This plugin has won me back as regular XP11 user

[mjrhealth 820]

1 hour ago, filou said:

-I reinstalled XP11 after long months .

-It hurts the eyes a lot...

-I installed Enhanced Skyscapes.

-I have done several flights with Active Sky

-I definitely uninstalled everything

-I don't even have hope for XP12

The thing i'm certain is that there will be no miracle now and in the future.

Oh another perfectionist who will never be satisfied,

[mSparks 2,086]

1 hour ago, filou said:

-I reinstalled XP11 after long months .

-It hurts the eyes a lot...

-I installed Enhanced Skyscapes.

-I have done several flights with Active Sky

-I definitely uninstalled everything

-I don't even have hope for XP12

The thing i'm certain is that there will be no miracle now and in the future.

Reinstall X-Plane

Install Machmell Fisheries from propstrike studios (free)

Get your settings so it looks the same as the videos in vulkan.

https://propstrikestudio.com/products/fisheries

Reinstall Enhanced Skyscapes

Fly the default C172 around Machmell Fisheries some.

Now you have a reasonable idea of at least how good XP12 should look out of the box, spend the time between now and XP12 actually getting to a usable state getting the rest of the places you fly up to a similar standard in whatever your preferred aircraft may be.

not making your eyes bleed hasn't been a priority for LR for over a decade - right or wrong they've concentrated on the really really hard stuff that goes into making a realistic, powerful flight  simulator, but it doesn't need to make your eyes bleed, and XP12 is "X-Plane made beautiful"

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by mSparks

[jcomm 5,890]

2 hours ago, jarmstro said:

10fps hit with a 3090? Definite no no for me then. Same old, same old. 

Well, no impact on my 3600 Ti + Ryzen 5600 x. Keeping VSync'd at 60fps even with dense scenarios, and IT IS SOOOO BEAUTILFUL !!!

[Humpty 751]

3 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Well, no impact on my 3600 Ti + Ryzen 5600 x. Keeping VSync'd at 60fps even with dense scenarios, and IT IS SOOOO BEAUTILFUL !!!

you bought a 3060 ? i thought you still have the 960

[jarmstro 2,402]

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

That frankenstein add on, the Bredock3D 737, where the developer didn't do any heavy lifting...bought the model off turbosquid and used a bunch of gauges, sounds and flight model from the default 747...why not.  It's only 20 quid.

Clouds for X-Plane from a genuine developer, who published the first version for free, and is now willing to give it a good go, for $USD15..."no thanks."

 

The mind boggles.

🤦‍♂️

Edit:  And yes, I bought it yesterday from the threshold store.  Purely to support a new developer.  

I have my settings so that at the very worst situations (ie Heathrow + FF767 with glass cockpit) the fps stays  above 22 fps. And you want me to pay £15 to take a further 10fps hit for what will no doubt be a small puddle of rubbishy clouds and make the sim unusable?? Come on. 
 

Edit. What on earth it's got to do with the awful Bredok 737 I know not? It's equally mind boggling that you can equate the two.

Edited September 20, 2021 by jarmstro

[filou 2,741]

55 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

Oh another perfectionist who will never be satisfied,

I don't even have to be a perfectionist in this case to be dissatisfied.

[mSparks 2,086]

8 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

And you want me to pay £15 to take a further 10fps hit for what will no doubt be a small puddle of rubbishy clouds and make the sim unusable?? Come on

10fps hit at 200fps is a 20uS hit

A 20uS hit at 22fps is 22fps.

[GCBraun 2,390]

7 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I have my settings so that at the very worst situations (ie Heathrow + FF767 with glass cockpit) the fps stays  above 22 fps. And you want me to pay £15 to take a further 10fps hit for what will no doubt be a small puddle of rubbishy clouds and make the sim unusable?? Come on. 

To be fair, I said *up* to 10 fps on the most extreme scenarios (overcast weather while very close to the clouds). Generally the impact on airports stay around 3-5 fps.

[jarmstro 2,402]

12 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Well, no impact on my 3600 Ti + Ryzen 5600 x. Keeping VSync'd at 60fps even with dense scenarios, and IT IS SOOOO BEAUTILFUL !!!

Show me thick 3D clouds reaching all the way to the horizon with no (or even minimal) fps hit and I'll buy it. 

[jarmstro 2,402]

1 minute ago, GCBraun said:

To be fair, I said *up* to 10 fps on the most extreme scenarios (overcast weather while very close to the clouds). Generally the impact on airports stay around 3-5 fps.

I don't call overcast weather extreme. I call it normal.  Clearly you don't live in the UK.😀

[peroni 541]

Guys just try the demo, it does not have much FPS impact on my system and work wonders in depicting more realistic clouds.

XP12 might be unveiled next week but like Janov said the beta phase will be long, don't expect to be able to play with it immediately.

[GoranM 3,762]

22 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I have my settings so that at the very worst situations (ie Heathrow + FF767 with glass cockpit) the fps stays  above 22 fps. And you want me to pay £15 to take a further 10fps hit for what will no doubt be a small puddle of rubbishy clouds and make the sim unusable?? Come on. 
 

Edit. What on earth it's got to do with the awful Bredok 737 I know not? It's equally mind boggling that you can equate the two.

You missed my point completely. You justified the Bredock3d 737 purchase to yourself, knowing how bad it is, by saying “it’s only 20 quid.  If I don’t like it, it’s not a big expense.”  
Yet when it come to paying $USD15 for an add on, that took over a year to make, that will enhance the experience, you dismiss it based on a single post.   

Again, the mind boggles. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by GoranM

[GCBraun 2,390]

13 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I don't call overcast weather extreme. I call it normal.  Clearly you don't live in the UK.😀

I fly everywhere in the world, but northern Germany is not much better in that regard. 🙂

[jarmstro 2,402]

17 minutes ago, GoranM said:

You missed my point completely. You justified the Bredock3d 737 purchase to yourself, knowing how bad it is, by saying “it’s only 20 quid.  If I don’t like it, it’s not a big expense.”  
Yet when it come to paying $USD15 for an add on, that took over a year to make, that will enhance the experience, you won’t even think twice about not purchasing  

Again, the mind boggles. 

Yes but the Bredok didn't hit my fps by 10 meaning I will have to lower my settings leading to an overall loss of graphics quality marginally better clouds notwithstanding. So fifteen quid for an overall loss of visual quality? No thank you. Default plus XVision will have to do for now. After all, it's just eye candy.😀

Edited September 20, 2021 by jarmstro

[Janov 2,383]

It still amazes me that folks measure performance impact of an add-on by quoting "fps hit". The fps hit is an absolute number, which means almost nothing without the corresponding base number.

If I run XP at 200 fps and have a "10 fps hit" - is that bad?

If I run XP at 20fps and have a "5 fps hit" - is that good?

Even stating a base fps and the subsequent fps hit does not necessarily say anything about the impact on someone else´s system, hardware architecture is just too different between setups.

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Janov