9 hours ago, Murmur said:

That is a photo!

Anyway, I noticed that the lighting in XP12 is influenced by a lot of factors. Even changing the air temperature will change the lighting.

Absolutely! I was amazed because i tried to change the temperature from +25C to -10C degrees and the whole atmosphere became a bit blueish and less of warm-colors. Try it as well guys, it‘s really great to see 🙂

47 minutes ago, rka said:

If XP12 were written from scratch, you'd have a point there.

The entire rendering pipeline is completely rebuilt from scratch. Ironically you should have done some research on msfs aswell before posting that comment https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/high-level-overview-of-msfs2020-tech.448406/

Edited September 15, 20223 yr by Baber20

40 minutes ago, rka said:

If XP12 were written from scratch, you'd have a point there.

Most of the sliders that set the fps are not even 2 months old. lighting, pretty much everything you see that effects fps in that xp12 shot are new and from scratch for xp12. 

But they are also not the reason hes reading 30fps, his gpu time (what msfs is counting) is 0.0176 seconds - 56fps.

My guess would be it most likely has scenery density set to high for his system, difficult to tell from that altitude, XP keeps a lot more scenery than you can see ready so there is no pop in/out or stutters.

But also, getting that really optimal so you really have to abuse the settings to get less than 60fps is, omg you guessed it, a work in progress.

 

20 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Absolutely! I was amazed because i tried to change the temperature from +25C to -10C degrees and the whole atmosphere became a bit blueish and less of warm-colors. Try it as well guys, it‘s really great to see 🙂

That's indeed true. Breathtaking ...

-15 °C

 

0 °C

 

+15 °C

 

+30 °C

18 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

The entire rendering pipeline is completely rebuilt from scratch. Ironically you should have done some research on msfs aswell before posting that comment https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/high-level-overview-of-msfs2020-tech.448406/

Now that's strange. What happened to the Vulkan renderer they were working on for half the XP11 run?

10 minutes ago, rka said:

Now that's strange. What happened to the Vulkan renderer they were working on for half the XP11 run?

Rather than running the old xp11 draw routines (converted from glsl to spirv), its now using all new modern ones for xp12.

e.g.

https://fselite.net/content/x-plane-12-dev-deep-dive-ep-2-5-rendering-lighting/

Edited September 15, 20223 yr by mSparks

34 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

That's indeed true. Breathtaking ...

-15 °C

0 °C

+15 °C

+30 °C

 

That is insane. I haven't seen anything like that in any other sim or even game. Laminar really sucks at marketing. There are so many hidden features which weren't talked about at all.

31 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

That is insane. I haven't seen anything like that in any other sim or even game. Laminar really sucks at marketing. There are so many hidden features which weren't talked about at all.

Breathtaking! 😁

5 hours ago, Baber20 said:

Xplane 12 looks much better. The sky, colors, dynamic range, atmospheric scattering and the shading of clouds, all look marginally better.

I dont agree. The question is not, which looks better but which looks more realistic. For that we have to check against reality:

The XP screenshot is too bright, brightness is too uniform, settlements look like sand, roads are too bright, colors are not saturated enough except forests, which are oversaturated, dark areas fade out too soon and the variation brough by the weather is totally lacking.

25 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

The XP screenshot is too bright, brightness is too uniform, settlements look like sand, roads are too bright, colors are not saturated enough except forests, which are oversaturated, dark areas fade out too soon and the variation brough by the weather is totally lacking.

Hmm…i seriously couldn‘t say which one looks better. Both are very good. The brightness depends on the time of the day, and we don‘t have this information. I think that it‘s only a matter of personal taste, no one is clearly better or worst than the other in my opinion.

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

I dont agree. The question is not, which looks better but which looks more realistic. For that we have to check against reality:

The XP screenshot is too bright, brightness is too uniform, settlements look like sand, roads are too bright, colors are not saturated enough except forests, which are oversaturated, dark areas fade out too soon and the variation brough by the weather is totally lacking.

And you think all this is accurately represented in the msfs shot ? Like you said, the question is which looks more realistic and for me xplane 12 takes the cake here.

2 hours ago, Baber20 said:

That is insane. I haven't seen anything like that in any other sim or even game. Laminar really sucks at marketing. There are so many hidden features which weren't talked about at all.

Exactly! And bit by bit I will show them in screenshots or videos (parts of which I have only read of and still have to test/confirm and others which I have experienced already myself). However, many people aren't interested in e.g. whether their plane takes longer to brake on a icy runway than on a dry one. They are more interested in "flying over their house" ^TM😁. For these people, showing the longer braking distance in a marketing video is meaningless ...

Stay tuned.

30 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

However, many people aren't interested

There are, unfortunately, a fairly large number of people who are only interested in voicing (shouting) their opinion about how they imagine flying to be having never sat in a cockpit. For them screenshots and videos will only prove xplane is nothing like they imagine flying to be, which seems to mostly be getting dragged along behind the aircraft controlling it with a gamepad.

These are the same people who will act shocked and offended when someone doesn't take their opinion seriously. Or outraged when anyone even hints that mighty microsoft never once attracted the best in the aviation and flight simulation business. 

This was always the crux of the arguments, a significant portion of the flight sim community have no true frame of reference as to what "realistic" means, and absolutely definately under no circumstances will they listen or admit they might be wrong.

Although, they may have to fairly soon, when they get the inevitable dose of the commercial realities of software development by big corporations.

7 hours ago, Baber20 said:

Xplane 12 looks much better. The sky, colors, dynamic range, atmospheric scattering and the shading of clouds, all look marginally better. As for the fps, you are comparing a product that has been optimized over 2 years versus the one that is literally in early beta with no optimizations. Do you remember the performance of msfs when it was released 2 years back. It was abysmal with insane ram usage.

I am only showing this as a person being as fair as possible. I spent an significant amount of time trying to make look the best I can. unfortunately, Performance issue has been plaguing Xplane for a very long time. Way before XP12, I know they have done some progress but there is a lot of it left to go. I really hope Ben managed to squeeze a lot more our of high end pc. 

On 9/14/2022 at 7:10 AM, Baber20 said:

That is your opinion and that is ok. In my opinion it already looks better visually with accurate lighting and color saturation as compared to the over vibrant and often washed out look of MSFS. Now with the orthos and simheaven, that is cherry on top and Xplane 12 becomes a complete package. I have been using MSFS since it's Alpha release but after trying Xplane 12, I haven't fired it up once.

Maybe I should have said "scenery" instead of "visuals".  Yes the lighting and clouds are very very good, but the scenery is where I was expecting more.  So I stand corrected.