39 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

At best, X-Plane 12 may close the gap in graphics with MSFS

Graphics... they may introduce ambient occlusion, improve water, global illumination, weather, landclass, vector data, mesh, autogen... 

But, unless a cooperation with Google is in the plans, without streaming of real world textures the world will always look fake and made with repetitive tiles and textures everywhere.

I am afraid MSFS won't have competitors in the graphics compartment for long time.

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by MrFuzzy

12 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Ughh, no.  If X-plane is using modern software development practices, there is likely a layer for graphics. Then there will be a layer underneath the graphics, that deals with other logic.    And there could be layers below that layer too.  You can have many layers in a software project.

If you come from a software development background, you should know about layers in software development.  My point is, Asobo likely made some changes to the layers below the graphics layer, to yield the FPS boost in Sim Update 5.

I don't know the details of X-Plane architecture, but what you describe, "multiple rendering pipelines in the same time, that's what they are doing right now, creating those new fancy pipelines (New lighting shaders, trees shaders, terrain shaders, water etc...)" would be in the graphics layer.

 

Of course there are many other aspects than graphics, that's exactly my point, but you are talking about an "architecture to have nice graphics with good FPS" which is literally the meaning of a graphics API. When you are "rendering" you are making graphics.

Should we shift the discussion to flight models instead? Avionics?

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by akita

Just now, akita said:

Of course there are many other aspects than graphics, that's exactly my point, but you are talking about an "architecture to have nice graphics with good FPS"=graphics API.

Should we shift the discussion to flight models instead? Avionics?

See, this is where you don't understand me.  Like I said, based on the Twitch Q&A, some of the FPS gains was because Asobo likely optimized the layer below the graphics layer - that is, Asobo optimized some of the architecture below the graphics layer.  At least that is what I understood when I watched the Twitch Q&A.

Assuming there is also a graphics layer in MSFS and that MSFS is using modern software design practices (ie. it also uses "layers"), each frame that is generated in MSFS not only relies on the graphics layer, it also relies on the layers below it to generate that frame.  Thus, there is also architecture below the graphics layer.  If the layer below the graphics layer is also optimized, then the frame can be generated faster, which results in higher FPS.

6 minutes ago, akita said:

Should we shift the discussion to flight models instead? Avionics?

Why? The topic is about performance.

4 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

 Asobo optimized some of the architecture below the graphics layer.  At least that is what I understood when I watched the Twitch Q&A.

 

Asobo are shifting slowly the PC version to DX12 which needs under-the-hood changes, exactly and 100% what I'm talking about, Xplane is way beyond that phase already.

3 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Why? The topic is about performance.

 I'm just reaching for the bar but it keeps moving around...read the discussion again.

Just now, akita said:

 I'm just reaching for the bar but it keeps moving around...read the discussion again.

No.

Just now, jarmstro said:

No.

So what do you want?

4 minutes ago, akita said:

Asobo are shifting slowly the PC version to DX12 which needs under-the-hood changes, exactly and 100% what I'm talking about, Xplane is way beyond that phase already.

 I'm just reaching for the bar but it keeps moving around...read the discussion again.

Ok, forget it. We're on different wavelengths here.  I'm guessing you're not from a professional software development background.  But if you are from a professional software development background, I am surprised we are on different wavelengths (if you are from a software development background, you should have recognized what I meant when I referred to "layers" in software development).

Anyways, for people that don't know what I am referring to when I mention "layers" in software development, check this out: https://levelup.gitconnected.com/layers-in-software-architecture-that-every-sofware-architect-should-know-76b2452b9d9a

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Ok, forget it. We're on different wavelengths here.  I'm guessing you're not from a software development background.  But if you are, I am surprised we are on different wavelengths (if you are from a software development background, you should have recognized what I meant when I referred to "layers" in software development).

Yea...Funny how you act all arrogant while any sane person can see you are only holding this discussion with some repetitive and useless quotes of what you think you understand from Asobo's QA. So here you go professor, the stage is yours, what "layers" Xplane needs to change and what they should do that hasn't not been done yet on the architecture front? (Remember, you said not related to graphics so don't say better graphics)

Edit: I just saw the link you gave, LMAO, seriously, just sigh. have a nice day all.

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by akita

1 hour ago, akita said:

So it's actually the contrary, MSFS architecture is already really dated.

I have read a lot of funny stuff from you but that is really next level.

11 minutes ago, rka said:

I have read a lot of funny stuff from you but that is really next level.

Somehow you made it out of the ignore list but I'll address you; quoting a tiny part of the comment to make a ridiculous out of context one is not a good discussion tactic, typically made by people who have little to offer for the given discussion or trying to force an agenda that suits his own beliefs. 

The actual meaning was, since talking about a graphics "architecture" AKA a graphics API, was a DX11 foundation VS Vulkan foundation and who is more modern.

 

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by akita

21 minutes ago, akita said:

Yea...Funny how you act all arrogant while any sane person can see you are only holding this discussion with some repetitive and useless quotes of what you thing you understand from Asobo's QA. So here you go professor, the stage is yours, what "layers" Xplane needs to change and what they should do that hasn't not been done yet on the architecture front? (Remember, you said graphics so don't say better graphics)

So you aren't from a professional software development background then, right?

<sigh>

Rather than use the term graphics, it's better to use the term frames.  To generate one frame in a video game - not just MSFS, any video game - all the layers in the software work together to generate that one frame.  This is assuming the video game is using modern software development architecture and modern software development practices and has separated that architecture into multiple "layers."

Let's assume there is a graphics layer that is mainly responsible for rendering the graphics - let's call this layer 1.  Let's also assume there are 2 more layers below the graphics layer: layer 2 and layer 3.  Layer 2 and layer 3 are not directly related to the rendering of graphics, as that is layer 1's responsibility.

To render one frame in this video game requires work from: layer 1 (graphics layer) + layer 2 + layer 3.  

So if you look at this architecture, let's say layer 2 is badly optimized. Layer 2 can be a bottleneck and slow down the generation of a frame.  Or layer 3 can be a bottleneck and can slow down the generation of a frame.

So increasing the FPS in this video game isn't just dependent on layer 1 which is the graphics layer, but it's also dependent on layer 2 and layer 3.  Subsequently, if you can optimize layer 2 or layer 3, which are not responsible for the rendering of graphics, you can speed up the generation of a frame.

This is not to say X-Plane or MSFS uses this exact particular layer architecture - what they use may even have more layers.

I am assuming X-Plane is using a modern software architecture pattern which would have abstracted the graphics rendering to a layer in itself - that is, a "graphics layer."

What I believe Asobo did, based on the Twitch Q&A, was optimize one of the layers below the graphics layer, and that helped to boost the FPS in SU5.  It's easier for Asobo to do this because like I said before, MSFS is running on newer architecture aside from the graphics layer and thus, has less "technical debt."  However, the layers below the graphics layer in X-Plane may have more "technical debt" and it won't be as easy for LR to optimize those layers.

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

32 minutes ago, akita said:

Somehow you made it out of the ignore list but I'll address you;

That is very generous 😉 So I will do the same with a little explanation.

When people use the term "dated" to talk about XP, that is an euphemism for "it runs very slow and it looks very bad and it cannot make use of my hardware". People use this euphemism because of the uproar that is to be expected from certain people when someone says "it runs very slow and it looks very bad and it cannot make use of my hardware" even though it runs very slow and looks very bad and it cannot make use of his hardware.

So while I'm not even arguing against the statement that DX11 is not bleeding edge, the point you were trying make about XP actually being the more advanced product and MSFS being the dated one is just so extremely funny that I thought, why not point it out. But go ahead and lecture me about my agenda a bit more 😉

 

45 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

So you aren't from a professional software development background then, right?

<sigh>

Rather than use the term graphics, it's better to use the term frames.  To generate one frame in a video game - not just MSFS, any video game - all the layers in the software work together to generate that one frame.  This is assuming the video game is using modern software development architecture and modern software development practices and has separated that architecture into multiple "layers."

Let's assume there is a graphics layer that is mainly responsible for rendering the graphics - let's call this layer 1.  Let's also assume there are 2 more layers below the graphics layer: layer 2 and layer 3.  Layer 2 and layer 3 are not directly related to the rendering of graphics, as that is layer 1's responsibility.

To render one frame in this video game requires work from: layer 1 (graphics layer) + layer 2 + layer 3.  

So if you look at this architecture, let's say layer 2 is badly optimized. Layer 2 can be a bottleneck and slow down the generation of a frame.  Or layer 3 can be a bottleneck and can slow down the generation of a frame.

So increasing the FPS in this video game isn't just dependent on layer 1 which is the graphics layer, but it's also dependent on layer 2 and layer 3.  Subsequently, if you can optimize layer 2 or layer 3, which are not responsible for the rendering of graphics, you can speed up the generation of a frame.

This is not to say X-Plane or MSFS uses this exact particular layer architecture - what they use may even have more layers.

I am assuming X-Plane is using a modern software architecture pattern which would have abstracted the graphics rendering to a layer in itself - that is, a "graphics layer."

What I believe Asobo did, based on the Twitch Q&A, was optimize one of the layers below the graphics layer, and that helped to boost the FPS in SU5.  It's easier for Asobo to do this because like I said before, MSFS is running on newer architecture aside from the graphics layer and thus, has less "technical debt."  However, the layers below the graphics layer in X-Plane may have more "technical debt" and it won't be as easy for LR to optimize those layers.

This is the most vague and general explanation that I've ever seen in my entire life frankly.

What are those "layers", don't they have a name? How does those layers work with "the graphics layer"? What technical debt?

Without all the fiddling around, to render a frame you need to upload the needed scene's/frame's data through "layers" (as you call them) to the GPU, which can execute the rendering steps in parallel thanks to many comupte units in there. The foundation to all of this, to the graphics VS FPS efficiency equation is the rendering engine, and it's foundation is the graphics API.

So what layers are you talking about? Be specific, give an example of a scenario from your own rich (as you claim) experience where a given mysterious "layer" is hurting the frames, maybe then I will understand and react accordingly.

 

 

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by akita

6 minutes ago, rka said:

That is very generous 😉 So I will do the same with a little explanation.

When people use the term "dated" to talk about XP, that is an euphemism for "it runs very slow and it looks very bad and it cannot make use of my hardware". People use this euphemism because of the uproar that is to be expected from certain people when someone says "it runs very slow and it looks very bad and it cannot make use of my hardware" even though it runs very slow and looks very bad and it cannot make use of his hardware.

So while I'm not even arguing against the statement that DX11 is not bleeding edge, the point you were trying make about XP actually being the more advanced product and MSFS being the dated one is just so extremely funny that I thought, why not point it out. But go ahead and lecture me about my agenda a bit more 😉

 

So you came in the middle of a discussion unrelated to you, understood it wrong, quoted me intentionally out of context, and now you are blaming me?

MSFS has better graphics and FPS currently, I know as I use both, are you happy now? good, move on please.

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by akita