadows, reflections, volumetric clouds and a modern lighting model working and the textures of the actual buildings being represented we can run the test again.  Til then the conversation is pretty pointless.

So we should expect no performance hit as volumetric clouds and modern lighting are GPU intensive tasks, which xplane is not yet.

global shadows and reflections..well xplane does that now, but will be much better when:

Quote

Once we finish rendering features, we can pivot back to performance and push hard on multicore. The next multicore goal is to be able to render multiple views in parallel using multiple cores. Parallel rendering has several benefits:

• An X-Plane frame often has sub-views rendered to form the main view (e.g. shadows, water reflections, cube maps, in-cockpit cameras, etc.). Any concurrency we expose makes the sim faster in these scenarios, and they are common.
• Right now while multi-monitor is possible with X-Plane, it is very expensive performance-wise. Having a frame that can be farmed out to multiple cores would make multi-monitor less of a performance hit.

which is currently not possible in MSFS, reminder, dx11 only.

lastly, some contradiction there, photogrammetry has NO: reflections, ambient occlusion, emissive maps or any form of a modern PBR.

so MSFS currently looks better but IMO it's only due to lighting which is an industry-standart, this tech is available in earnest and not MSFS exclusive, in fact Vulkan xplane has better ways to go with Global Illumination in the future, better than dx11. the same applies for vegetation.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Pastaiolo said:

That would require the same custom scenery being put in the same spot on MSFS, since your XP shot i assume is not vanilla (judging from the trees, the objects placements and so on)

really?

wow, even that XP11.11 video flying around it was was basically default scenery, all i really did was add some trees and a default hanger to default with WED. How bad is it? Completely missing?

 

Edited January 28, 20215 yr by mSparks

43 minutes ago, akita said:

so MSFS currently looks better but IMO it's only due to lighting which is an industry-standart, this tech is available in earnest and not MSFS exclusive, in fact Vulkan xplane has better ways to go with Global Illumination in the future, better than dx11. the same applies for vegetation.

You can see an example of MFS scenery taken outside the context of the sim here (i.e. No fancy lighting etc):

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/bgldec-a-resample-bgl-decompressor.433789/post-871288

I don't like photogrammetry much and have it turned off in MFS as it looks low quality, blocky and just out of place to me. I much prefer the generated AI cities.

 

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

really?

wow, even that XP11.11 video flying around it was was basically default scenery, all i really did was add some trees and a default hanger to default with WED. How bad is it? Completely missing?

 

It is absurd to try to claim that default X-Plane can compare to MS2020 visually? With regard to the trees turn on shadows and look up close.

Edited January 28, 20215 yr by jarmstro