1 hour ago, mSparks said:

You seem to think I'm in it for some kind of fight, I'm not, I'm just trying to explain why I dont find MSFS graphics that exciting - and also why any future XP12 with the same or better up close graphics are not the "huge" improvement people seem to think. They are nice to haves - not must haves.

VR.

Basically, its a balancing act for VR, you'll see in this video my FPS is stonking - but as soon as you go fully 3D you have to turn the settings down, I do this two ways - thin out the trees, and increase that LOD bias value. both have barely visible impact in VR (pretty significant in 2D tho), and keep my FPS in the "not make you puke" range in built up areas like NYC.

I'm back on fully default settings for this, so they are back.

On to the vid. I didn't go as high as 10 (should be obvious why in the video) - one of the things XP does very well is give important objects priority, So by 3 all the buildings have gone - but the bridge is still 100%. 10 would probably be what you would need to go up to for the bridge to go - but obviously a moot point.

I dragged in your MSFS shot just to make it easier to see what I am taking about.

No sound on the video.  I looks like you were pointing to all the places where XP needed more scenery to achieve a greater level of detail at the extreme distances?  No voiceover, so I'm assuming that's what you'ld have been talking about?

As for VR, 30fps is plenty for me not to feel any nausea.  Maybe I'm just more accustomed to it.  I'd rather see the trees in the park at 30fps than have to settle without them.  The good news is that I don't have to make those compromises in MSFS.

 

39 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

30fps is plenty for me not to feel any nausea

if you can live with this then great

personally it makes me nauseous trying to watch it even in 2D

39 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

detail at the extreme distances?

I'm pointing to where the obvious gaps are, and how by reducing it fps can be increased. doesn't need a voice over, its all visual., you and everyone else can see the fps timers for yourselves.

So MSFS is sacrificing the details you should be looking at in order to make details you cant see for the cockpit look nice: Not exciting, probably makes for a nice 10 or 15 seconds in a 2 hour flight when you turn onto final, at the expense of making the other 1 hour 59 minutes and 50 seconds look bland and featureless.

OTOH, at least that explains why all the MSFS videos are of people flying GTA5 third person style and spending half the time looking where they have been instead of where they are going.

Im afraid im gonna need some more convincing to get behind the idea that making xplane like that is a good idea.

 

Edited April 1, 20215 yr by mSparks

8 minutes ago, mSparks said:

if you can live with this then great

personally it makes me nauseous trying to watch it even in 2D

I'm pointing to where the obvious gaps are, and how by reducing it fps can be increased. doesn't need a voice over, its all visual., you and everyone else can see the fps timers for yourselves.

So MSFS is sacrificing the details you should be looking at in order to make details you cant see for the cockpit look nice: Not exciting, probably makes for a nice 10 or 15 seconds in a 2 hour flight when you turn onto final, at the expense of making the other 1 hour 59 minutes and 50 seconds look bland and featureless.

OTOH, at least that explains why all the MSFS videos are of people flying GTA5 third person style and spending half the time looking where they have been instead of where they are going.

Im afraid im gonna need some more convincing to get behind the idea that making XP11 like that is a good idea.

 

Fortunately for the rest of us, you're not the one that needs to be convinced...

13 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Fortunately for the rest of us, you're not the one that need to be convinced...

All i heard was: "fair point, can't really disagree with that even though i wish it wasn't true".

Unfortunately hardware limits are what they are, and nothing comes free.

Edited April 1, 20215 yr by mSparks

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

Unfortunately hardware limits are what they are, and nothing comes free.

That's why I'm sticking with MSFS for now where I get the most bang for the buck from my hardware and an amazing VR experience. 

At least you've found something you can enjoy with the limitations that Linux puts on your options.  Farewell - we both leave happy.

1 minute ago, VFXSimmer said:

and an amazing VR experience. 

now i think you are just being dishonest. Perhaps even with yourself.

 

Edited April 1, 20215 yr by mSparks

5 minutes ago, mSparks said:

now i think you are just being dishonest. Perhaps even with yourself.

 

Nope.  Just flew this morning from Vancouver to Seattle.  Misty morning takeoff in the MB-339 - did some nap of the earth flying over Vancouver island then settled into a nice flight down to the city.  Afterwards "got out of the plane" .. sat my virtual self down on a radar tower and watched a bunch of planes come in - some AI, some players.  Was glorious.  You'ld love it.. but it sounds like you dont have the constitution for VR.

8 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

You'ld love it.. but it sounds like you dont have the constitution for VR.

Strange thing to say after you quoted

22 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

On 3/31/2021 at 5:00 PM, mSparks said:

 

Ref

I draw you attention to the distant object in the MSFS shot - and how the bridge looks more like a dam than a bridge

As for the airport, well, that is what reminded me of that thread, because I took the (freeware) typhoon for a spin in VR when we were talking about it.

 

Back to this again?  MSFS NYC shot looks 100x better than the XP one... It actually looks like the photograph... XP11 looks like a generic approximation with 'similaresque' buildings.

Not the best example to hang your hat on.

XP has a ton of strengths over MSFS.  Your argument starts to look desperate, however if you make claims like this.

 

Less than a day ago.

Perhaps you missed that was in VR?

11 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

into a nice flight down to the city.

Looking forward to your video doing the same. If you haven't already you can get a typhoon for MSFS here:

https://secure.simmarket.com/informatica-az-eurofighter-typhoon.phtml

I hear its one of the best aircraft MSFS has to offer, potentially even better than the freeware one in that video in the post you already quoted.

7 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I hear its one of the best aircraft MSFS has to offer, potentially even better than the freeware one in that video in the post you already quoted.

Please

Found my new favourite comedy channel, mens pride so hilarious.

30 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

Found my new favourite comedy channel, mens pride so hilarious.

Boys and their toys hey.... :-)

29 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Boys and their toys hey.... :-)

Used to be cars and motorbikes, now its computers. Peoples opinions not worth the effort spent in defending them. I like XPLANE, scenery not my biggest worry, and honsetly I dont care of whether people agree with me or not.

The problem with XPlane is the unrealistic default graphics.
But it is possible to make it realistic by using a few tricks.
This is my Xplane11 with my environment.
30fps fixed on old intel3, 8gb ram, gtx960 2gb.
It doesn't seem that bad to me.

 

@efis007 This is looking good, thanks for sharing! Do you mind also sharing the recipe so that others can repro the same enhancements?

Edited April 2, 20215 yr by RXP

Certainly.
But first I have to optimize my sky textures in Vulkan.
The photos of the Saab were taken with Xplane v11.41 (without xvision!).
With v11.5x Vulkan the shaders have been changed (by Laminar), and strangely "my sky" is no longer the same. 🤔
I'm trying to make it the same by editing the sky textures.
Be patient a little. 😉