Xplane Next Generation (FSexpo)

[GoranM 3,764]

6 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Yep, in one of the videos I noticed the improved 3D trees and in the background the old billboard trees that glow and self-shadow. 

Just a guess, but this could be a performance saver.  swaying trees take up CPU usage.  Reverting to billboard trees past a certain radius will keep performance far better than having all trees in an infinite distance moving dynamically.

EDIT: And I had to laugh at David Mills, a massive MSFS youknowwhat, liking your post.  Hacks like these are not uncommon to improve performance.  "objectkill" is another one in aircraft.  It "kills" an object so the GPU doesn't have to take up valuable VRAM to load the textures for it.  Why load landing gear mesh and textures when they're retracted?  

The result?  Better performance.  It's actually far more beneficial for the end user who doesn't have the disposable income to go out and buy the newest graphics card.  The fact it's implemented is genius.

(How you doing, David? 😉 )

Edited September 26, 2021 by GoranM

[wiler 394]

I didnt mind the quirky presentation and the content was a step forward from xp11. I was a bit sad that they did not try to integrate some orthos into default sim, it is nice not having to tinker w orthos anymore while using msfs. One thing about MSFS is really vanilla wise you load up and go and dont have to spend tons of time messing w tweeks and scenery files before you fly. I REALLY miss the aircraft quality in XP, theres no match for that in MSFS thus far. I will use both in the future. 

[tonywob 4,769]

1 minute ago, wiler said:

I didnt mind the quirky presentation and the content was a step forward from xp11. I was a bit sad that they did not try to integrate some orthos into default sim, it is nice not having to tinker w orthos anymore while using msfs

Very unlikely to happen considering Austin's stance on orthos and how much he dislikes them. 

[wiler 394]

Just now, tonywob said:

Very unlikely to happen considering Austin's stance on orthos and how much he dislikes them. 

yes, I saw his comments in the Q&A video w FSE about how much he dispises the post apocalyptic look of the 3D ortho in MSFS. They wanna go another route but maybe someone will make an easier way to run orthos in the future ??  lets see. 

[abrams_tank 7,401]

The graphics look like a noticeable improvement over X-Plane 11 so that's the good news.  Unfortunately, aside from the trees, everything else falls short of MSFS.  The clouds, waves, and especially the ground are still behind MSFS.  What makes MSFS look so good and so immersive from the ground is the grass.  I didn't see any grass comparable to MSFS in the video, to cover the 2D textures on the ground.

I would be curious to knew the FPS they were getting and the system specs used.  The opening of the F-14 was not particularly smooth and I think I even saw micro stutters, so I am wondering what the FPS is.  As I mentioned before, it will be hard to match MSFS in both graphics and FPS, because X-Plane is running off an old engine and older architecture.

Having said that, this is huge step forward from X-Plane. Austin had neglected the people in the flight sim market that wanted better graphics and he didn't put very much resources into improving the graphics for X-Plane over the last 10 years.  Ironically, this gave an opening for MSFS to enter the flight sim market.  Good to see Austin finally listen to some of these people that wanted better graphics and X-Plane 12 shows the huge improvements over X-Plane 11 on that front.

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by abrams_tank

[GoranM 3,764]

🤦‍♂️

@abrams_tank, you said "because X-Plane is running off an old engine and older architecture."

Genuinely curious, how do you know this?  Did Austin give you access to his source code?

Edited September 26, 2021 by GoranM

[abrams_tank 7,401]

1 hour ago, tweekz said:

What I wonder, in the preview about trees, they really look great, but in other shots they just look like texture improved billboard trees.

Despite that, it's pretty much what I expected. Visually polished XP11.

To be fair, from the video they showed, XP12 is quite a big graphical improvement over XP11.  It's still short of MSFS, but I think XP12 would have had modern graphics for a flight sim from say, 7 years ago, whereas XP11 would have been modern graphics for a flight sim from 15 years ago.

XP12 is starting to look like a modern graphical flight simulator because 7 years ago isn't that long ago for the timeline of flight simulators, IMO.  If MSFS had not existed, for me, XP12 is something I could tolerate because it is somewhat modern.  XP11 though, I can't tolerate the graphics of that at all because it's so ancient.

Edited September 26, 2021 by abrams_tank

[mjrhealth 820]

18 minutes ago, wiler said:

One thing about MSFS is really vanilla wise you load up and go and dont have to spend tons of time messing w tweeks and scenery files before you fly

Dont have to do that in XPLANE either, people just choose to do it. No point. Really.

[mjrhealth 820]

8 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I would be curious to knew the FPS they were getting and the system specs used.  The opening of the F-14 was not particularly smooth and I think I even saw micro stutters, so I am wondering what the FPS is.

Yes people always looking for something, did you miss the fly on the Screen??? It was a blowy.

[rka 916]

42 minutes ago, Humpty said:

I believe you are more interested in going after a certain few , I would only know if one frequents a forum either by hovering over the nickname and if that moment it says "Msfs forum" or if one posts stuff in that forum 😁

No idea why my previous post was deleted? I linked the adressed persons post one page back where he links the MSFS forum and asked you to stay classy with your accusations.

 

[GoranM 3,764]

3 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

XP12 is quite a big graphical improvement over XP11.  It's still short of MSFS

Does MSFS use physics based lighting?  The lighting looks vastly different in MSFS, and I'm thinking the colors are overly saturated and occlusion overly done just to make it look better.  Physics is physics, and the lighting can't look different between sims if they BOTH use PBL.

[rka 916]

6 minutes ago, GoranM said:

🤦‍♂️

@abrams_tank, you said "because X-Plane is running off an old engine and older architecture."

Genuinely curious, how do you know this?  Did Austin give you access to his source code?

Eyes.

[GoranM 3,764]

1 minute ago, rka said:

Eyes.

What are you saying?  He can see code through a sim??  Who is he?  Neo from the Matrix???

How about an intelligent response?

[Humpty 751]

Just now, rka said:

No idea why my previous post was deleted? I linked the adressed persons post one page back where he links the MSFS forum and asked you to stay classy with your accusations.

 

mods are on a mod run 😁

think to keep things simple and clean , the discussions about sim vs sim should stop as each and every thread derails and gets a lockdown , as if the world didn't have enough of a lockdown. 

everyone has a right to an opinion but the opinion should stay till the games and not lose track.

[abrams_tank 7,401]

32 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

Yes people always looking for something, did you miss the fly on the Screen??? It was a blowy.

I have mentioned several times in other posts, that one of the challenges for X-Plane is to match MSFS in both graphics and FPS.  Because when you try to improve the graphics, the FPS will usually drop.  It's a conundrum with video games in general, not just X-Plane. 

I assume X-Plane is still using older architecture and it may still be using older code in some spots (this is an assumption though as I don't work at LR).  In software development, we say that software accumulates "technical debt" over time, which makes it harder to change, and harder to optimize.  I think X-Plane likely has accumulated some "technical debt" over the years unless LR has been constantly redesigning, refactoring, and recoding huge chunks of X-Plane over the years.  I'm sure LR did do some redesigning, refactoring, and recoding over the years, but my guess is, they only did so much and there is still some technical debt there.

Either way, we will see if X-Plane can match MSFS in both graphics and FPS for the final release of X-Plane 12.  We won't know until the final release of it.

BTW, if Asobo continues development on MSFS over the next 10 years, MSFS will also accumulate "technical debt" too over time.  Then in 2030, some new kid on the block with a totally new flight simulator may supplant MSFS as the dominant flight simulator in the home market, and Asobo will find it increasingly difficult after 10 years to match the new kid on the block.  It's extremely difficult to escape "technical debt" in software development projects, it's the nature of how software works.

Edited September 26, 2021 by abrams_tank