1 hour ago, mSparks said:

well, its not just the flight model that has made XP12 the most successful xplane release for Laminar ever.... 

 

And that diferrence between what is claimed by others vs the reality of the situation is really the biggest challenge LR have to somehow overcome.

The difference between the absurd claims and the reality of  XP12’s situation?

Couldn’t have put better myself.👍

29 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

The difference between the absurd claims and the reality of  XP12’s situation?

Absurd? There's nothing absurd about the fact that 12's release was more successful than 11's was. And 10's before it. That's a no-brainer.

Situation? If LR had set sights on world domination, then yeah, they failed. But that isn't/wasn't their goal.

The only "situation" is that lazy folks who can't be bothered to create their own ortho, are going elsewhere. Very little has changed from when 11 released.

2 hours ago, turbomax said:

sounds to me like MSFS had a 2 year exclusive which has now run out

Nah, Unreal gave them a grant a few years ago to provide real world scenery assets for the new unreal engine - because they had none.

Part of the Antoinette project

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/antoinette-project-tools-to-create-the-next-generation-of-flight-simulators

More that they all think msfs is substandard and doomed as well, and probably never read past the first iteration of the xplane write up in the ms documentation 🤣

 

Edited December 3, 20223 yr by mSparks

47 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Ah yes, I agree again. I've hardly noticed it though, since I've been hanging out in big cities and have been so dazzled by the lights below. Approach at night to a runway w/ a full ALSF/RAIL looks amazing.

@blingthinger, YES! I fully agree too when it comes to those airport lighting systems, all of it from rw to taxiway. They always looked true to real in XP.

Even some aspects of cloud rendering have something special about it that I find unique to XP, well, maybe also as good in DCS and even IL2. MFS is different, better in terms of shapes and some cloud rendering details, but not so good in that area which I have difficulty clearly identifying. It's probably the new "procedural light system" used in XP12.

15 hours ago, mSparks said:

Most freeware/open licence stuff, regardless of whether its xplane, or flightgear or whatever, is done because the developers enjoy developing, want stuff for themselves (or just to defeat the challenge) and are willing to stomach the BS you get for releasing stuff to the gen pop for the smilies.

I'll go into this little rant because it pretty much hits the topic title bang on the head, if not the content of the OP.

PMDGs main problem is they got locked into the windows frameworks by the nature of those frameworks not working anywhere else, that was fine as long as windows totally dominated the market. Difficulty they face now is windows is currently on the same trajectory as DSLR cameras, just a few years behind, and the Microsoft execs wont sign off on WASM for XBOX as long as there is the tiniest chance it can end up being used to jailbreak..

That made XP not interesting to them when more than 40% of even PC Xplane users dont have/use windows machines.

Lol - I'm talking about payware XP developers as I've made abundantly clear in just about every post including the one you quoted and then you twist my point into freeware developers - who obviously aren't in it for business since they're freeware devs, duh - so you can disagree with me and keep painting the picture of the altrustic XP developers that will do anything to make the people happy.

Not a rant at all, just a bit confused by now since every reply is trying to argue against PMDG dropping out of XP due to economic reasons only to end up agreeing with it - as you did again just now. Besides the preposterous claim that Linux is close to becoming the big man over Windows in terms of user numbers, if PMDG are working in enclosed Windows frameworks (just like the vast majority of software developers - go figure) and want to expand to XP they'd have to do a lot of work including educating if they're not already savvy enough about Linux development to support the XP market - all while still supporting P3D or, these days, MSFS. As you said, not attractive so they pulled out - due to the economics of the proposed XP endeavor being unfavorable for the business.

Again, off-topic.

 

28 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

 I'm talking about payware XP developers

Pretty much all started out as freeware developers a very very long time ago...

28 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

every reply is trying to argue against PMDG dropping out of XP due to economic reasons only to end up agreeing with it

PMDG, built, finished and released the DC6 for xplane 10 6 years ago

I'm sure there are a host of reasons they never got round to converting that to XP11 - it dropped _just_ as XP11 was released - Laminars rate of development was to fast for them, the existing payware developers that dominate the .org have only their own interests in mind these days, I'm sure that put them off, having to do what they just did for MS for their other aircraft (almost completely start from scratch) undoubtedly played a part to.

28 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

PMDG are working in enclosed Windows frameworks

For their more advanced systems - not just windows specific, but FSX on windows specific. The only reason they got involved with MSFS was because MSFS promised them the ability to not just port those systems over to MSFS with minimal effort - but to also bring them to XBOX... via WASM.

 

Edited December 3, 20223 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

The only reason they got involved with MSFS was because MSFS promised them the ability to not just port those systems over to MSFS with minimal effort - but to also bring them to XBOX... via WASM.

While that most likely played a significant role in the decision, I'm pretty confident the dominant reason is the cash cow that MSFS is for developers. They may not have brought over all their existing aircraft but you can't ignore the market share MSFS has occupied from a business point of view. You're simply not going to make much if any profit on P3D these days. I'd even argue they and most other developers had no choice.

This is the last I'll say on this matter as it still is off-topic and pretty much all has been said.

23 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

you can't ignore the market share MSFS has occupied from a business point of view

well, for pmdg on msfs right now I very much doubt they are in happy place, they invested time and money under the assumption their aircraft would be available to a gigantic xbox market, not only did that launch explode worse than their xplane DC6, but xbox sales have been poor and there are very real doubts as to whether microsoft will ever allow wasm on xbox.

They kinda stuck there for now, going back to P3D isnt an option - is that even being developed now? been very quiet - XP12 isnt out yet, XP11 is end of life.

which yep. is also just another way of saying

44 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

You're simply not going to make much if any profit on P3D these days. I'd even argue they and most other developers had no choice.

However they most definately enjoy what they do, they wouldnt have stuck it out this long if they didn't.

44 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

matter as it still is off-topic

Definately walking a tightrope, but I can definately bring it right in line by saying

PMDG should have been on XP12 imho, but its possibly to late now, with to much competition from high quality freeware and payware for the planes they know best.

The worst thing about X-Plane is some of its fans...

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

well, for pmdg on msfs right now I very much doubt they are in happy place

Well once again you should do some research on what RSR actually said rather than assuming...

The DC6 outsold in the first 12 hours total sales of other platforms combined.  The 737 literally broke their sales modelling numbers and then exceeded what they thought to be an error.  The 777 will be an absolute cash cow for them but sure, they aren't in a happy place exceeding all of their sales expectations.  You literally just make things up... 

 

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

well, for pmdg on msfs right now I very much doubt they are in happy place, they invested time and money under the assumption their aircraft would be available to a gigantic xbox market, not only did that launch explode worse than their xplane DC6, but xbox sales have been poor and there are very real doubts as to whether microsoft will ever allow wasm on xbox.

They kinda stuck there for now, going back to P3D isnt an option - is that even being developed now? been very quiet - XP12 isnt out yet, XP11 is end of life.

which yep. is also just another way of saying

However they most definately enjoy what they do, they wouldnt have stuck it out this long if they didn't.

Definately walking a tightrope, but I can definately bring it right in line by saying

PMDG should have been on XP12 imho, but its possibly to late now, with to much competition from high quality freeware and payware for the planes they know best.

P3D will come with Unreal engine in next version. This can bring more options and possibly a go back for some developers...

9 hours ago, blingthinger said:

The dark cockpits are photometrically correct. 

Photometrically corrected a horn! 🤦‍♂️
Dark panels are a BUG that has been haunting xplane for 6 YEARS !!!

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/278307-its-too-dark-to-operate-the-panel-even-in-the-middle-of-the-day/

Please stop writing nonsense on the issue of dark panels.
XP11 also had dark panels, they were dark the same as XP12 generates them.
To claim that XP12's dark panels are "photometrically correct" is to claim that XP11 (yes, the 11) had the same photometrically realistic light as XP12.
The truth is that every time I try to discuss this terrible BUG there is always someone who enjoys denying the evidence and starts screwing up the topic until it is closed.
Talking about the BUG of dark panels has become "taboo", it's one of those burning truths that xplanists don't like.

May 20, 2017

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/122225-very-dark-cockpits/&

Edited December 3, 20223 yr by efis007

8 minutes ago, efis007 said:

terrible BUG

Yes yes, we all know what you consider bugs. Any more magenta these days?

Fundamentally, "photometric renderer" is the correct term. You've said nothing in your .org thread that proves otherwise. They are using energy conservation equations in the shaders whether you like it or not. 

What you are wanting is some form of ray tracing in the cockpit or something to handle the diffuse scatter and illumination, as well as different dynamic range adjustments that match your eyeball's behavior, to your fancy. And there is a hint of truth in your concerns. 

What the renderer does capture correctly is external visuals. Lights, both internal and external. This is precisely how XP12 will be certified in a level D sim for visuals.

Don't worry. I'm sure you heard (and refuse to acknowledge for some reason) Austin say he'll "dumb down" the model for folks screaming about cockpit lighting.

https://youtu.be/CMTcSq_I-Og?t=3984

 

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

The worst thing about X-Plane is some of its fans...

Way to fly under your own bar there. Coming from someone who publicly brags about their laziness no less...

Is anybody over in your forum forest yapping about XP these days? I did see one thread got locked pretty quick. I totally agreed with that lockage too.