Just now, Murmur said:

Probably internal testing, as shown by the above video as an example. You don't know a lot about software development, do you? 😄

Internal testing of the features they didn't implement yet? Please enlighten me, Mr. Senior Software Developer.

5 minutes ago, rka said:

Internal testing of the features they didn't implement yet?

8 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Equal size does not equal time here.

Edit: doesn't matter though. Not what I was asking for.

Edited October 22, 20214 yr by rka

12 minutes ago, rka said:

Equal size does not equal time here.

true, but as a guide, software's lifecycle is generally around 10 years, and spends about 4 in "maintenance". XP11's initial release was Nov 2016 and took about 2 years to get out of beta, first hitting steam end of March 2017, XP11.30 was the first version of XP11 to truly be better in every aspect than XP10, released Jan 2019.

Edited October 22, 20214 yr by mSparks

26 minutes ago, mSparks said:

true, but as a guide, software's lifecycle is generally around 10 years, and spends about 4 in "maintenance". XP11's initial release was Nov 2016 and took about 2 years to get out of beta, first hitting steam end of March 2017, XP11.30 was the first version of XP11 to truly be better in every aspect than XP10, released Jan 2019.

Yeah, that's just not the point here. Also it doesn't make XP look better.

I'm only still trying to find out about Schrodinger's features here, on which it doesn't make sense to work and which are being worked on at the same time.

Or which can be tested without being implemented 🙂

Edited October 22, 20214 yr by rka

9 minutes ago, rka said:

Or which can be tested without being implemented 🙂

I believe Ben's blog post is explaining this, albeit maybe indirectly:
http://hacksoflife.blogspot.com/2018/10/is-it-ever-okay-to-future-proof.html

The act of writing feature A doesn't just ship feature A - it's the R&D process by which you learn enough to write feature B. So fusing A & B's design may not be possible because you have to code A to learn about B. These questions highlight when features have this kind of "learning" data dependency.

Sometimes you code something which is purely for investigating the feasibility, or for determining by experiment which algorithm would serve the problem better, before committing to the full feature implementation. And sometimes this R&D code you keep somewhere might be of use later on in future updates, or other products too. Maybe the above must be read differently, but this is pretty much what I'd tend to understand at first read and which would explain the "testing without being implemented" idea?

22 minutes ago, RXP said:

I believe Ben's blog post is explaining this, albeit maybe indirectly:
http://hacksoflife.blogspot.com/2018/10/is-it-ever-okay-to-future-proof.html

The act of writing feature A doesn't just ship feature A - it's the R&D process by which you learn enough to write feature B. So fusing A & B's design may not be possible because you have to code A to learn about B. These questions highlight when features have this kind of "learning" data dependency.

Sometimes you code something which is purely for investigating the feasibility, or for determining by experiment which algorithm would serve the problem better, before committing to the full feature implementation. And sometimes this R&D code you keep somewhere might be of use later on in future updates, or other products too. Maybe the above must be read differently, but this is pretty much what I'd tend to understand at first read and which would explain the "testing without being implemented" idea?

Look I'm really only looking to get an explanation from him for the clueless and arrogant nonsense he was throwing at me. 

Re your comment: Sure. But I'd only want my developers to experiment for our new graphic feature within the deprecated and soon to be dismissed renderer when they a) have no idea how to do it at all (because there is no or at best very little reusability) and b) when there is absolutely nothing else they can do right now.

Which I think is not what our senior software developer was trying to say here.

Edited October 22, 20214 yr by rka

25 minutes ago, RXP said:

I believe Ben's blog post is explaining this, albeit maybe indirectly:
http://hacksoflife.blogspot.com/2018/10/is-it-ever-okay-to-future-proof.html

The act of writing feature A doesn't just ship feature A - it's the R&D process by which you learn enough to write feature B. So fusing A & B's design may not be possible because you have to code A to learn about B. These questions highlight when features have this kind of "learning" data dependency.

Sometimes you code something which is purely for investigating the feasibility, or for determining by experiment which algorithm would serve the problem better, before committing to the full feature implementation. And sometimes this R&D code you keep somewhere might be of use later on in future updates, or other products too. Maybe the above must be read differently, but this is pretty much what I'd tend to understand at first read and which would explain the "testing without being implemented" idea?

Exactly this, its a process, and a time consuming one at that. A lot of the current discussion now is what will be going into the next major release after XP12 (XP13)

39 minutes ago, rka said:

Also it doesn't make XP look better.

Making beautiful screenshots and concept art videos is very very very very easy compared with turning them into software that performs with an acceptable framerate and is usable for flight simulation.

it was almost 2 years ago we were arguing if it would ever be possible to do this in realtime, and those "vocal voices" you were referring to were insisting it never would be.

Yes, XP11 could  be made to look that good in January 2020

 

 

Edited October 22, 20214 yr by mSparks

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

it was almost 2 years ago we were arguing if it would ever be possible to do this in realtime

You and others were. The people that are called "haters" here by some knew it was 😉

 

4 minutes ago, rka said:

You and others were. The people that are called "haters" here by some knew it was 😉

 

In January 2020 when that video was made?

Edited October 22, 20214 yr by mSparks

19 minutes ago, mSparks said:

In January 2020 when that video was made?

It was obvious in 2020 that the XP narrative of "needs no fix" and "can't be done" was ridiculous for every person that has a bit of purely user experience with game engines in the last decade. 

I didn't watch the video though. I'm having a text based discussion here, so I had to guesstimate the content 😄

Edited October 22, 20214 yr by rka

6 minutes ago, rka said:

I didn't watch the video though. I'm having a text based discussion here

So you should, because its waaaay better than any of the promo videos Asobo/Microsoft were putting out at the time or I have seen since.

8 minutes ago, rka said:

that the XP narrative of "needs no fix"

The org has gotten a new logo since then 🤣. have you not noticed?

8 minutes ago, rka said:

and "can't be done"

well, that one still remains to be seen tbh, 60fps at that quality is a big ask, 60fps in VR even more so.

And I and many others can never go back to 2D.

No one has done it yet. It was definitely never ever planned for XP11.

Just now, mSparks said:

So you should, because its waaaay better than any of the promo videos Asobo/Microsoft were putting out at the time or I have seen since.

The org has gotten a new logo since then 🤣. have you not noticed?

well, that one still remains to be seen tbh, 60fps at that quality is a big ask, 60fps in VR even more so.

And I and many others can never go back to 2D.

No one has done it yet. It was definitely never ever planned for XP11.

I don't see your point with regard to that video, I mean actually it proves mine that it was possible in 2020 even with XP11 as a base, or am I missing something here? And they already stated they are not trying to achieve this (no ortho plus autogen, the video doesn't look like no ortho plus autogen).

Yeah I noticed the new logo 😄

Re VR: XPs VR implemententation is clearly good. The other sim's is good too though and the overall experience in VR is just so much better. You should try it again.

I think none  is understanding the reasons behind why XP features / performance were never released or done or whatever and trying to give great answers without understanding , one needs to understand that XP was using Opengl engine catering to multiplatform , I believe Opengl had / has limitations , it couldn't have gone with DX which would only be windows and single platform was or is not LR's criteria 

Just searched on Google "Vulkan API release date " it says 16 Feb 2016 , hmm wasn't Xp11 also released in 2016 ?  

Sometimes you do POC (proof of concept) just to see if it will work without ever implemented that features. by doing this POC, it gives you some learning that are essentials for other features.