One thing I noticed is that pretty much all of the visual improvements in XP12 have been accompanied by (and possibly made as a function of) a related improvement in operational realism. Let me explain.

.) The vastly improved water visuals have been complemented by new water and seaplane physics, which (barring further improvements of this early iteration) is seemingly used as a RL training tool for aerial firefighters;

.) The new physical based photometric engine has also been designed to be FAA /Level-D compliant in terms of modeling the atmospheric and runway lights visibility;

.) The new dynamic environmental effects (e.g. the puddles and snow on the runway) go hand in hand with an improved and (this too) FAA/Level-D compliant modeling of runway friction and braking action;

.) The new 3D clouds are now integrated in a new weather system which is no longer static in time nor uniform across space.

This has always been a general philosophy of XP development: visual improvements only rarely represent some isolated "eye candy" (which, make no mistake, is an important aspect of a flight sim and in itself part of overall realism!), but often they are thought of to serve the realism aspect of piloting. I think this was more evident than ever in XP12 development.

   

   

 

Topic cleaned up, let's start again and this time without the bickering, trolling and pointless posts.

(Sorry @Murmur, hopefully one day someone can post something without it turning into an MFS vs XP war )

Probably the only effective way to prevent bickering, trolling and pointless posts is to lock the topic at this point.💤

That looks fantastic and what you can't SEE in screenshots, but feel and realize while using it, is the great realism in simulation. I'm glad being able to use a FAA /Level-D compliant simulator at home for only 60 bucks. Thanks Murmur for pointing that out.

3 minutes ago, Reader said:

Probably the only effective way to prevent bickering, trolling and pointless posts is to lock the topic at this point.💤

Let people who want to actually talk about what Murmur posted, talk about it. Anyone who starts bickering and insulting again will be taking a prolonged vacation from Avsim. 

Thanks, that sounds like a very good idea. Bye.

Fully agre. What good is an implementation, like wet and slippery runways if it’s not visible? 
remind that many of the functionality already existed previously, but now at least it is realis, in that you can see it.

in that same area, is icing on the wings also visually?

While I appreciate this I think this Level-D thing is getting out of control.  Just because it's good enough for a $50M simulator doesn't equate it to being great for home use.  The reason graphics aren't priority 1 in a Level-D simulator is it is an operational and procedural trainer.  The value is in the $50M in HW you are sitting in.  It's designed for situational awareness, operational and procedural training.  It's more important in a Level-D sim to know where to turn your head, where the knobs/levers that you may need to reach for blindly are, where the C/B's are, where the radio switches are located in the cockpit and fly the plane by the numbers.  Hence scenery is not as important.  That's why they've had simulators since 1965 when they were probably chasing green dots on a screen.  

But that's why scenery isn't as important in a Level-D simulator, that doesn't carry over to a home user who isn't sitting in the Flight Deck.  From my experience the visuals are the last thing I think about in a full motion sim and the first I think about in a non-motion sim where my entire experience is based on what I am seeing on a screen in front of me.  

Just my .02 but I think talking about how XP graphics are Level D certified is pointless as the first thing a full LEVEL-D certification requires is a full hardware flight deck which changes the "realism" discussion immensely.  First thing I noticed in the sim when we got rolling was the sounds...  Not the speaker sounds but the sounds of the cockpit creaking, things rattling, the same noises as the real flight deck.  It's all of those levels of immersion that make Level-D such a compelling training mechanism. 

So to talk about "Level-D" scenery without talking about all of ^^^ this is only half the conversation and by not putting it in a frame of reference it's just using it as a justification of some sorts for the scenery being "good enough"   

The issue is what's "good enough" for a $50M Level-D simulator with a full flight deck is quite different than a home user.  

Not even commenting on scenery quality here, just commenting that there is another side of the conversation that's not being considered when people talk about Level-D sims.  The experience has very little to do with the scenery and that is a tough environment to replicate at home on a normal human's income with a 6 way motion sim and full flight deck.  

Edit:  Also important to note a lot of these simulators (FAA) are still running a 2008 standard.  It's not XP that makes a simulator FAA compliant, it's the simulator itself the visual output system is secondary in all aspects and technically I think FAA regulations for visuals are "a general representation" 

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/120-40B1.pdf

 

Edited September 18, 20223 yr by psolk

I think my point was missed. Of course there are a lot of things that make up a Level-D sim, and only very few of them could be recreated on a PC flight sim at home. Even without the "Level-D" references, my point wouldn't have changed much.

The general observation is that visual improvements in XP tend to be thought of not in isolation, but coupled with improvements in operational realism. In this case, LR decided to implement a new lighting engine and a new runway visual condition system, both of which have been made to FAA specs and can be potentially used even in a Level-D sim. The "side effect" is that both of those features also increase significantly the visual realism/eye candy, which as you pointed out is very important in a PC flight sim.

I for one (and I'm sure many other XP users) am happy that LR decided to take that approach for those features, and wanted to acknowledge their effort.

Also, I never mentioned the scenery in my post nor was it meant to be a "justification" to not improve scenery. Indeed, I think XP12 scenery should be improved a lot, and IMO that's where 90% of their focus should be from now on.

Totally agree they seem to have a functionality first, visuals second development model. Runway friction is a great example of function first.  

What I am saying is XP11 was used in FAA certified real world flight sims without all those things you listed...  Technically what we use at home while similar software is not FAA approved because the HW is the most important component...  The "realism" you speak of instead of "eye candy" is only achieved in conjunction with realistic and custom HW interfaces.    It's great to develop for an FAA audience but you have to decide if you want to do that at the inclusion or exclusion of the general user base.  If I don't have the $8,000-$500,000 hardware and motion then the visuals or "eye candy" become that much more important to me... 

 I'm not arguing they have a functionality first development model which is great for commercial and home training.  I'm just saying the things you listed while improvements were already "good enough" for FAA in XP11 so they could have also focused on other aspects commercially for XP12...  But that's why it's early access and still more to come 🙂 

XP11 with the old lighting, old water physics, old visuals, old runway lights, old ground modeling was all FAA certified on 11 with the right HW combination.  

https://www.gleimaviation.com/cockpitbatd/

https://realsimgear.com/blogs/news/faa-approved-flight-simulators-guide

Quote

 

Any copy of X-Plane purchased from X-Plane.com can have the features required for FAA certification unlocked using a special USB key or digital download product key. However, getting the actual certification through the FAA takes a great deal more work than getting the X-Plane software ready.

Certification requires not only that the user have the certified X-Plane software, but also certified hardware (cockpit and flight controls) available through companies like Precision Flight Controls and GLEIM Aviation. This is because flight training systems can only be certified as a complete package (a software and hardware combination). The certified software is available for $500 to $1,000 per copy from PFC and GLEIM and the hardware runs from around $8,000 to $500,000 depending on your needs. The retail version of X-Plane purchased at X-Plane.com is not certified for flight training right out of the box, since certification requires a software and hardware combination. However, the software available for about $60 at X-Plane.com is almost identical what is found in the $500,000 full-motion FAA-certified platforms. The biggest difference is that the FAA-certified versions have custom aircraft files with larger instrument panels, which are set up to work with hardware radios like those found in the physical cockpits. The FAA-certified version also has some of the purely fun stuff (like space flight) removed–even though those situations are simulated accurately in X-Plane, just like the FAA-certified subsonic terrestrial flight.

 

 

Edited September 18, 20223 yr by psolk

From what I understand (I might be wrong though, but I seem to recall some comments of Ben or Austin on the subject) is that those new features, i.e. the new lighting engine and the new runway contamination model, were necessary for approval and use in higher fidelity simulators (Level-D?) than what was possible using XP11.

The new water physics does not involve the Level-D argument (indeed, I honestly ignore whether there are any Level-D seaplane simulators) but even in that case, it is now use for real world training as well, something that I reckon was not possible in XP11.

33 minutes ago, psolk said:

XP11 with the old lighting, old water physics, old visuals, old runway lights, old ground modeling was all FAA certified on 11 with the right HW combination.  

Kinda - its not quite as simple as they describe on the website.

Because what gets "certified" is use for specific syllabus elements, and for example, take-off/landing elements require very specific hardware response times, but cross country navigation not so much, instrument panel trainer "certification" can be achieved purely on cardboard cutouts with no "functional" hardware or software at all. Plus, outside of the FAA, local agencies are all slightly different.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Murmur said:

From what I understand (I might be wrong though, but I seem to recall some comments of Ben or Austin on the subject) is that those new features, i.e. the new lighting engine and the new runway contamination model, were necessary for approval and use in higher fidelity simulators (Level-D?) than what was possible using XP11.

The new water physics does not involve the Level-D argument (indeed, I honestly ignore whether there are any Level-D seaplane simulators) but even in that case, it is now use for real world training as well, something that I reckon was not possible in XP11.

XP11 was already FAA certified, perhaps not for LVL-D but actually I believe the biggest difference between LVL-A,B,C and D in addition to motion, higher fidelity visuals and FOV is A,B and C all have to render night or night/dusk visuals and LVL-D has to render daytime visuals.  Ground movements are typically not well simulated even in LVL-D as it requires a movement correlation and friction is not well modeled even in a big LVL-D sim. 

There is indeed a TWOTTER LVL-D Seaplane sim since 2016 or 2017 if I remember correctly.  I wonder what software they ran back then...

 

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

Kinda - its not quite as simple as they describe on the website.

Because what gets "certified" is use for specific syllabus elements, and for example, take-off/landing elements require very specific hardware response times, but cross country navigation not so much, instrument panel trainer "certification" can be achieved purely on cardboard cutouts with no "functional" hardware or software at all. Plus, outside of the FAA, local agencies are all slightly different.

 

 

Makes sense and goes all the way back to the world wars where they sat in a cockpit mockup to physically learn the controls 🙂  

https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/the-worlds-first-commercially-built-flight-simulator-the-link-trainer-blue-box  

And the weather ! The new weather model and the new tools / datarefs that will allow for a much more precise control to any 3pd weather injectors look really promising !!!