9 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I can't help admiring the developers though! Sheer genius which has scored them a new Ferrari and more. 

Which they probably won't be able to afford to keep, when factoring in maintenance, registration and insurance.  They can have a little fun with this money, but it will be very short lived.  And with a very limited skill set (on a scale of 1-10, they wouldn't score very high), they won't get very far when the big players come to the party.

11 hours ago, mSparks said:

For the first time, among the most popular games of 2019/2020 was a VR title (Beat Saber), so why would you think it doesn't?

Nice way to avoid the question. Do flight sim users (XP, MSFS, P3D...the broader market) prefer "better looking clouds that extend to the horizon with good performance" or "VR"?

You can throw up vids all you want to avoid the answer...this is a clear pattern for you.

11 hours ago, mSparks said:

VR is the future, but yeah, right now not really for poor people or people who don't care about flight sim.

Too bad XP can't seem to get past much more than VR to be relevant in the future to  address the desires of the broader market.

"poor folk or people who don't care about flight sim"....you need to have real conversations (not deflecting and avoiding) with more folk to broaden your horizons with respect to "preferences" and "acceptance of the fact" that people will not always agree with you. Labeling them to make yourself feel better (about your own opinions) isn't the answer.

 

 

18 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Which they probably won't be able to afford to keep, when factoring in maintenance, registration and insurance.  They can have a little fun with this money, but it will be very short lived.  And with a very limited skill set (on a scale of 1-10, they wouldn't score very high), they won't get very far when the big players come to the party.

I don't doubt what you say. But there's still something to be said for making hay when the sun shines. 😀 Actually I expect we will see something similar from them before too long which won't sell and then they will fade into obscurity.

6 hours ago, mSparks said:

Ask me again when helicopters are available in VR on xbox, due 2022 by Asobos timetable.

At least one can ask Asobo, get an answer and a timetable through Asobo's commitment to engage with its users, and continuously /f requently update and add features (like VR) to their sim.

Where is LR's timetable, or official announcement for that matter? Oh wait...you go on to say...

6 hours ago, mSparks said:

Laminar haven't even officially announced a new version of XPlane yet, we're all just assuming based on gut feeling, rumour and by trying to read between the lines

Yep, that's just what the broader flight sim market is looking for...mystery. And not answers.

10 hours ago, Janov said:

X-Plane will be fine. MSFS will be more successfull in numbers, but X-Plane will have enough people purchasing it to make it commercially viable.

And yet, a mod in this forum once claimed that LR uses mobile funds for the PC platform. Considering the money that XP lost in its mobile legal fight for copyright...there can many "uneducated" guesses (including my own) at just how fine the financials are at LR.

10 hours ago, Janov said:

I would say the difference is factor 10 at least (salaries/shareholder ROI/server costs).

Is that an "educated" guess?

10 hours ago, Janov said:

I know this concept is hard to grasp for some, but LR is not out to "win" the numbers game. There is a big difference between "quality" and "appeal". You need to be educated about a subject to see quality, however 😉.

And know he uses the word "educated"...

I don't know much about clouds, but I can see them out to the horizon. Let me know when LR has put that type of cloud quality into their sim. Or even announce it for the alleged XP12.

I am sure you will then see the "relationship" between quality and appeal.

10 hours ago, Janov said:

X-Plane was fine when FSX was the hottest item, the disparity in graphics was AT LEAST as stark as it is today between X-Plane 11 and MSFS, yet X-Plane was commercially viable then as well (even without the mobile market).

 

The disparity in graphics today is like nothing before...even considering the world being modeled in MSFS. But I get it...to those uneducated guys who prefer a "real" world rendered over a "plausible" one, "quality" isn't on their mind.

10 hours ago, Janov said:

So you can predict doom and gloom for X-Plane all you want. It was fine without PMDG before, it was fine without OrbX before and it will be fine without satellite streamed scenery in the future. Not as successfull as MSFS, but fine.

Let me know when you think that hype train will start slowing down...

(I mean it should have already considering the "uphill" battles I keep hearing about with bugs, no real flight model, no complex planes, just eye-candly, didn't meet expectations etc.).

....for the "announcement" of XP12.

 

 

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by FlyBaby

13 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

Let me know when LR has put that type of cloud quality into their sim.

Q.E.D. 😂

19 hours ago, RXP said:

In the latest Navigraph survey I believe I've read 20% have a headset, 10% are using it regularly for simming. It seems low at first, but when comparing with Steam's stats which is around 2.5% IIRC, it is not bad at all.

I think it's great that XP supports VR and does it well, but it's just a tiny slice of the user base. I don't think arguments about VR superiority matter that much when the uptake is so small.

LR has an X-Plane Usage Data dashboard that automatically surveys what users are doing (if you opt in, so it's not 100%). That dashboard currently shows only 6% of XP users have flown in VR, and 94% are using 2D monitors. I expect the numbers are similar for MSFS.

The VR community is very vocal and somewhat over-represented in forum discussions, due to their enthusiasm which is understandable. But I think the tech has to get better and cheaper before the uptake for flight sims gets much past the 10% level.

One persistent barrier to VR uptake is that sims keep increasing the eye candy with each new release, and users add 3rd party products that increase the demand even further. Which means you have to upgrade your CPU or at least the GPU to get smooth, flyable frame rates on a 2D monitor. VR adds a performance burden on top of all that, which means some of us are constantly chasing a system profile that's just a little behind what it would take for VR. .
 

14 hours ago, jarmstro said:

VR is tempting. But surely no one can keep it on for hours and hours during a fight in, say, a 737? What is there to pass the time? Or maybe they do? But then, if you take it off how do you keep an eye on things?I'm guessing it's more suitable for those who prefer VFR? I do have a TrackIR thing somewhere but don't bother with it.

I expect that when I do finally get a VR system I'll use the same way I use TrackIR now on a two hour FSEconomy flight. I'll enable it for takeoffs up to cruise, then disable it during time-accelerated cruise while I do other stuff like web browsing. Then I'll use it again for the landing. I don't imagine myself wearing the face brick for more than 15-20 minutes at a time, unless it's something else like a VR-enabled air combat sim or spaceship combat game.

 

 

3 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

Nice way to avoid the question. Do flight sim users (XP, MSFS, P3D...the broader market) prefer "better looking clouds that extend to the horizon with good performance" or "VR"?

?

VR, thats easy

you are literally asking if generally people would prefer a 2d picture of a plane draped in eye candy on their wall, or to sit in the cockpit of a 747 or any aircraft any time they feel like it. No contest.

Why would you think the former is what people prefer?

I suppose it does kinda depend on the eye candy, the kind of eye candy that would get you very banned from avsim might be quite tempting, but even that is waaay better in VR.

 

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by mSparks

32 minutes ago, mSparks said:

"better looking clouds that extend to the horizon with good performance" or "VR"?

I'm sorry but I don't see why we'd have to choose one or the other. ?!

In both XP11 and FS2020 I can see clouds extending to the horizon. Sure they look better in most cases in FS2020 (I don't use the 3D volumetric plugin for XP11, didn't try yet), but in any case what matters to me is that they are convincing enough for the purpose of the flight I'm doing. What I mean is that as long as they are obstructing my sight in IFR, or they are present enough to avoiding them in VFR.

Having said this, there is nothing revolutionary in FS2020 clouds either. It is well known video game programming techniques, using documented pixel shader code based on known theories, which for the matter of drawing clouds have a cohort of thesis and publications exposing how to optimizing it. I don't see anything in FS2020 cloud rendering which is any different or "unique" from the latest known techniques. What they can do though, which the XP11 plugin can't, is optimizations due to embedding the 3D clouds rendering as a component of the overall rendering, not as a post-processing overlay (clouds are properly drawn behind features/mountains due to the Z buffer test, but the plugin is painting them after the rest). Maybe, to Asobo's credit, they have certainly optimized spreading the computations on multiple frames in an efficient way, but again, this is also mostly due to having clouds rendering code inter-mixed with the overall rendering code. There is no reason to believing XP12 couldn't have as good looking clouds, especially Ben Supnick is far from being an i d. i o t with these matters.

There is no denial to me (others my not agree with this and I'm fine) some of the technology they have developed for rendering terrain is really well done. The AI generated autogen is working, producing convincing results whatever the region of the world, and this makes a difference. Their artistic department is also doing a fine job with these assets which I find "blending" into the terrain in a way which doesn't look like being too much synthetic. Unfortunately the programming and the QA is lacking especially with regard to the LOD computations, which is ruining it. I've documented this a lot, revealing for example what I consider it a bug with the Terrain LOD slider using the square root of the value instead of the value in percent, and how this most likely is making the rendering diverging from hard-coded distance values in the rest of the code and therefore causing a lot of visuals problems with objects. There are a few others like this, and most likely related, like for example the objects LOD distance computations being wrong because the object at a certain distance would be appearing to the side at 45 deg, but disappear at a closer distance if viewed straight ahead (again sqrt(2) factor).

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by RXP

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

One persistent barrier to VR uptake is that sims keep increasing the eye candy with each new release, and users add 3rd party products that increase the demand even further. Which means you have to upgrade your CPU or at least the GPU to get smooth, flyable frame rates on a 2D monitor. VR adds a performance burden on top of all that, which means some of us are constantly chasing a system profile that's just a little behind what it would take for VR.

Actually it is more complex than this in my opinion, because there are a number of technologies in the VR stack which are helping better. For example, using similar settings, I can run FS2020 on my test system in 4K at about 45fps, and I can "only" run FS2020 in VR at about 24fps (before SU3, 18fps now) with an effective rendering resolution of about 2.2K x 2.4K per eye, prior VR post-processing (that is 2.2x2.4 FS2020 rendered pixels) [ in other words: TAA100 + SS124 ]

Before coming to me with pitchfork and shouting heresy 😄, I can assure you it is more fluid (let alone immersive) at 18fps in VR for a very simple reason: SteamVR motion smoothing is working very good in making these 18fps rendering at 90Hz, without any stuttering, and with the same level of details.

 

PS: Here is where I detail the hardware, settings, tips and know how:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/my-2070-super-vr-settings-and-suggestions-index-steamvr/321913/1?u=cptlucky8

NB: I've raised the FS2020 settings since this post but I've not published any update yet, waiting for SU4 (since SU3 is a performance failure). I'm now using TLOD 100, TexSS 4x4, Contact Shadows LOW, Reflections HIGH, Light Shafts HIGH

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by RXP

6 minutes ago, RXP said:

n both XP11 and FS2020 I can see clouds extending to the horizon.

How? I just can't see how to get round the miserable cloud draw distance in X-Plane? Addons I've tried that do tank my FPS beyond that which is playable. I'm sick of seeing no more than a puddle of cloud.

29 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

How?

I fly in them, so they block my view of the horizon! 😂

Or I just ignore them in the distance and focus on the closer perimeter. I've enough to be looking at with navigation, piloting, systems, I don't spend much time usually looking far away at "so much" a distance to be bothered by any lack of clouds. But in all honesty, I've never really be distracted by a lack of clouds in general in XP11 (and I maybe didn't really pay any particular attention to this aspect of the simulator either).

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by RXP

3 minutes ago, RXP said:

I fly in them! 😂

Really? For me they seem to blow off to one side before I can get inside them.....so, so realistic.

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by jarmstro

15 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Really

Yes really, but this is not the point: you can't compare a cloud rendering technology dating back from XP10 and never further expanded upon, from a cloud rendering technology dating back 5 years max in the literature, because in doing so, it is obviously certain one is better than the other. But since this topic is also about XP## future, what I'm trying to explain is there is nothing in the FS2020 clouds rendering XP12 can't do as well, because this is not a super exclusive and proprietary technology giving FS2020 any competitive advantage in itself. I wouldn't consider this a show stopper at any rate. It is not like the next Unreal 5 engine with its Nanite Virtualized Geometry:

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/a-first-look-at-unreal-engine-5

https://medium.com/xrlo-extended-reality-lowdown/unreal-engine-5-and-nanite-virtualized-geometry-what-does-it-mean-for-content-creators-b4106accd306

PS: actually I've been wondering for years why didn't they (LR, LM, MSFT) use Unreal for the rendering engine so that they can focus on the rest (customer engagement, core simulation engine, UI, etc...). I know there are licensing fees but in the overall scheme of things, I'm really wondering if this is the only reason or if these rendering engines were never up to the task for a flight simulator.

 

PS: I'm looking at Unreal 4.26 (latest right now?) and speaking of clouds to the horizon:

 

XP12 on the horizon?

 

 

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by RXP

Wow I didn't know this yet, look at the FS2020 water and cloud killer included in Unreal 4.26:

 

The only drawback for LR is that there is no Linux version. But there is Windows, macOs, IOS and Android.

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by RXP