18 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I'm wondering what exactly is meant by the term 'next generation graphics'? I'm hoping it doesn't mean that we will need next generation hardware.

Maybe not..... MFS and X-Plane run with similar performance on my system.. The idea of upgrading to the Vulkan engine means we can get more out of our GPUs...my prediction is that OpenGL will eventually disappear as an option

22 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Maybe not..... MFS and X-Plane run with similar performance on my system..a The idea of upgrading to the Vulkan engine means we can get more out of our GPUs...my prediction is that OpenGL will eventually disappear aas an option

Indeed Vulkan made a significant difference for me. But the hit still remains when I crank up reflections, shadows and set a few ai planes. After which XP performs far worse than MSFS. Maybe 'next gen' means these issues have been resolved?

Edited June 2, 20215 yr by jarmstro

16 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Indeed Vulkan made a significant difference for me. But the hit still remains when I crank up reflections, shadows and set a few ai planes. After which XP performs far worse than MSFS. Maybe 'next gen' means these issues have been resolved?

I don't think it means  the issues will be resolved and issues  never get resolved , one gets resolved another pops up just like problems in life .

The Next Gen is purely from the point of visuals.  What I am interested along with the lighting / Wx are the forests areas , love flying the helis over tree tops and landing in between. 

Maybe whatever version is being worked on will be completely multi threaded to better the AI / Shadows / Reflections etc.

 

I'm sold.

Well, at least for me it would be time to upgrade my GPU anyway to take advantage of newer tech.... however only if it was actually possible to get a GPU these days at an acceptable price..

Quote

For those who are wondering where the "X-Plane" part of this eye candy is, let me tell you that the sunset not only looks right, but also follows correct astrophysics now, in that we distinguish sidereal vs solar time so you get the correct sun and moon rises as per the equation of time, and the constellations appear in the right place throughout the year. I know at least one user who was always very particular about this, so this one is for them.

 

8 minutes ago, akita said:

For those who are wondering where the "X-Plane" part of this eye candy is, let me tell you that the sunset not only looks right, but also follows correct astrophysics now, in that we distinguish sidereal vs solar time so you get the correct sun and moon rises as per the equation of time, and the constellations appear in the right place throughout the year. I know at least one user who was always very particular about this, so this one is for them.

Well make it 2 users eheh. So I'm tagging @jcomm

Anyway, where does the quote come from?

 

Edited June 2, 20215 yr by Murmur

Looking at you @jcomm :D

2 hours ago, tonywob said:

I'm not one to block or remove people from topics and I like a free discussion and debate like the rest of us, but this is getting out of hand on every post now and is making many topics unreadable.

Hi Tony, may I ask, provided that the optimal course would be ignoring the trolls and since this rarely happens in practice, can a legit topic (and also important, as in this case) be re-posted again if it ends up being locked due to trolls? After all it seems very unfair that trolls cause such damage to the forum.

 

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

I'm wondering what exactly is meant by the term 'next generation graphics'? I'm hoping it doesn't mean that we will need next generation hardware.

My take:

last generation graphics is graphics engines based on opengl and directX.

"Next generation" is getting stuff like this:

and this

to 4K 60fps.

On mobile phones.

Next generation label because all the pieces are not there yet, Windows and AMD are lagging way behind, mobile GPUs are still not widespread, a lot of the graphics stuff is still new and buggy.

It gets this label imho because last generation is not able to achieve it.

I am genuinely excited for the new X-plane. As good as MSFS is, it still does not give me the belief that I am actually flying a plane (even in VR), as XP11 did in Vulkan. That thing was like butter. It just had something about it. 

All of these people writing it off, Never ever underestimate the underdog.

13 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Hi Tony, may I ask, provided that the optimal course would be ignoring the trolls and since this rarely happens in practice, can a legit topic (and also important, as in this case) be re-posted again if it ends up being locked due to trolls? After all it seems very unfair that trolls cause such damage to the forum.

Yep but hopefully I won't need to close this topic. If it continues then I will block those specific users from taking part in the thread, otherwise they'll just continue on in the next thread as has happened continually in the past.

 

Certainly the video gives me hope for the future of XP. 

3 hours ago, Janov said:

The simulator prevalence is everyone´s personal decision and everyone places emphasis on other aspects. Some favor the photorealistic presentation of scenery (especially low+slow VFR), others are into other things.

I have to admit, I was wrong myself, since in the recent past I've maintained that the most important thing in a flight simulator is the visual aspect, because that is why we like flight, i.e. soaring in the air and watch the scenery from above, rather than turning dials and watching gauges.

But then I realized it's not that simple, really. And the latest realization came just recently, when I got my first RC aircraft. And the fundamental enjoyment in using an RC aircraft is simply controlling it, i.e. interacting with its "flight model". I could have gotten a drone instead, but I'm positively sure that I would have been bored by it after 30 seconds of flight.

And the same, more or less, holds true for real flight. Nice terrain below is better than boring terrain below, but the fundamental joy is not the terrain below, but the flight itself.

Having said that, I think everyone agrees that good and realistic visuals (for terrain and weather) are a really important aspect of flight simulation. That's why I welcome the improvements in this aspect, which were really needed. A too old looking product undeniably loses significant attractiveness, and rightly so.

 

What a surprise. A heated debate that divides the hobby.   Competition is good. This will push each others platforms, and we users have a choice.  Degrading either one doesn't help the hobby. This is great to see, and quite sure LR are feeling the pressure from the advances in MSFS, but they will have strengths and weaknesses just like MSFS does.  Question is how do they pull it off against a conglomerate corporation which has hundreds working on the platform vs LR and their small team.  Im guessing the way to do that is use the many established high fidelity addons already existing that can be ported easily into the new light and WX engines, since it will still be a few more years before MSFS gets a good selection of established high quality aircraft in the air. MSFS already has quite the lighting and wx and a whole lot of awesome visuals, although the obvious growing pains exist and will simply take time to weed out.

That said, many will have to choose. Supporting 2 platforms is darn expensive.