Any new info on XP12 ground scenery / autogen?

[Gary1124 181]

2 hours ago, Janov said:

If I was in the Alpha, which I couldn´t tell you because of the NDA, I couldn´t tell you because of the NDA. 😉

But there is a slew of information available publicly that talks about improvements of XP12 over XP11, I will not rehash them here. The link I posted above is a good place to start, as is the official Facebook page (which you can access without signing up to Facebook).

I fully expect many former X-Plane users to NOT return from MSFS because XP12 will still hold less appeal for them than MSFS - and that is absolutely fine.

Everyone will be able to form an opinion once XP12 is out, either through reviews and videos, or - if someone is really interested in a firsthand impression - by downloading the free demo version (yes, that requires some time - non refundable, and storage space, which you will be able to recoup when you delete the demo later).

If someone is now still flying XP11 (over MSFS) or is using both simulators, that person will certainly highly welcome the improvements in XP12.

Cheers, Jan

I had an early version of Xplane in the early 2000s. I liked it then. Currently I am a P3D/FSX user with a ton of addons. I was seriously contemplating Xplane 11 after I got my NVMe drive and then I saw the first indications of an upcoming Xplane 12 so I decided to wait. I haven't gone to MSFS. Mostly because I'm not fond of the Big Brother ecosystem MS released it in. With P3d and FSX I am totally in control and I know well how to do any modding I want. All dressed up with Orbx and enhanced airports and ASN and GSX and many other things they look convincing enough. The aircraft systems are quite in depth on many mods and with A2A or Milvis the flight dynamics are realistic enough to. I don't use pedestrian aircraft addons. I like the engine management logic and realistic failures and just being able to learn in sim a lot of what I could IRL. I'm learning on a Skylane but at home I have my own, a V-tail, Commanchie, Twinkle, 310, and a Baron.  I'm sure Xplane 12 will have the virtual engine simulation and even better dynamics.

[OlliePen 88]

21 hours ago, peroni said:

Is the aircraft flying above the water or floating in it? Hard to tell

Holy Joe I believe that image (and the oil rig one in the link) are photoshopped! 🤣😬😐

[Bjoern 1,156]

20 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

I'm sure Xplane 12 will have the virtual engine simulation and even better dynamics.

"Virtual engine simulation" as in "wear and maintenance" isn't a default X-Plane feature and won't likely ever be.

[Janov 2,383]

2 hours ago, OlliePen said:

Holy Joe I believe that image (and the oil rig one in the link) are photoshopped! 🤣😬😐

I think I found another one...🤣

Edited April 22, 2022 by Janov

[EvidencePlz 276]

On 4/21/2022 at 8:16 AM, Gary1124 said:

Does XP have the capability of virtual engine modeling as in plug fouling, shock cooling, hot starts, hung starts, temperature effect on batteries, accurate electrical load simulations, accurate electrical systems including breaker operation etc?

yes, depending on which 3rd party addon you buy and how accurately that dev developed the addon.

[Gary1124 181]

9 hours ago, Bjoern said:

"Virtual engine simulation" as in "wear and maintenance" isn't a default X-Plane feature and won't likely ever be.

It wasn't part of FSX/P3D but A2A does it well on their products. I can only hope developers go to thar level.

[OlliePen 88]

19 hours ago, Janov said:

I think I found another one...🤣

The image I quoted represents XP-12's new water textures (which look pretty good) with a copypasta C172 amphibian (which is a terrible look). Why not show what the actual in-sim C172 amphibian looks like sitting on that water? Or flying over it, or taking off from it or landing on it?

What does your image represent? I've never seen it before, but just on cursory examination those god-rays coming from the clouds look terrible, too.

[mtaxp 666]

6 minutes ago, OlliePen said:

The image I quoted represents XP-12's new water textures (which look pretty good) with a copypasta C172 amphibian (which is a terrible look). Why not show what the actual in-sim C172 amphibian looks like sitting on that water? Or flying over it, or taking off from it or landing on it?

What does your image represent? I've never seen it before, but just on cursory examination those god-rays coming from the clouds look terrible, too.

The photo of x-plane new water is not photoshoped. There is also a video of it, unlike others, Laminar seem to have working water physics as well and you could see the cessna floating and interacting in that video. They even explained it beyond so it is first rendered on the gpu then moved to the cpu so you get to interact with the waves that you see. 

Edited April 23, 2022 by mtaxp

[OlliePen 88]

Could you please link that video?

[mtaxp 666]

2 minutes ago, OlliePen said:

Could you please link that video?

 

 

(If time did not save, it is 22:55)

[OlliePen 88]

Ah, thanks for that link. It's been a while since I saw that video, and I've slept since then. I like what I see from the "concept" videos, and will certainly try the demo out when it releases. 😀 Again, competition is good for our niche hobby! It keeps everyone honest and trying hard.

However, I maintain that the image in the link from Janov and then shown by Peroni is indeed photoshopped. Even my old eyes can see that.

[mtaxp 666]

19 minutes ago, OlliePen said:

Ah, thanks for that link. It's been a while since I saw that video, and I've slept since then. I like what I see from the "concept" videos, and will certainly try the demo out when it releases. 😀 Again, competition is good for our niche hobby! It keeps everyone honest and trying hard.

However, I maintain that the image in the link from Janov and then shown by Peroni is indeed photoshopped. Even my old eyes can see that.

FWIW I think both images from janov link does not look that good water wise. Development shots tend to look silly and sometimes ugly as Ben Supnik explained they are mostly from branch builds with many missing elements.

Still sure they are not photoshoped, the stick on top lock since there seems to be missing shadows as an example. On previous blog posts they had cessna in space as an example.

Edited April 23, 2022 by mtaxp

[mjrhealth 820]

39 minutes ago, OlliePen said:

However, I maintain that the image in the link from Janov and then shown by Peroni is indeed photoshopped. Even my old eyes can see that.

Yes everything is photo shopped these days even the news. But Laminar have nothing to gain by doing that

Edited April 23, 2022 by mjrhealth

[Janov 2,383]

Lol, you guys are too young to remember, it seems! 😅

The picture I posted was an artist´s concept image for FlightSimulator X (FSX) and the DirectX10 upgrade.

It created a bit of disappointment - because as anyone that played FSX in DirectX10 knows - it looked nothing like that image at all 😉

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/flight-simulator-x-hands-on-impressions-new-features-new-audio-experience-and-a-hint-at-directx-10-graphics/1100-6155710/

Edited April 23, 2022 by Janov

[Biology 1,347]

On 4/21/2022 at 5:21 PM, Bjoern said:

For sake of his sanity, I dearly hope he does not.

I hope so too. There is nothing positive about this thread, it is basically a compilation of people who harshly criticize X-Plane and people who go as far as calling Asobo developers "incompetent" because seemingly one can't be an X-Plane fan without belittling others. Seriously, I was expecting some truth / middle ground but no, it is still the repeat of inaccurate stereotypes about how X-Plane looks bad and how MSFS is bad for simulation. I know Austin and his enthusiasm about things which makes me feel really bad for him - I can't help but think to myself, is this really the community he deserves?

Edited April 23, 2022 by BiologicalNanobot