SimHeaven's X-Europe for XP12 analysis...

[Murmur 3,944]

1 hour ago, UKflyer said:

That is the problem we have, but don't want to have. I don't want two sims, one good at scenery and the other at physics.

I think MSFS is pretty good for normal flight operations. The difference is, in MSFS you just plot a file plan and don't need to worry about (almost) anything, unlike in a real flight.

In XP, if you use the appropriate settings, you'd better be careful (almost) as a real pilot would, or you could find yourself out of the sky or plowing the grass without even realizing what happened.

But that's a quite specific "niche". 90%+ of simmers don't care about the latter and have a different focus.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Murmur

[jcomm 5,990]

@Murmur,

exactly my view, and my choice whenever "feel of flight" is what I look for vs "scenery sugar"...

XP12 is now, though, very appealing scenery / weather / lighting wise. In some aspects I find the experience more realistic than in MFS, if I don't focus on scenery details and amount...

Then, the aircraft response to controls, turbulence, etc... has always felt more plausible to me in XP, and XP12 has stepped fwd in a good direction.

 

[blingthinger 649]

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

"feel of flight" is what I look for vs "scenery sugar"

It's difficult to take the "sugar addicts" seriously when they clamor for ultra realism on approach. I'm more worried about the crosswind on my 3rd lap around the airport in the Mad Dog (and it is mad!) than what the tennis court looks like on short final.

Aside from some big city skylines and monuments (that look better from 3rd party anyways), I wouldn't know any other region of the world at 1k ft, besides my house and the nearby vicinity. Maybe also a few other places I've visited in life. The plausible buildings look just fine and simhaven places them where they apparently should be (again, not that I would even know). 

[Bjoern 1,158]

On 10/11/2022 at 7:47 PM, Sethos said:

Yes, every piece of criticism aimed at X-Plane and anything related is trolling, that's the best way to dismiss everything. 

The sound makes the music.

It's not that X-Plane does not allow users to change the scenery to their liking (as proven by orthos, HDMesh and X-World), it's that I've never seen a compulsive complainer here actually get off his/her lazy buttocks and actually do something about making it better. Really, there's nothing stopping anybody from defining new facades, roofs or implementing other objects to increase variety and realism or generating a new, much higher resolution mesh with better land classification or changing the ground textures into something more appealing! There even is huge potential for a "walked a mile in somebody else's shoes" story.

 

On 10/11/2022 at 8:47 PM, UKflyer said:

20 fps in the zibo i don't think is acceptable when flying has to be smooth and fluid for the immersion.

That's frankly Zibo's fault as his 737 wastes quite a few FPS by running stuff at simulator framerate that does not need to run at simulator framerate. I've tried bringing it to his attention, but it fell on deaf ears. So I came up with my own workaround, which worked well for me in XP11 across several of his aircraft releases and should work as well in XP12.

[jcomm 5,990]

@Bjoern : Thx for the workaround suggestion!  Will surely take it into consideration when installing the Zibo !

[UKflyer 630]

10 hours ago, Bjoern said:

That's frankly Zibo's fault as his 737 wastes quite a few FPS by running stuff at simulator framerate that does not need to run at simulator framerate. I've tried bringing it to his attention, but it fell on deaf ears. So I came up with my own workaround, which worked well for me in XP11 across several of his aircraft releases and should work as well in XP12.

nice thanks will try it out

[tonywob 4,770]

The video is not really a great preview of the capabilities of X-Plane 12 (or 11), especially the ones that show the Simheaven autogen on-top of default textures which is never going to look particularly good. Let's also not forget Simheaven's scenery is free and developed out of fun/dedication, and when used as intended (with aerial imagery) it does a very good job of filling out large areas with believable scenery. 

I know from my own experiments and projects that the sim is capable of looking really incredible (sometimes beating the competition) and performing well.  It just needs passionate and dedicated 3rd parties to put in the time, money and effort to develop for it. However, with the inevitable comparisons with another sim and the fact that it has great scenery for free out of the box makes this a risky and probably unprofitable endeavour . 

 

[rka 916]

25 minutes ago, tonywob said:

It just needs passionate and dedicated 3rd parties to put in the time, money and effort to develop for it.

That and the required performance headroom. Both are not looking too promising right now IMHO.

[jcomm 5,990]

For users like me it is more than sufficient the way it is, including the performance impact which is not even noticeable in my Ryzen 5600x + RTX 3060Ti.

I amd more than OK with it, and only miss a better night environment / lighting over dense urban areas.

[blingthinger 649]

2 hours ago, rka said:

That and the required performance headroom. Both are not looking too promising right now IMHO.

What do you mean by "headroom"? I see oodles and kaboodles of headroom. Recall that the XP engine is extremely efficient: a stunning graphics engine running on little more than 1.5 core's worth of CPU usage. This leaves a great deal of "headroom" for future growth, even on a 4 core system. Possibilities open up when one doesn't need a flubbed CFD model hogging CPU cores (5 threads iirc) to make up for FM pitfalls.

As @mSparks pointed out a bit ago, one of the biggest issues w/ framerate and performance is 3rd party devs who don't fully take advantage of multithreading in their plugins.

And I must apologize to this poor dead horse for one more beating: itS a BetAaaAA.

Very promising, actually. Even for scenery devs like Simhaven.

[UKflyer 630]

59 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

What do you mean by "headroom"? I see oodles and kaboodles of headroom. Recall that the XP engine is extremely efficient: a stunning graphics engine running on little more than 1.5 core's worth of CPU usage. This leaves a great deal of "headroom" for future growth, even on a 4 core system. Possibilities open up when one doesn't need a flubbed CFD model hogging CPU cores (5 threads iirc) to make up for FM pitfalls.

As @mSparks pointed out a bit ago, one of the biggest issues w/ framerate and performance is 3rd party devs who don't fully take advantage of multithreading in their plugins.

And I must apologize to this poor dead horse for one more beating: itS a BetAaaAA.

Very promising, actually. Even for scenery devs like Simhaven.

not very efficient when you get 25 fps looking at distant objects, fairly simple scenery, no complex airport or cockpit

[Murmur 3,944]

I agree that XP12 should have improved performance.

The fact that it is an early Beta, and that it seems to be CPU limited wrt the number of 3d objects on screen, should be a hopeful sign for good improvements.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Murmur

[blingthinger 649]

15 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

not very efficient when you get 25 fps looking at distant objects, fairly simple scenery, no complex airport or cockpit

That's with a 3rd party addon installed. They've added tons of buildings and probably aren't adjusting scenery LOD. In other words, they're probably telling the sim to draw buildings that are nowhere near the camera. Doing things like this will bring any sim to its knees. Optimized or not.

The baseline sim is extremely efficient.

[UKflyer 630]

15 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

That's with a 3rd party addon installed. They've added tons of buildings and probably aren't adjusting scenery LOD. In other words, they're probably telling the sim to draw buildings that are nowhere near the camera. Doing things like this will bring any sim to its knees. Optimized or not.

The baseline sim is extremely efficient.

every engine is efficient with no objects to display!

[blingthinger 649]

1 minute ago, UKflyer said:

every engine is efficient with no objects to display!

Agreed! Simhaven does the opposite. Slams the sim with tons of objects. Tells it to draw stuff you can't even see.