Xplane Next Generation (FSexpo)

[abrams_tank 7,552]

14 minutes ago, Janov said:

I think the discussions I liked to take part in (mostly why MSFS is "better" than X-Plane) have waned, and folks have finally decided which simulator to use for their enjoyment and purpose.

To be honest, the best outcome for flight simmers is if both MSFS and X-Plane are profitable in the long run.  And even if P3D is profitable in the home consumer market.  The more competition, the more flight simulation will advance in the home market, and the better for flight sim enthusiasts like us.

(Please note while I hope MSFS, X-Plane, and P3D are all profitable in the long run, my business assessment of the home market for flight simulators may be different from what I hope).

Edited September 27, 2021 by abrams_tank

[turbomax 3,347]

6 hours ago, GoranM said:

Not sure if you realize, but Austin doesn't come to avsim...ever. 

not listening carefully to your customers hhmm, unusual attitude these days. seems other simulator developers are more open to the expectations of their users. I wonder which one will ultimately be more popular in the marketplace. unless they don't give a word not allowed.

[GoranM 3,818]

9 minutes ago, turbomax said:

not listening carefully to your customers hhmm, unusual attitude these days.

Avsim is not the hub for LR.  And it would be extremely unprofessional of them, or anyone else, to think otherwise.  They have a support email and Austin's own private email, and he welcomes ideas, suggestions and questions.  Do you think Austin should go to every single flight sim forum there is out there?  

Trying to twist this to fit your own agenda is...kinda shallow.  tbh, I've stepped in deeper puddles.

9 minutes ago, turbomax said:

seems other simulator developers are more open to the expectations of their users.

That's great.  As they should.  But I doubt they rely primarily on avsim. They have their own portal for such discussions.  At least I would hope they were professional enough to do so.

9 minutes ago, turbomax said:

I wonder which one will ultimately be more popular in the marketplace.

MSFS has always been more popular than X-Plane for almost 30 years.  No one has disputed that.  Just like Windows has been more popular than Apple.  Do you think that the more popular product will stay and the less popular one will disappear?  If that was the case, there would be no choices left in the world...for anything.

Edited September 27, 2021 by GoranM

[akita 429]

8 hours ago, PaulBB said:

I was there and talked to them, don't expect anything major on scenery from above 5000 to 35000+ they are all generic texture and building, repeat will be there from object, texture and so on. They did not want to show these, are not related to unfinished, you will see some detailed scenery the rest of the world all generic,The 3d trees are rendered in very very low altitude and in short range, a line

I asked Ben on the slack channel (Yesterday) about the global scenery and they are even *yet to cut the data*... I quote "we are re-cutting the DSFs and letting the art guys do whatever they want to improve scenery*

The same goes for performance, they are not even optimizing yet, they are still adding new features.

We should all just be patient.

Edited September 27, 2021 by akita

[GoranM 3,818]

3 minutes ago, akita said:

I asked Ben on the slack channel (Yesterday) about the global scenery and they are even *yet to cut the data*... I quote "we are re-cutting the DSFs and letting the art guys do whatever they want to improve scenery*

The same goes for performance, they are not even optimizing yet, they are still adding new features.

Wow.  So now we have people like Paul blatantly lying about talking to LR and what is involved in the scenery.  A new low.  

This just gets better and better.

Edited September 27, 2021 by GoranM

[mjrhealth 862]

24 minutes ago, turbomax said:

not listening carefully to your customers hhmm

You mean like those companies who pay him lots of money to give them a decent flight sim, not these lesser complainers who just love too whine and complain. It must be embarrasing for you all, really. Spoilt Little children who cant get there lolly. Its a psychological thing, people who cant get what they want, will sit and complain about everything else to make them selves think what they have is better, and this did start of reasonably well. I havnt being on the MS forum really I have no need.

[abrams_tank 7,552]

32 minutes ago, turbomax said:

not listening carefully to your customers hhmm, unusual attitude these days. seems other simulator developers are more open to the expectations of their users. I wonder which one will ultimately be more popular in the marketplace. unless they don't give a word not allowed.

So I don't own XP.  I skipped out on flight simulation for about a decade after FSX, because the flight simulators at the time - XP and P3D, weren't immersive enough graphically to bring me back in until MSFS.  While XP11 and P3D 5 were still not enough to bring me back into flight simulation, I think from what I see of XP12, XP12 would have probably brought me back into flight simulation because XP12 looks quite decent.

In the worst case scenario that Microsoft pulls the plug on MSFS one day (I think this is unlikely, but not impossible), I would be happy to fall back to XP12.  Because of the existence of MSFS, I suppose I am not an immediate XP12 customer but perhaps I would be a potential XP12 customer if I like what I see in the future from XP12 (or future versions of XP).

This is what I would like to see from XP12 or future versions of XP:

1. Keep enhancing the graphics until XP matches MSFS.  Like I said before, if I give MSFS a 100% grade on graphics, I would give what I see in the XP12 demo an 80% score.  Grass like MSFS to cover the current 2D ground texture would be nice.  I think this is the next big graphical improvement LR can make for XP12 - having grass the way MSFS does it.

2. As a consumer, I don't want to spend a lot of money on add-ons to make my simulator look better. I like that XP12 has enhanced the clouds, water, trees, and lighting.  This means I don't have to purchase a 3rd party add-on for better trees, clouds, etc.  For the money that I save on these add-ons, I can instead spend the money on better hardware (ie. GPU, CPU, HOTAS or peripherals, etc).  The philosophy of LR going forward should be to graphically enhance as much as possible XP themselves and don't rely on 3rd parties to do it for you (especially if 3rd party add-ons are not optimized and reduce the FPS of XP).

3. Find a way to stream 3rd party satellite scenery and photogrammetry, including the conversion of 2D satellite buildings/houses to 3D buildings/houses (this is what Blackshark AI does), at a reasonable cost to X-Plane users.  I would consider paying $5 USD per month, $60 per year, for such a service.  I know this service is free in MSFS, but I don't mind paying $60 annually for such a service in XP12.  If LR cannot do this, perhaps they can open up XP12 for a 3rd party to do this.  Having said that, if I pay $60 annually for such a service, I expect MSFS quality for the streaming of satellite & photogrammetry.  I dislike having to download ortho, massaging that ortho, and purchasing a separate hard drive to store that ortho.

As for FPS, I think I could tolerate XP12, with the graphics that I see in the demo videos, at about 30 FPS.  I'm not expecting MSFS like FPS, as that is really icing on the cake for me.  But I think I am fine at 30 FPS. I hope I wouldn't have to purchase a really high end system to get 30 FPS, but I can understand paying $2500 USD or so, for a system that could give me 30 FPS for XP12 at 1920x1080 resolution.

If XP12 has all this, in the case that Microsoft pulls the plug on MSFS one day, I would not hesitate to pick up a copy of XP12 (assuming the price of XP12 would be between $60 USD to $120 USD).  Even if XP12 doesn't have all this, I would probably still get it if the plug is pulled on MSFS one day, as I really like the graphics for XP12 in the demos right now.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by abrams_tank

[abrams_tank 7,552]

7 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

You mean like those companies who pay him lots of money to give them a decent flight sim, not these lesser complainers who just love too whine and complain. It must be embarrasing for you all, really. Spoilt Little children who cant get there lolly. Its a psychological thing, people who cant get what they want, will sit and complain about everything else to make them selves think what they have is better, and this did start of reasonably well. I havnt being on the MS forum really I have no need.

To be fair, Austin didn't prioritize enhancing the graphics for X-Plane for the longest time.  I think it was around 2015 to 2017, there was a conference involving X-Plane where the developers were there and it was being broadcast on Twitch.  The person streaming the conference on Twitch was also live in the audience.  I asked the streamer to ask the X-Plane developers about 3D trees.  The streamer asked the X-Plane developers and the response was that maybe one day X-Plane would have better trees.  Nothing was done for several more years because graphics wasn't a leading priority for XP until MSFS was released.

You can clearly see that for XP12, graphics is a huge priority.  For whatever reason, Austin and LR did not prioritize the graphics until now.  XP12 is a huge graphics makeover.  You have to realize that there are customers like me, who aren't current customers of X-Plane, that would have considered purchasing XP if it just looked better.  MSFS got all the customers like me, and probably even took away some existing customers from XP that switched over to MSFS.

The good news is, Austin and LR are catering to customers like me with XP12.   When XP12 is released, some customers that left XP for MSFS because of the graphics, may even come back to XP with XP12.

[Janov 2,383]

I know that many of you think that you need to "convince" Laminar Research to use Orthophotos. Especially since Austin so adamantly maintains that he "does not want them".

The truth is - Laminar CAN`T give us Orthophotos, because they don´t have any. Just like Ben said in the FSElite interview. They also can´t provide a button that says "download Google Earth scenery on the fly" - because that would be illegal.

Third party (Google?) could maybe offer such a service, but I am not sure if the price for such a service would be tolerated so stoically...when MSFS gives you the same "for free"?

I know that the presentation could not really convey what XP12 will really be like - but it will NOT look like MSFS. So if that is a prerequisite for you enjoying flightsimulation...don´t waste your time here, go enjoy MSFS instead.

[abrams_tank 7,552]

19 minutes ago, Janov said:

I know that many of you think that you need to "convince" Laminar Research to use Orthophotos. Especially since Austin so adamantly maintains that he "does not want them".

The truth is - Laminar CAN`T give us Orthophotos, because they don´t have any. Just like Ben said in the FSElite interview. They also can´t provide a button that says "download Google Earth scenery on the fly" - because that would be illegal.

Third party (Google?) could maybe offer such a service, but I am not sure if the price for such a service would be tolerated so stoically...when MSFS gives you the same "for free"?

I know that the presentation could not really convey what XP12 will really be like - but it will NOT look like MSFS. So if that is a prerequisite for you enjoying flightsimulation...don´t waste your time here, go enjoy MSFS instead.

Well, I would be willing to pay $60 USD for a such a service annually.  I don't expect it to be free like MSFS.  That's just me though.  $120 USD per year for such a service... maybe ... it depends, but $120 per year is pushing it for me.

If a 3rd party could offer it and it works with X-Plane, that also works for me.  I know Austin doesn't want it, but I wonder if he would consider letting a 3rd party do it.

For me, this is really a "nice to have" feature.  It's not the end of the world if XP doesn't have it.  But it would be nice to have, even if a 3rd party offered it at a reasonable price per year (if Austin permitted a 3rd party to do it for X-Plane).

If Austin is still adamant on not providing such a service, as an alternative, it would be nice if the autogen were more regional. I think this was brought up by Pastaiolo earlier about houses not being as representative when they are autogenerated for the region they are in.  A more regional autogen so that the buildings/houses match the region better would be a compromise, I suppose, if Austin will never allow satellite & photogrammetry streaming in XP.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by abrams_tank

[Pastaiolo 1,690]

8 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

If Austin is still adamant on not providing such a service, as an alternative, it would be nice if the autogen were more regional. I think this was brought up by another poster earlier about houses not being as representative when they are autogenerated for the region they are in.  A more regional autogen so that the buildings/houses match the region better would be a compromise, I suppose, if Austin will never allow satellite & photogrammetry streaming in XP.

 

This is exactly what i expected for ground improvements on XP12, based on the fact that one of the strong points of the presentation of XP11 was regional autogen.

Especially considering what MisterX was able to do in such regard with different kind of autogen, i was even hoping it would be implemented directly into XP12.

https://store.x-plane.org/SFD-Global_p_1060.html

So far it has been the only addon ever, for any sim, giving mediterranean houses their mediterranean look. And of course, that other sim that paints roofs the proper way.

[abrams_tank 7,552]

11 minutes ago, Pastaiolo said:

This is exactly what i expected for ground improvements on XP12, based on the fact that one of the strong points of the presentation of XP11 was regional autogen.

Especially considering what MisterX was able to do in such regard with different kind of autogen, i was even hoping it would be implemented directly into XP12.

https://store.x-plane.org/SFD-Global_p_1060.html

So far it has been the only addon ever, for any sim, giving mediterranean houses their mediterranean look. And of course, that other sim that paints roofs the proper way.

Yes.  If Austin is adamant on not allowing the streaming of satellite & photogrammetry in XP, even if it's done by a 3rd party, I hope that Austin would consider incorporating regional autogen better in the base copy of XP.  I don't want to purchase this add-on separately. The reasons why I don't want to purchase it separately are because:

1. It may break with a version update of XP.

2. If it's not optimized well, it will lower the FPS of XP (I have more faith that LR can optimize these features better, rather than the 3rd party optimizing it, because LR can change the core code of XP to optimize it whereas the 3rd party cannot change the core code of XP).

3. It will likely be more stable and more consistent if LR does this rather than the 3rd party

4. I dislike having to manage more and more add-ons, especially if add-ons cause problems with the simulator.

It would be nice if Austin and LR and try to incorporate more of these features into the base copy of XP, rather than the customer having to buy an add-on.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by abrams_tank

[BobFS88 700]

18 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I asked the streamer to ask the X-Plane developers about 3D trees.  The streamer asked the X-Plane developers and the response was that maybe one day X-Plane would have better trees.  Nothing was done for several more years because graphics wasn't a leading priority for XP until MSFS was released.

You can clearly see that for XP12, graphics is a huge priority.  For whatever reason, Austin and LR did not prioritize the graphics until now. 

You say here "Nothing was done for several more years because graphics wasn't a leading priority for XP until MSFS was released."

Do you understand why they decided to the move to the Vulkan api?

Do you know that they announce that move to Vulkan at Cosford on November 4th 2017?

Do you think they did this just as a nice to have feature for bragging rights?

Their goal was to improve performance that will give them near guarantee mim performance of 30 or better fps in VR which also will help performance with multi screen to reduce the stutters for there professional customers. 

They knew that if they were going to add 3D trees, volumetric clouds running along side of particle systems for rain an accumulated snow to created fully procedural dynamic scenery, (all of these things that impact performance) would have render the sim into a slide show.

The move to Vulkan has everything to with graphics performance which allows them the head room to add in all the graphic feature that they couldn't do otherwise without taking a huge performance hit. It also gave them the tools that they didn't have to observe the performance, to improve memory management in order to help optimize it. As a benefit, going to Vulkan modernize the graphic engine Xplane to take advantage of the newer hardware and feature that they wouldn't have otherwise.

Everyone who understood this knew it would be a big deal. But for whatever reason you think they weren't doing anything. But now you say " For whatever reason, Austin and LR did not prioritize the graphics until now." just because you can see it? That is something I would expect an average end user/ gamer to say and not something coming from a software engineer.

[tonywob 4,784]

38 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

It would be nice if Austin and LR and try to incorporate more of these features into the base copy of XP, rather than the customer having to buy an add-on.

...nooo...... then how will 3rd parties make money 

TBH, there are some things that are better left to developers who care more about them, which is pretty much the case with payware airports and regions. People who make these airports will spend a lot of time making one particular airport look perfect and this is simply something LR or Asobo don't have the resources to do. I'd rather Asobo and LR put more effort in to the base sim and gave developers the ability to make awesome addons rather than trying to do everything theirselves.

50 minutes ago, Pastaiolo said:

So far it has been the only addon ever, for any sim, giving mediterranean houses their mediterranean look. And of course, that other sim that paints roofs the proper way.

Yep, but the problem with this addon is that it doesn't actually change the layout of buildings. So it looks great at ground level, but once higher up, the very unnatural and static way the autogen is placed stands out. Our streets in Europe aren't laid out in grids and this really stands out in X-Plane. The idea of using better data and algorithms to place the autogen would go quite some way I think to making regional autogen a bit more "regional" . I know the scenery system is already highly capable of this in X-Plane (even as it currently stands), it just needs someone to find an intelligent way to place it on a mass scale without needing to purchase expensive data

[mjrhealth 862]

1 hour ago, Janov said:

for free"?

Free, yeh only looks that way. I have never known a company to give anything away for free if there was not a profit to be made, its suicide.