1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

You missed the part where he said still a long way to go?

Don't lecture me. Vulkan had a long way to go but then it was abruptly ended and simmers had to deal with issues including the device lost crash to desktop. So I don't believe a thing until it's done. Regarding performance, on a modern PC, XP should be getting a minimum of 60 FPS these days, be properly multi-threaded, use RAM efficiently and make the GPU work to the Max. Only then will investing in a 3080 or whatever be worth it. Time to fix the engine.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

Reduce the graphics settings? Reduce them from what? Is there a default setting from which most people will have to reduce the settings in order to run it? Or spend two grand on a new graphics card? Not a realistic choice then because basically it will be XP11 unless one's got a five grand PC, I think I know where I'll be spending my money.

If at release a PC is not up to running XP12 smoothly there is a choice.  Don't buy it, upgrade or lower settings.  My PC wasn't up to running MSFS so I purchased a £3200 PC - the sim runs smooth on Ultra settings

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Erm, several times the phrase 'a long way to go' was said.

And is that a good thing in your opinion?

Rka , Greazer and Jamstro, the usual suspects.

First to Greazer: the move to vulkan is finished from my part, it doubled my frame rates and I don’t have crashes. What’s your point? 

Second , they are NOT showing promotion material, but development status. There is a lot of not optimised code running, with debugging code on top. Hopefully things will continue to improve, but you can’t deny it is already a huge improvement over XP11.

Third, with MS FS I never was able to run full weather, I always had to run clear skies, when a new version came out (I started with v4.0) until I was able to upgrade my hardware. Not so when going from XP10 to XP11, performance even improved.

So until we get our hands on the actual product, refrain from telling us it’s a complete disaster , because you don’t and can not know.

As they are moving tasks to the graphics card, there is room for improvement still, even on my aging GeForce 1070.

<end of rant>

 

Vulkan, in my experience, was a great leap fwd in terms of performance, and actually turned XP11 absolutely smooth even running more complex add-ons...

I believe there's going to be a lot more than "just" the new clouds comming with XP12. The World itself, and the Space, are also getting an update, from what I already read.

 

7 hours ago, rka said:

And is that a good thing in your opinion?

In my opinion speculation about performance is meaningless at such an early stage in development.

16 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

speculation

there are two types of speculation.

Baseless speculation, which is always meaningless.

And

Speculation based on knowledge, evidence and expert opinion, which makes the world go round.

We have two pieces of evidence so far from which to speculate on the performance of what LR have planned for XP12.

The first is the trees they demoed were rendered on a GTX1070, which is the only bit of hardware needed to draw them.

The second is we already have volumetric clouds in XP11. Enhanced Cloudscapes and xEnviro, from which about anyone who has used them can draw conclusions on how volumetric clouds perform, and how hard it is to get them to work and look good.

Edited November 13, 20214 yr by mSparks

9 hours ago, mSparks said:

there are two types of speculation.

Baseless speculation, which is always meaningless.

And

Speculation based on knowledge, evidence and expert opinion, which makes the world go round.

We have two pieces of evidence so far from which to speculate on the performance of what LR have planned for XP12.

The first is the trees they demoed were rendered on a GTX1070, which is the only bit of hardware needed to draw them.

The second is we already have volumetric clouds in XP11. Enhanced Cloudscapes and xEnviro, from which about anyone who has used them can draw conclusions on how volumetric clouds perform, and how hard it is to get them to work and look good.

hmmmmm

https://youtu.be/2-YDMP9VWNE

14 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

In my opinion speculation about performance is meaningless at such an early stage in development.

It's not really meaningless considering past results.  There are severe bottlenecks and GPU idling in XP. But based on all the other updates I don't have much confidence they are going to code proper multithreading and optimize this sim. The minimum bar these days is 60 FPS. That's minimum. It should never drop below that on recent hardware.

2 hours ago, Greazer said:

It's not really meaningless considering past results.  There are severe bottlenecks and GPU idling in XP. But based on all the other updates I don't have much confidence they are going to code proper multithreading and optimize this sim. The minimum bar these days is 60 FPS. That's minimum. It should never drop below that on recent hardware.

There is still MSFS to tinker with. Bye.

2 hours ago, Greazer said:

It's not really meaningless considering past results.  There are severe bottlenecks and GPU idling in XP. But based on all the other updates I don't have much confidence they are going to code proper multithreading and optimize this sim. The minimum bar these days is 60 FPS. That's minimum. It should never drop below that on recent hardware.

As I have said before, we would like to see your perfect flight sim, of course we are all confident you will not be able to produce any results, so please stop lecturing us. We know what Laminar is trying to do, and we will wait till  we see.

33 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

As I have said before, we would like to see your perfect flight sim, of course we are all confident you will not be able to produce any results, so please stop lecturing us. We know what Laminar is trying to do, and we will wait till  we see.

Of course, because it is only allowed for a person to criticise flight sim if said person has made a flight sim themself.

Are people allowed to say e.g. that one CPU runs slower than another or will they have to have built CPUs to be allowed to speak?

37 minutes ago, rka said:

Of course, because it is only allowed for a person to criticise flight sim if said person has made a flight sim themself.

people with no knowledge or evidence criticising/praising stuff is generally worthless, baseless speculation.

Greazer saying Laminar cant do stuff in relation to a video with a dude talking about how he's waiting 25 years to get what he can see

Or

Some guy with zero aviation experience that leads a company that makes toy story games promising every button in its planes will work just like the real thing.

About on par for how seriously you should take them.

1 year ago enhanced cloudscapes/skyscapes was here:

it took one guy, learning as he went, to get here

 

Edited November 14, 20214 yr by mSparks

29 minutes ago, rka said:

Of course, because it is only allowed for a person to criticise flight sim if said person has made a flight sim themself.

Are people allowed to say e.g. that one CPU runs slower than another or will they have to have built CPUs to be allowed to speak?

What @mSparks said. And the other guy talked about lecturing. Being so good for so long knew it wouldnt last.

5 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

What @mSparks said. And the other guy talked about lecturing. Being so good for so long knew it wouldnt last.

Tbh I read his statement more towards you than me 😉

Edited November 14, 20214 yr by rka