Interesting Austin interview

[jcomm 5,888]

 

[UKflyer 630]

Always good to hear what the boss has to say 😀

Definitely improvements to come in scenery but not in the near future.

[Baber20 1,438]

A few points.

1)He says that they are looking into the next gen options for the scenery but is not a priority right now. Next gen as in streaming satellite scenery? He didn't go into details.

2)They are looking to increase the mesh resolution of the airports to enhance the elevation data of runways. They also want to get the runway lighting better.

3)They want to improve the clouds further.

4) Their water physics is truly next gen stuff.

5) GPU is utilized way more than CPU. Lighting, clouds, water, scenery on GPU and flight model on CPU.

6) Austin is very happy with the lighting and says it is very close to the real stuff.

 

 

 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,819]

42 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

A few points.

1)He says that they are looking into the next gen options for the scenery but is not a priority right now. Next gen as in streaming satellite scenery? He didn't go into details.

2)They are looking to increase the mesh resolution of the airports to enhance the elevation data of runways. They also want to get the runway lighting better.

3)They want to improve the clouds further.

4) Their water physics is truly next gen stuff.

5) GPU is utilized way more than CPU. Lighting, clouds, water, scenery on GPU and flight model on CPU.

6) Austin is very happy with the lighting and says it is very close to the real stuff.

I like the balance Austin and the team are going for.  If I do want to find someone's house then I can use SimHeaven.  If I want satellite scenery, I can have it with ortho4XP.  I can of course load up MSFS if that sim gives me something that XP-12 can't. 

Although I can agree with Austins point of view and understand his vision for a simulator, there is one thing I believe they need to add - AUTOGEN SHADOWS PLEASE!  Austin even mentioned houses over the top of ortho that didn't seem connected, so lets have an option for autogen shadows to get those buildings and trees connected to the ground - the lighting is just too good not to interact with the autogen/trees.  Two options are required - autogen/tree shadows on and distance to display shadows.

Everything else is already in the beta, it just needs developing further.  It is probably because of the lighting model, but I get a greater sense of scale in XP-12 than I do in MSFS.  Flying through mountains I sense they are bigger, more foreboding, more grand than in MSFS - I wish I could explain better, but the XP-12 team have nailed the sense of scale.  Technically, I would have thought I would find MSFS visually better. For example, the trees have greater coverage because of the way they have been detected and plotted, yet after using XP-12 they look kind of baked in, flat, lifeless and blurry.  XP-12 trees are not as extensive (although the ortho displays others) but they give me more a sense of reality - trees feel more part of the environment.

MSFS and XP-12 share the same scale with each at opposite ends, but overlapping each other through the middle.  This is great because we can all use the simulator that more closely matches what we want from the experience.  There are enough similarities where they overlap the other through the middle of the scale, that makes both an option for me, but for VFR flying XP-12 with a couple of addons is perfect!

Very much enjoyed the interview!

Edited September 22, 2022 by MrBitstFlyer

[scotchegg 4,159]

In a way, I hope they don’t go down the satellite ortho path, or if they do, I hope they find a way to get rid of the problems of colour inconsistencies, and baked in clouds / shadows. The current solutions to these are still not very good.

I’d be more interested in landclass textures developed from satellite images, perhaps AI taking good quality imagery of that particular region/landclass and replicating across the whole are of that landclass (with some randomization). Oh, and localized autogen is also going to have to be addressed at some point…

[UKflyer 630]

10 hours ago, scotchegg said:

In a way, I hope they don’t go down the satellite ortho path, or if they do, I hope they find a way to get rid of the problems of colour inconsistencies, and baked in clouds / shadows. The current solutions to these are still not very good.

I’d be more interested in landclass textures developed from satellite images, perhaps AI taking good quality imagery of that particular region/landclass and replicating across the whole are of that landclass (with some randomization). Oh, and localized autogen is also going to have to be addressed at some point…

From the video i can tell Austin really doesn't like orthos! Hope they will partner with blackshark AI or someone who produce a digital representation of the earth.

I think he underestimates the amount of people who want to look at their house or not when looking down from the plane. The point is if people are flying into or out of an airport they would prefer the surrounding areas to look as realistic as the airport does. Some of the enjoyment of flying is not just getting the plane from A-B in one piece but to also look at the scenery along the way!

Edited September 23, 2022 by UKflyer

[tonywob 4,768]

11 hours ago, scotchegg said:

I’d be more interested in landclass textures developed from satellite images, perhaps AI taking good quality imagery of that particular region/landclass and replicating across the whole are of that landclass (with some randomization). Oh, and localized autogen is also going to have to be addressed at some point…

I believe this is somewhat already the case. The raster data that is used is often based on satelite imagery or free data taken from satelites that has created landcover maps (using AI and other techniques). Although they're pretty low resolution, you'll find that X-Plane's scenery is actually somewhat accurate in the shapes of villages, towns and other features. The issue remains that the textures and autogen are just very repetitive, boring and not very realistic. Even when combined with more detailed local data such as OSM etc, the result is still not pleasing to the eye. Even scenery such as the global themed autogen addons lose their effect when higher up (but look great on the ground).

If you can suspend belief, it's very possible to do VFR flights using the default scenery.

I think research is needed into more procedural methods that aren't static (Outerra and similar comes to mind) that can improve and give more variety and interest to the ground scenery. Maybe in time we'll see this

 

[peroni 541]

@tonywob Orbx has been fairly quiet so far on XP12 compatibility. I was expecting some announcement following that joint interview with Austin and Anna. 

Is there anything you can share please? 

 

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

7 hours ago, UKflyer said:

From the video i can tell Austin really doesn't like orthos! Hope they will partner with blackshark AI or someone who produce a digital representation of the earth.

I think he underestimates the amount of people who want to look at their house or not when looking down from the plane. The point is if people are flying into or out of an airport they would prefer the surrounding areas to look as realistic as the airport does. Some of the enjoyment of flying is not just getting the plane from A-B in one piece but to also look at the scenery along the way!

he just doesn't get it. I am sorry but this interview hurts my head. Calling a simulator with great scenery a driving simulator just show you disconnected from reality he is.  He also said that 4K is useless.  He also think XP12 has great performance already which is a hyperbole at best. It's was a real struggle to watch the whole thing. 

[jcomm 5,888]

6 hours ago, tonywob said:

I think research is needed into more procedural methods that aren't static (Outerra and similar comes to mind) that can improve and give more variety and interest to the ground scenery. Maybe in time we'll see this

 

TonyXP - is a registered trade mark waiting for ya !

Customized scenery for XP12 !!!!

Using Genetic Algorithms 😉

Give Genetics a new meaning - make the XP user community as happy as the MFS one is right now ! We need it 😉

Well, actually I have to be honest and confess that for the kind of use I give to flight simulators XP12 + SimHeaven World are more than sufficient ...

Edited September 23, 2022 by jcomm

[darshonaut 237]

Is the MSFS community happy ? I just changed from that sim to XP12. 

btt: is there a write up of the interview ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,819]

2 minutes ago, darshonaut said:

Is the MSFS community happy ? I just changed from that sim to XP12. 

btt: is there a write up of the interview ?

I spent 30 minutes practicing circuits at a Swiss airfield surrounded by mountains.  I then spent 10 minutes doing the same in MSFS.  I spent only ten minutes in MSFS because the lighting is pretty poor in comparison to XP12.  Don't get me wrong - I still consider MSFS an excellent simulator, but XP12 has made a giant leap forward in lighting.  Some comparisons I made.

1.  Lining up on the runway into the evening sun.  Everything visible in MSFS, but blinding in XP12 (as it should be)
2.  Mesh quality lower in MSFS against XP12 with ZL17 ortho
3.  Textures sharper in XP12.
4.  Colours and shadows far more natural in XP12.
5.  Haze/pollution effects more or less absent in MSFS, but very realistic in XP12.

I left the circuit and flew through the mountains.  XP12 blows you away with its lighting and the effect that has on the sense of scale.  MSFS is very good, no doubt about it, but its lighting portrays the scene in a flatter way - also no haze to speak of that adds to the flatness.  The MSFS community should be happy as MSFS is a great sim.  XP12 has a way to go, but its lighting especially makes it an excellent sim too.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,819]

1 hour ago, peroni said:

@tonywob Orbx has been fairly quiet so far on XP12 compatibility. I was expecting some announcement following that joint interview with Austin and Anna. 

Is there anything you can share please? 

 

I assumed Orbx would be first out the gate with XP12 updates following that interview.  Very surprising to hear nothing at all.

[Murmur 3,941]

1 hour ago, darshonaut said:

Is the MSFS community happy ? I just changed from that sim to XP12. 

I know this question might lead to a locked thread (hopefully not!), but I'm genuinely curious to know the reasons that brought you to that choice.

 

[UKflyer 630]

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I spent 30 minutes practicing circuits at a Swiss airfield surrounded by mountains.  I then spent 10 minutes doing the same in MSFS.  I spent only ten minutes in MSFS because the lighting is pretty poor in comparison to XP12.  Don't get me wrong - I still consider MSFS an excellent simulator, but XP12 has made a giant leap forward in lighting.  Some comparisons I made.

1.  Lining up on the runway into the evening sun.  Everything visible in MSFS, but blinding in XP12 (as it should be)
2.  Mesh quality lower in MSFS against XP12 with ZL17 ortho
3.  Textures sharper in XP12.
4.  Colours and shadows far more natural in XP12.
5.  Haze/pollution effects more or less absent in MSFS, but very realistic in XP12.

I left the circuit and flew through the mountains.  XP12 blows you away with its lighting and the effect that has on the sense of scale.  MSFS is very good, no doubt about it, but its lighting portrays the scene in a flatter way - also no haze to speak of that adds to the flatness.  The MSFS community should be happy as MSFS is a great sim.  XP12 has a way to go, but its lighting especially makes it an excellent sim too.

Flew over London earlier seeing every object imaginable, built up clouds, in the PMDG 737 and was getting 60+ fps. I don't see this ever being possible with XP12. Try not to compare the sims too much, they both have their positives and negatives.

Edited September 23, 2022 by UKflyer