3 hours ago, Paul Deluca said:

Page 28 in hangar chat  Dec 7 2020 a young man [Choman] displayed his own atc.There is a video about it on Youtube. It shows ATR-72 engine fire, with copilot readback. I told him that his idea belongs in our sim.Watch the video, and you will see what i mean. I gave him Laminars' address, and never heard from him in the forum anymore.

 

This post is for Goran.

Haven't heard of the name, and without a real name, it's hard to determine if he's involved with Laminar.

There's no "Choman" in the Slack group, either.  

But he would definitely be a valuable asset in LR.  If he contacted LR, and they showed interest, they would have definitely snapped him up.

He goes under Choman do on youtube  Goran I was floored when i saw his video regarding the atc end of it. Holy Moly!!!!!!

I feel baited...

6 hours ago, mSparks said:

Only when you cant dock it, for example

Is this Matrix 5 or Inception 2? 🤣

Edited September 29, 20214 yr by RXP

8 hours ago, akita said:

A grayscale bump map for displacements will do the trick IMO, it can also scale on the GPU on a per pixel manner preventing overdraws and un-needed 3D content.

They are still not commenting about stuff like tessellation, "smoother" vector data etc...a no comment somewhat makes me wonder if they are already doing that but can't yet talk about it.

Just FYI, displacement mapping generates polygons - i..e the map actually creates additional geometry to render, as opposed to bump mapping which is truly just a shader for a pixel sample.

Using "hair primatives" to create grass wouldnt necessarily be any more or less expensive than displacement mapping, and would generally give better results.

Edited September 29, 20214 yr by VFXSimmer

24 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Just FYI, displacement mapping generates polygons - i..e the map actually creates additional geometry to render, as opposed to bump mapping which is truly just a shader for a pixel sample.

Using "hair primatives" to create grass wouldnt necessarily be any more or less expensive than displacement mapping, and would generally give better results.

Yes, it's just most practices I see typically use the same bump map for the displacement shader, so the cross-reference is somewhat on auto mode🙂

But you are right, both are different shaders.

For a very shallow and dense grass like in many airports I feel it would be a better artistic decision and still gives the desired 3d content.

Edited September 29, 20214 yr by akita

1 minute ago, akita said:

Yes but typically bump mapping is used by the displacement shader, so the cross-reference is somewhat on auto mode 🙂

For a very shallow and dense grass like in many airports I feel it would be a better artistic decision and still gives the desired 3d content.

Perhaps, but I can tell you in movie VFX, hair primative rendering is less expensive (renderwise) than displacement maps.  I havent programmed for a GPU directly, so I'm not 100% sure, but I wouldnt be surprised it the same is true there as well.

I hear you on the potential advantage of relying on the same map from a bump map application.  Having said that, I would almost always have to adjust a map on a CG object when going from bump to displacement to dial in the results I wanted - its not always as simple as flipping a switch 🙂

16 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Perhaps, but I can tell you in movie VFX, hair primative rendering is less expensive (renderwise) than displacement maps.  I havent programmed for a GPU directly, so I'm not 100% sure, but I wouldnt be surprised it the same is true there as well.

I hear you on the potential advantage of relying on the same map from a bump map application.  Having said that, I would almost always have to adjust a map on a CG object when going from bump to displacement to dial in the results I wanted - its not always as simple as flipping a switch 🙂

Yeah due to habits sometimes it becomes vague what one is talking about, typically every one will refer to them based on their own actual practice, so being more accurate is somewhay needed 🙂

Whatever Xplane choose for this, I hope they just choose LOL, frankly it is the only thing from what they showed that is still missing, every thing else is really great, with the SDK they have and this new terrain textures mixing thing its going to be fun! 

Edited September 29, 20214 yr by akita

Other promising news. Ben indirectly confirmed that in all the footage we've seen, there was a mix of both legacy and new features. And that the cloud draw distance is at least 250 km, so basically up to the horizon:

Ben Supnik says:

September 29, 2021 at 3:42 pm

A lot of the expo footage was NOT the new cloud system – since we don’t have every feature in one master branch right now (mostly it’s the weather system still being worked on).

The thunderstorm should go to the horizon if it really is “Everywhere” – if it’s localized to a region you’ll see past it. But with at least 250 km of draw distance in any direction, horizon coverage should be really good.

Edited September 29, 20214 yr by Murmur

Is there any feature we expected to see and didnt? 

I think they crossed everything off my list I hoped for and a few others I didnt really expect.

Swiss001 also did a decent enough review yesterday.

 

10 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Is there any feature we expected to see and didnt? 

I think they crossed everything off my list I hoped for and a few others I didnt really expect.

Swiss001 also did a decent enough review yesterday.

 

I personally think this is still too soon to do any type of review until all the pieces integrated together before you can draw any intelligent conclusion as what this is going to be when its finally completed. LR said that there where mixture of old and new in the video. No one should be drawing any conclusion from something that not complete, will only set them up to be proven wrong when if finally done. It looks too much like click bait for his fans.   

Edited September 29, 20214 yr by BobFS88

23 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Is there any feature we expected to see and didnt? 

I think they crossed everything off my list I hoped for and a few others I didnt really expect.

Swiss001 also did a decent enough review yesterday.

 

 I wish Meyer would desist from preaching from his pulpit to his disciples. It does more harm than good. If I wanted a physics lesson I'd go back to school.

Just now, jarmstro said:

 I wish Meyer would desist from preaching from his pulpit to his disciples. It does more harm than good. If I wanted a physics lesson I'd go back to school.

On the contrary, me and many other appreciate a lot his explanations on how he constantly improves XP's flight model, weather, physics, etc. If you are not interested in ever-improving accuracy in those areas and just care about other things, I think other products are better suited to you. 

 

19 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

 I wish Meyer would desist from preaching from his pulpit to his disciples. It does more harm than good. If I wanted a physics lesson I'd go back to school.

Austin treats flight simulation like the research project it should be, the proper noun for what he does is lecturing

In his case free lectures for those who are interested in the cutting edge of flight simulator engineering.

Ive had better lecturers Ive had worse.

If you or anyone else are not interested in the science behind what makes xplane tick you dont have to listen to his lectures to enjoy xplane, what makes you think that causes harm? These are not solved problems (just ask Boeing).