Quote

I do not see how people can report issues if they dont have the sim to try, test and report issues...

They have testers and developers who had access to the early versions of the product. I can't imagine something as important as lack of AA or serious performance issues not being reported in the early stages.

Quote

IMHO, if we waited until every issue was 'tackled' before releasing 12.00, we wouldn't have a sim to use for another couple of years. I think its great we have such a good flight sim to use as it develops. 

Again, these are issues that should have been fixed early. You can use it without the minor fixes they've been putting in the last updates, but you cannot use it when the whole scenery is flickering or you get 25FPS just by looking at a forest. But at this point I think they don't have the technical capability to fix these issues, or they're simply not interested.

Groundhog Day

1 hour ago, bogdansrb said:

They have testers and developers who had access to the early versions of the product.

They were perfectly transparent about issues they were aware of and still considered it good enough to share, we are down to

Quote

• Incomplete or missing features in Alpha/Early Access:
  • Master-external visual networking
  • New XPLM APIs
• In progress features:
  • Tuning lighting & fog
  • LIT textures
  • VR holodeck lighting
  • Far trees don’t look great
  • Better cloud shapes, especially cirrus
  • Performance tuning

 

1 hour ago, bogdansrb said:

I can't imagine something as important as lack of AA or serious performance issues not being reported in the early stages.

Every issue I have reported that isn't/wasn't in the above list over the last 18 months or so has been resolved in 2 or 3 weeks from the moment I made the bug report. I've never had performance issues (have recreated a few other people found tho, and I am very much looking forward to the further optimisations), my AA was never any worse than I see in CSGO hoping over the fence in Nuke, Personally I was much more interested in getting it to at least on par with XP11 in terms of flight sim (current 744 release for XP12 is the first I would recommend since starting on it in 2019).

It was January 7th for

12.05 will be the first non beta (and it is not out of beta yet) with at least one fix for that in:

XPD-13702 – Clouds break MSAA.

was marked fixed in 12.05b1

How and why would you possibly prefer waiting another 3 years or more to get to where we are today having never tried it?

_____

Slight side track.

One of the "memes" that went round a few years ago about why developers don't want to support linux, was that for ones that did "the vast majority of bug reports came from Linux users" and that was spun as "supporting linux is to hard".

During this process I have really seen the truth and lies in this.

Yes, the vast majority of bug reports for XP12 (and the 744) almost certainly came from Linux users, a small fraction of actual users. BUT they were not Linux specific bugs. IMHO it is more that Linux users are just very very used to precisely identifying issues, reporting them - and then, shock horror, seeing them fixed - often even including a fix with report if they could.

e.g. 100% chance this (also back in 12.05b1) came from a linux user:

XPD-13902 – Bug report “Wierd looking engine smoke in F14D (fix included)”.

The alternative is people trying to profit of it, they dont report the bugs, instead writing (often windows only) payware plugins to try and fix it themselves, and they linger for months/years passed everyone knowing about them - this was pretty much my XP11 experience, and tbh, that sucks way more for everyone.

I made numerous reports on the issues that I have, and I am willing to help them with more info. However:

- the issue with random FPS drops when rendering some parts of the scenery: they told me it's because of exclusion zones and that gateway maintainers have to update the airports; it's unclear when or if this will happen and there's no guide on how to do it; when I tried removing them I got no improvement

- even by their "official" statements they consider performance updates to be "improvements" or "tuning", when in fact the overall performance is absymal. It's still bogged down by the legacy openGL code and they hadn't had the courage to remove it completely. Scenery alone counts for massive increases in CPU time without looking that much better. Everyone tells us "you need a better CPU to run XPlane because it calculates this and that" when this is not true

- the issue with 2xMSAA causing horizontal lines on the screen for AMD users is still there when it should've been top priority (since 2xMSAA is a good compromise between looks and performance). So we're forced to use 4xMSAA which drops the already bad performance even more

- I get big drops with 3D vegetation, reported it multiple times, no response and no fix

- the AA issue is present and has been discusses, imo having a 2022 game that looks that bad is embarassing

Some of the issues above are constantly reported on social networks but nobody from Laminar is keeping an eye on them. And they're surprised when somebody eventually tells them.

the anti alaising on my 3070ti laptop looks horrific still, I don't care what they call it or beat around the bush in answering these questions.... yet most folks are not complainging anymore so they have good AA like in MSFS ????

or just laptop nvidia maybe .... yes I love my laptop get awesome graphics on max in MSFS....so why not XP12? my friend on a mac says XP is only meant for MAC....maybe he's right!!

 

very frustrating, I don't use XP12 now at all but keep searching for answers so I can enjoy it again

2 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

the issue with random FPS drops when rendering some parts of the scenery: they told me it's because of exclusion zones and that gateway maintainers have to update the airports; it's unclear when or if this will happen and there's no guide on how to do it; when I tried removing them I got no improvement

vs

do x y z near lisbon and you get a CTD, = fix.

If the person noticing a issue cant describe when or if a problem will happen, what on earth makes you think anyone else can?

2 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

even by their "official" statements they consider performance updates to be "improvements" or "tuning".

"pretty" sure that starts dropping in 12.06. That will very likely break more things than it fixes initially.

2 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

when in fact the overall performance is absymal

I don't agree. 18 months ago if you had told me this at 60fps in VR would be a thing I'd have told you you were insane and there is not a cat in hells chance, in fact that was already 2 months ago.

In terms of what is in that video, unreal engine 5/nanite/project antionette is still years away from matching it, I very much doubt the others ever will.

2 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

Everyone tells us "you need a better CPU to run XPlane because it calculates this and that" when this is not true

well... you need a huluva lot more than just "a good cpu", but if you dont have one there is no chance of getting the most out of XP11, let alone XP12. 

Quote

If the person noticing a issue cant describe when or if a problem will happen, what on earth makes you think anyone else can?

Some things are hard to replicate and require some back and forth between the developer and the user. I can replicate it by going to ESGG and roaming around the forest next to the airport but sometimes it happens mid air and even if I mange to recreate the same situation I might not get the same result.

Quote

I don't agree. 18 months ago if you had told me this at 60fps in VR would be a thing I'd have told you you were insane and there is not a cat in hells chance, in fact that was already 2 months ago.

That's your experience.

Quote

well... you need a huluva lot more than just "a good cpu", but if you dont have one there is no chance of getting the most out of XP11, let alone XP12. 

True. The problem starts when you have a good CPU and get good performance with all other games expect for x-plane.

52 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

Some things are hard to replicate and require some back and forth between the developer and the user.

Exactly, and the ones that exist are in a small number very specific circumstances out of a world map that literally covers the entire world.

52 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

and get good performance with all other games expect for x-plane.

I absolutely loath this comparison.

For a start, if you want performance comparable to 99% of other games, grab that render distance slider and drag it all the way to the left.

Like I get 392fps in CSGO, but the render distance there is like no more than 200 meters, whereas XPlane is pumping 500fps from space even at max render distance.

step outside that tiny little world and you'll soon see what XP is juggling compared to those "other games"

vs

How is this:

"poor performance" compared to other games?

Edited May 3, 20233 yr by mSparks

Hi,

You can tell me how good performance XP12 is until you're blue in the face. It is simply NOT TRUE!!! Performance is abysmal in 12! I could care less if you get 50000 fps, if the sim gives you stutters, it's meaningless! 

I have a 7950x3D on a X670E Gigabyte Master M/B, with 64GB ddr5 60000mhz Ram, on a 990 pro NVME and I cannot run one 75" monitor without stutters/flickers on XP12!!! Yet on 2020, I can run THREE 75" screens and they run like butter and that is without a 3D flight deck on both setups!

Edited May 4, 20233 yr by Mike_CFII_MEL

2 hours ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

I have a 7950x3D on a X670E Gigabyte Master M/B, with 64GB ddr5 60000mhz Ram, on a 990 pro NVME

I have about the same config, except the 7800x3D which should be just as fast and getting constant 60 fps (my 4K TV doesn't go higher). I think the reason 2020 performs so much better is because of its highly efficient use of GPU programming, they said at their launch presentation that most code runs on the GPU incl. flight model, computational fluid dynamics for weather etc. (not only the pure graphics routines) and I think that's why I am getting 65-85 fps in rural areas even at 8K resolution in VR! 😊

not sure if it is x-plane's lack of GPU programming or if it is Vulcan, but x-plane can definitely not compete here. I use it mostly because of a single feature it does better: atmospheric lighting. that is far superior and can look stunning. I said "can", because it comes with lots of graphic issues elsewhere unfortunately, and mediocre 10 year old or more Garmins. therefore I end up using both sims. 😊

 

msparks loves to provide screenshots showing his mach 2 frames per second, which impresses many folks. Including me! But he never tells us just how he does this. So, big frame rate champ, tell us all about your amazing rig and precisely how you get these stupidly high frame rates. 50fps is pretty good for most of us, but all that background boasting looks like a mental condition someone told me was anal-retention. What is your secret? Don't be shy. Tell us exactly what you run, and how.

Edited May 4, 20233 yr by Brian Mackie

Quote

Exactly, and the ones that exist are in a small number very specific circumstances out of a world map that literally covers the entire world.

If you read through user experiences, it's anything but a small number of very specific circumstances. And even so, as a paying customer, I deserve those specific circumstances to be investigated, since they're related to the game only.

Quote

For a start, if you want performance comparable to 99% of other games, grab that render distance slider and drag it all the way to the left.

So x-plane is only capable of that performance with no buildings, no vegetation and graphics from 1990s? Way to advertise it. Maybe they should put this on their website.

Quote

Like I get 392fps in CSGO, but the render distance there is like no more than 200 meters, whereas XPlane is pumping 500fps from space even at max render distance.

I'm not talking about figures in the 100s, but merely 30fps vs. a confortable 45-60fps.

Let's compare apples to apples though. 

MSFS: denser scenery, ortho streaming, better AA, more complex clouds, most graphics on ultra: 35 FPS lowest figure

X-Plane: less dense, worse looking, local scenery, poor AA, worse clouds, graphics nowhere near maximum: 25FPS lowest figure

By the way, in testing x-plane a few days ago I got better FPS with ortho vs default scenery. That's something.

2 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

MSFS: denser scenery

I don't think that is the case. Indeed, both scenery density and distance are way higher in X-Plane. Hopefully LR won't downgrade it at the level of the other sim!

Same location, same FOV:

VS

P.S. Settings in the other sim were "VERY HIGH" IIRC.

 

That other pic had photogrammetry activated, which doesn't really make it comparable to the screenshot in XP. Better make the comparison with normal autogen instead.

I too am finding performance notably worse in XP.  My fps is mostly okay; it’s the microstutter that bothers me the most.  Nvidia’s frame generation feature for 4X series gpu’s in MSFS has made a world of difference.  Anyone know if this is possible or in development for XP?