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 ??? 😉 
 

Be patient, for sure LR must do all performance optimizations, a lot of work to be done.

44 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

For all the great bullshot that they showed. This is what I noticed during the video.  I am not sure if this is because of YT compression but this looks like XPlane 11 with better tree. Everything else is terrible. very flat lighting, low resolution texture. very generic autogen. This is what I am talking about.  Also the LDO seems to be very small. 

 

 

I don't want to hate on XPlane 12 as I will be buying it but this capture doesn't scream next-generation. Even the cloud looks kind of 2D. So why show this during the presentation ? This doesn't do them any favor.  Before you guys start calling me an hater, There is a lot of things I liked about the presentation like the weather and changes to the SDK.

Here is the problem with you argument about visual in this particular scene.

While keep claiming ("I don't want to hate on X Plane 12") you seem to be unforgiving of fact that its still a work in progress. Notice in the corner of this particular scene you choose to show how bad this is to you. It say's "sound". This is demonstration, proof of concept they are working on that relates to sound, and not necessary the visuals. So I would not expect this to be all polish and finish visually if what they are showing has nothing to do with it. At the same time when MSFS showed their one in the half video, they didn't want to show everything nor they they allow the beta tester to show it from an live sim. Why, obviously holes in there visuals and performance  although many who found them, pointed them out. (tall tree and morphing graphic on the surface)

X-plane 12 in its early alpha stages as was MSFS so I just cut them so slake considering that all things are going to improve over time just as it has with MSFS.  

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by BobFS88

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

Then it's a case of being told 2 different things from 3 different people.  1 of them a scenery dev for MSFS.

Scenery developers have no access to such things, that's likely why. Lighting calculations are (and should be) opaque to them. You can see how aerial perspective is affected by clouds and how clouds are affected by aerial perspective in MSFS, these are all thanks to physically based lighting calculations. It is impossible to do the same without physically based calculations.

About your comment on ambient occlusion, the very nature of screen space ambient occlusion itself is not physically based, so it is left to the visual artist to decide how it should look. In real life, ambient occlusion effect occurs due to global illumination - light rays casting shadows in every direction. It is impossible to physically calculate this effect without ray traced global illumination, so instead a post processing effect is used to approximate the results of global illumination.

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by BiologicalNanobot

Just now, BobFS88 said:

Here is the problem with you argument about visual in this particular scene.

While keep claiming ("I don't want to hate on X Plane 12") you seem to be unforgiving of fact that its still a work in progress. Notice in the corner of this particular scene you choose to show how bad this is to you. It say's "sound". This is demonstration, proof of concept they are working on that relates to sound, and not necessary the visuals. So I would not expect this to be all polish and finish visually if what they are showing has nothing to do with it. At the same time when MSFS showed their one in the half video, they didn't want to show everything nor they they allow the beta tester to do show it from an live sim. Why, obviously holes in there visuals and performance  although many who found them, pointed them out. (tall tree and morphing graphic on the surface)

X-plane 12 in its early alpha stages as was MSFS so I just cut them so slake considering that all things are going to improve over time just as it has with MSFS.  

I don't disagree with you that it's a WIP.  I will give LR the benefits of the doubt when things like this shot should have never been shown

 

12 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

X-plane 12 in its early alpha stages as was MSFS so I just cut them so slake considering that all things are going to improve over time just as it has with MSFS.  

I've been cutting them slack for years now. Noone expects Asobo pace, but look at that pic. This is XP11.60, like it or not.

16 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Scenery developers have no access to such things, that's likely why. Lighting calculations are (and should be) opaque to them. You can see how aerial perspective is affected by clouds and how clouds are affected by aerial perspective in MSFS, these are all thanks to physically based lighting calculations. It is impossible to do the same without physically based calculations.

About your comment on ambient occlusion, the very nature of screen space ambient occlusion itself is not physically based, so it is left to the visual artist to decide how it should look. In real life, ambient occlusion effect occurs due to global illumination - light rays casting shadows in every direction. It is impossible to physically calculate this effect without ray traced global illumination, so instead a post processing effect is used to approximate the results of global illumination.

Exactly, Basically they try to fake what RTGI would look like by adding additional fake like source to make it looks like it's RTGI. It's a well know technique used. I would love to see RTGI in a modern sim. I am not sure that current GPU could handle RTGI and Reflections. I guess a combination of SSR and RTGI would probably more feasible.

10 minutes ago, rka said:

I've been cutting them slack for years now. Noone expects Asobo pace, but look at that pic. This is XP11.60, like it or not.

It really isn't. Atmospherics make a huge difference in perception of visuals, and they are using multiple scattering sky with volumetric clouds. The fact they all were shown separately means it is hard to estimate how it will look like when they are put together, but from what I have seen I am very sure that it will look quite nice, speaking from my experience with Enhanced Skyscapes.

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by BiologicalNanobot

6 minutes ago, rka said:

but look at that pic. This is XP11.60, like it or not

Yeah look at the picture, did it say its a release candidate? 

You don't think there is more to come? 

1 minute ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

It really isn't. Atmospherics make a huge difference in perception of visuals, and they are using multiple scattering sky with volumetric clouds. The fact they all were shown separately means it is hard to estimate how it will look like, but from what I have seen I am very sure that it will look quite nice.

I see no contradiction there.

Thought it was just OK on the whole but the water puddles and windscreen rain/wipers were absolutely top notch quality.

1 minute ago, BobFS88 said:

Yeah look at the picture, did it say its a release candidate? 

You don't think there is more to come? 

All that stuff from the videos tied together. What else are you expecting? I mean they even showed planes. If there would be more simwise, they would have showed that and teased the planes for a later date, is my guess.

Hi,

 

I'll be first in line to purchase when released into beta, the new weather engine is absolutely amazing... By far the best addition to XPlane I've seen as of yet. With that said, why would they spend time on crickets? This is a flight simulator, not a nature walk, that aspect of development I just don't understand.

I would like to have seen some info on exterior graphics, in regards to height/distance... Tired of the graphic drop off rings in the distance that surround the aircraft or the sudden end of clouds in the distance.

Looking at the piecing together of all the info, XP12 is further off than I had anticipated. Guess that means things will only get better.

I want to hear  that XP12 would use TAA , Ambient Occlusion , Motion Blur effects , better shadow, SSR and having a slider to change all of the settings individually.  So that we can tweak what is best for your PC configuration. 

4 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

With that said, why would they spend time on crickets? This is a flight simulator, not a nature walk, that aspect of development I just don't understand.

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