3 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Why would adding a feature that improves immersion be a bad thing...

It's time taken away from other sounds and or improvements; I wouldn't think she is done at this point in time... but I could be wrong. I cannot however for the life of me remember ever hearing crickets (at any airport I've every been in) so I'm trying to understand how this improves the immersion factor. 

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by Mike_CFII_MEL

Just now, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

It's time taken away from other sounds and or improvements.

They are done by different teams, it is definitely not taking time away from other factors.

1 minute ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

They are done by different teams, it is definitely not taking time away from other factors.

While any team member is working on cricket sounds they could be working on something else... Hence it does take away from other factors or something that doesn't make it into the final product. Unless she is completely done with all the other sounds and was just killing time.

It looks decent, except for the lighting, that was a let down, I don't think Microsobo will be sleepless over this, but it will be interesting to follow the development.

31 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

While any team member is working on cricket sounds they could be working on something else...

Or tombstones 😄

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by rka

1 hour ago, Bulva said:

OK. Each presentation is about a different element: weather, water, clouds, trees, airports ground traffic etc ...
And none of these presentations are very smooth.
Question: when we put all these elements together, is there any equipment that can handle it ??? 😉 
 

Yes, it would have been nice if LR had talked about the performance in their presentation.  But perhaps the performance optimization is still ongoing for XP12 so LR doesn't want to talk about the FPS or performance yet while they are still optimizing XP12.

Having said that, this may not be a popular opinion here, but I have said many times already that it's difficult to do both a huge graphics improvement and at the same time, yield higher FPS for most video games.  Usually when the graphics gets better, the FPS will drop, for most video games.   Now I am assuming XP may be running on older architecture.  I don't know this for sure because I don't work at LR.  But by inference, if the latest version of XP (XP is on version 11.55, right?) was using the latest architecture and design, it should be yielding higher FPS than MSFS, with all the add-ons added to XP 11.55 to enhance the scenery and graphics, unless for some reason, the add-ons are costing XP 11.55 a lot of FPS because the add-ons are poorly optimized (if the add-ons are that poorly optimized by the 3rd party but are integral to the graphics for X-Plane, perhaps LR should be doing that portion of the add-ons themselves so they can optimize it as best as possible, rather than relying on a 3rd party to do it).  Something is not right if simulator A has lower graphics than simulator B, but simulator A also has lower FPS than simulator B.  This is where what Asobo did with SU5 in MSFS was really a miracle - it's practically unheard of for a video game to see such a huge performance boost almost a year after its release while already leading its competitors in graphics.  The performance boost for most video games is usually done within the first 6 months of a video game's release and any optimization done thereafter will usually yield marginal performance gains.  So the performance boost Asobo did with SU5 was a miracle - but, the performance boost in SU5 could only be done, IMO, because MSFS is using newer architecture and thus has less "technical debt" compared to X-Plane.

As I am a software developer myself, I think if XP 12 can match XP 11 in FPS while yielding the better graphics we see in the demos, that is a huge accomplishment already.  But people will be disappointed if they expect XP 12 can have all those nice graphics and also have a significant boost in FPS at the same time.  In the demo we saw, some parts were not smooth (ie. the stuttering for the F-14 scenes), and this is probably because LR is pushing XP 12 to the limit already with the graphics improvements, so they wanted to present something that still looks smooth enough in their demo video.

If people temper their expectations for FPS for XP 12, I think XP 12 will be a very good graphical upgrade from XP 11.  And like I said earlier, if XP 12 can match XP 11 in FPS but have all that improvement in its graphics, that is a huge win in itself.  But if you want to include all the graphical/scenery add-ons to make XP 12 look good and you also expect MSFS like FPS at the same time, well, you may be setting yourself up to be disappointed.  LR could still surprise us though and not only will XP 12 be a nice graphical boost over XP 11, but it may also yield higher FPS than XP 11 too (but like I said, this is not easy if there is older architecture and more "technical debt" with XP's code base).  I guess we wont' know until XP 12 is released.

Having said that, while I don't own XP, I am cheering for XP 12. It would be nice if XP 12 can have both the graphics improvement and also a boost in FPS, especially with the smaller team of developers at LR.  Competition breeds better competition so it will be a win win for us flight sim hobbyists.

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

1 hour ago, rka said:

All that stuff from the videos tied together. What else are you expecting?

What Ben was talked about in his interview with FSElite. He mention getting data for the Othos, not displaying them. Using the data to determine what object should be present in a "vacant lot" (from his example) and using the art assets to display what that object (a car or portal potty) should be as opposed to showing a flat image of a car or portal potty on the vacant lot from the ortho as it does now. 

From the sound of his interview, they are still not done yet.

49 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

But perhaps the performance optimization is still ongoing for XP12 so LR doesn't want to talk about the FPS or performance yet while they are still optimizing XP12.

You mean while they are still working on and adding things to X-plane 12. That I agree agree with. Everything else below that statement above, you can throw out.

Just my 2 cents about the XP12 preview graphics which are not "as good as" FS2020.

To me the only reason they are not appearing as good is only because of two post-processing adjustment which FS2020 is using, which in my opinion XP12 should be using as well in the final release:

- White Balance
- Exposure Compensation
- Bonus: slight S-curve enhancer for better contrast

NB: lack of these is probably the main reason the XP11 output is always looking duller, but up to XP11.21 at least I could change the tone mapper Shader code and get good results. I've posted the code and screenshots here for info: enhanced rendering for free and post processsing
 

So back to XP12, I've experimented quickly with a few screenshots posted in this topic where some are considering they are still somewhat "less than" what you'd get with MSFS. I have no doubt some will still find them "less good than" even after post-processing them a little, but this might help others opening their eye to some of the factor affecting visual perception, at least those who didn't know.

Don't expect pixel perfect adjustments here because these are post-processed final renders in sRGB space and jpeg. Instead, just try to see the perceived differences, between the top half (adjusted) and bottom half (original screenshot from this topic).

NB: the only adjustment was Exposure: +1/2 to +3/4 stops, White Balance: adjusted manually selecting a grey point.

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by RXP

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Something is not right if simulator A has lower graphics than simulator B, but simulator A also has lower FPS than simulator B.  This is where what Asobo did with SU5 in MSFS was really a miracle - it's practically unheard of

simulator A versus simulator B? how dare you, we are in an x-plane forum!

Ben confirmed that some of the clouds in the preview shots (I asked about stratus clouds), were legacy XP11 clouds. Good, another confirmation that the preview shots are still from the very early development phase, with old elements here and there:

https://developer.x-plane.com/2021/09/x-plane-livestream-at-flightsimexpo/#comment-40533

1 hour ago, Ixoye said:

It looks decent, except for the lighting, that was a let down, I don't think Microsobo will be sleepless over this, but it will be interesting to follow the development.

How do you feel let down by this?

Does any other sim do weather/lighting that good? Lets not just limit it to MSFS here, we can compare with big boys toys like P3D and DCS as well.

22 minutes ago, RXP said:

Just my 2 cents about the XP12 preview graphics which are not "as good as" FS2020.

To me the only reason they are not appearing as good is only because of two post-processing adjustment which FS2020 is using, which in my opinion XP12 should be using as well in the final release:

- White Balance
- Exposure Compensation
- Bonus: slight S-curve enhancer for better contrast

I've forgotten to add:

Another processing stage FS2020 is using is typically called "eye adaptation". It is supposed to expose the scene based on some "metrics" of the image so that the perceived brightness is in a "suitable" range for the eyes and the situation (outside, inside etc...). XP11 equivalent implementation is not working as expected and I don't know where they'll go for XP12, but I can tell you this is very important a stage in the pipeline, and this is something Ben Supnik is aware off per my discussions with him.

For more information, I'm sorry posting a link to the FS2020 forum from the XP topic, but I don't want to copy/paste what I've already written over there: [BUG/FEATURE] Implement a metering system better suited for VR - Virtual Reality (VR) / VR Wishlist - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by RXP

27 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Ben confirmed that some of the clouds in the preview shots (I asked about stratus clouds), were legacy XP11 clouds. Good, another confirmation that the preview shots are still from the very early development phase, with old elements here and there:

https://developer.x-plane.com/2021/09/x-plane-livestream-at-flightsimexpo/#comment-40533

Ok so I wasn't crazy than. Good to know

13 minutes ago, RXP said:

I've forgotten to add:

Another processing stage FS2020 is using is typically called "eye adaptation". It is supposed to expose the scene based on some "metrics" of the image so that the perceived brightness is in a "suitable" range for the eyes and the situation (outside, inside etc...). XP11 equivalent implementation is not working as expected and I don't know where they'll go for XP12, but I can tell you this is very important a stage in the pipeline, and this is something Ben Supnik is aware off per my discussions with him.

For more information, I'm sorry posting a link to the FS2020 forum from the XP topic, but I don't want to copy/paste what I've already written over there: [BUG/FEATURE] Implement a metering system better suited for VR - Virtual Reality (VR) / VR Wishlist - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums

It does make a huge difference. Hopefully this get done before release.