X-Plane looks horrible. How to improve it?

[CFIJose 5,485]

On 4/29/2021 at 12:35 AM, ShortFinal said:

Can't post the photos here for some reason, so i've linked them. I have done what you all said and It is getting better. In the ZIBO mod (737-800 4K not 2K) at LAX max graphics I pull 22fps, add the FPS tweak and it jumps to 32-35 with no visual loss. Over the coming weeks I will add the Forkboys ortho's, some sceneries, and that should be good. sadly cannot find any good free cloud addon so I may have to invest a bit. I've tried different textures but nothing catches my eye as looking "realistic". As for the water and vegetation I found FlyAgi to work well and provide pleasing visuals. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DskRaZbwkqBkr3IpuFrvdZV5F8YWNa67/view?usp=sharing, usp=sharing,https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8y_yAvEOEzjRWWCBezg7qYlF7swO7ZH/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YyrxSDaihyh_5qCiy4F7FYTM2h9fM9br/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bE74eJkN8iBh3WOEl9FNTt-wfTeXpI8B/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iEfcXv0oMoxyd9bO9N2X0fYRBir6sc5q/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sAiEBgzt9lhhYwwIDo_Ha2ZxpesliQzV/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usmx426TpvQ6Z5OzaYqzaNYbvy04tQ0k/view?usp=sharing

This is a must have if you enjoy flying at night:

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/50456-extended-night-lighting-north-america/

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/50130-extended-night-lighting-europe-edition/

Jose

[FlyBaby 659]

On 5/8/2021 at 7:14 PM, GoranM said:

Which is why I linked a post to show what XP11 is capable of...now.  

If anyone thinks those images look like outdated graphics, I know a few good optometrists.

It is a matter of personal taste / opinion.

Those shots do not look great to me, and certainly not enough to invest the time / effort to download sections of where I want to fly and deal with space limitations etc.

Which is why I commented on another poster about accepting X-plane "as is" as opposed to chasing rainbows. 

[Greazer 1,320]

On top of atmosphere improvements they need to make draw distance much further out, and bring back many sliders to the GUI (in an advanced settings page if need be).

[GoranM 3,762]

1 hour ago, Greazer said:

On top of atmosphere improvements they need to make draw distance much further out

Not really sure what you mean.  I hold a PPL, and the atmosphere effects of this image, as well as the draw distance, do exactly what you're asking for.  You're never going to get crystal clear features on the horizon.

[Janov 2,383]

57 minutes ago, GoranM said:

You're never going to get crystal clear features on the horizon.

In addition to what Goran said it is important to mention that the "CAVOK setting" X-Plane visibility defaults to 25 statute miles. This is a typical visibility for most temperate regions on earth. Aviation weather does not even report visibility beyond 10.000 meters (ca. 7 SM), it is simply reported as CAVOK.

Note that X-Plane also simulates the difference in visibility due to airmass temperature and condensation core availability. In general the air near the ground is both warmer and holds more pollutants, so often the visibility near the ground is less than up a few thousand feet.

If you enter the weather GUI you can boost the visibility in X-Plane up to 100 statute miles. This is a compromise (in reality you can see major terrain feature up to ca. 200SM) to mask some effects where the high-resolution X-Plane terrain tiles give way to the low-resolution "planet" mesh. Some people run scripts to get around this limitation and then promptly complain about "ghost mountains" and other detrimental effects.

[Greazer 1,320]

5 hours ago, GoranM said:

Not really sure what you mean.  I hold a PPL, and the atmosphere effects of this image, as well as the draw distance, do exactly what you're asking for.  You're never going to get crystal clear features on the horizon.

1. Autogen / object draw is not sufficient.  This is especially noticeable at night as mentioned, and why there are hacks to improve it.
2. In addition to that, the XP code that loads objects on the fly is an unoptimized terrible mess. For a simple test fly into NYC and when it's time the FPS will plummet to single digits while it stalls loading objects.  
3. X Plane often has terrain tears when using ortho scenery (laminar bug)
4. Horizon gets ugly and "muddy" at higher altitudes.
5. Try a bigger plane and fly higher!

Edited May 11, 2021 by Greazer

[CFIJose 5,485]

For the kind of simulation that I do, I can see for miles and miles....

[GoranM 3,762]

26 minutes ago, Greazer said:

1. Autogen / object draw is not sufficient.  This is especially noticeable at night as mentioned, and why there are hacks to improve it.

I have no problems in this area.

26 minutes ago, Greazer said:

2. In addition to that, the XP code that loads objects on the fly is an unoptimized terrible mess. For a simple test fly into NYC and when it's time the FPS will plummet to single digits while it stalls loading objects. 

Depends on number of objects selected.  Adding objects requires CPU power.  A GPU cannot draw objects.  Because of this, performance will suffer due to consumer level CPU's not being powerful enough to draw hundreds of objects in a scene.  Nothing to do with your assumption of an unoptimized terrible mess.

29 minutes ago, Greazer said:

3. X Plane often has terrain tears when using ortho scenery (laminar bug)

I've never seen that.  Besides that, Laminar never intended people to add ortho.  Therefore, they don't support it.

30 minutes ago, Greazer said:

4. Horizon gets ugly and "muddy" at higher altitudes.

Don't know what you mean by ugly and muddy.  But it definitely gets hazy.  Exactly like the real world.  As a matter of fact, I don't think any other sim does it as accurately as X-Plane.

30 minutes ago, Greazer said:

5. Try a bigger plane and fly higher!

I have.  No problems as far as I can tell.

[Greazer 1,320]

Poor response.

[GoranM 3,762]

I thought it was quite comprehensive and factual.  

If you're going to say "Poor response", at least back it up with WHY you think it was a poor response.  

[CFIJose 5,485]

Here's more evidence:

In the future, please contact me when another sim can do what XP11 can do right now.

Edited May 11, 2021 by DJJose

[mSparks 2,086]

10 hours ago, GoranM said:

Depends on number of objects selected.  Adding objects requires CPU power.  A GPU cannot draw objects.  Because of this, performance will suffer due to consumer level CPU's not being powerful enough to draw hundreds of objects in a scene.  Nothing to do with your assumption of an unoptimized terrible mess.

current gen high end amd cpus smash it out the ballpark, oh glorious 60fps in vr. 

10 hours ago, GoranM said:

I've never seen that.  Besides that, Laminar never intended people to add ortho.  Therefore, they don't support it.

theres few sides to this, none of which have anything to do with Laminar "not supporting" ortho.

the first is tiles made with old versions of ortho4xp didn't match alts between tiles well.

the second is a couple of known bugs in xplane itself which haven't been fixed yet, at least one is in the release notes, and apply equally to default terrain.

the third is people disabling/hacking the visibility art datarefs, so the engine calculates that scenery isnt visible yet due to the weather conditions and doesnt need to be fully loaded, choosing instead a low lod for the tile, but the users force it to be drawn anyway then act surprised it isn't fully loaded. These seem to me to be the same users who complain xp weather looks wrong.

 

 

[skipph 82]

Aerosoft Shade X has been a pleasant surprise.

[tull 290]

i was thinking of buying shade x......is it worth it then??

[CFIJose 5,485]

5 hours ago, tull said:

i was thinking of buying shade x......is it worth it then??