Two very different simulation runs. Feedback is simple. 

1 GA daytime country VFR. 2 Heavy Jet Transport Intercontinental night IFR. Apart from a drop in frame rates at big city spots and general loss that has no effect on the sims screen performance to my eye. Lights and shadows are good and weather renditions acceptable and realistic. Wind seems correct and rain in IMC was normal for night with lights on! Weather downloads were done correctly. Neither aircraft simulated model exhibited any quirks or errors! 

Apart from the changes to objects the additional big shift is lighting or light management- hard to tell but to my eye perhaps slightly overdone in brightness. Night lighting is good. 

ATC is still useless. At least in FSX and P3D you could lodge a plan on the fly, get a clearance and get a reasonable vector to an ILS. I cannot even achieve taxying to the departure runways without it giving useless and unrealistic instructions! 

Seems a lot of the airport AI has stopped having collisions with aeroplanes and each other thats good. Happy to see a line of trucks etc finally hold while pushback was excuted and tow disconnected then then resumed. Neat! So it seems to me there have been a lot of tweaking done in the AI area. 

Sim handled my LiveTraffic connections and traffic representation very nicely without issues. Again AI flow was a lot smoother and realistic. 

I am not sure why but control sensitivity seems to be matched to the model or aircraft type a lot better, so the C337 gave feedback in motion and response to what I would expect a 337 to be like on the controls and the same with the Boeing, gave a response that was a lot stiffer, heavier and as a result impression of a large aircraft and speed. Sim ran constantly on the international flight for over 4 hours, no lags no stops and fluid throughout.

Side note - no issues with memory and could easily multitask into different Win programs as the Pacific Ocean was traversed in the sim - switch back and forth and no errors or stops in the sim. 

 

On 5/17/2024 at 12:44 AM, efis007 said:

I have never been a victim of xplane.
Personally, I don't care in the slightest if someone tells me that xplane is good or bad, I have an enviable experience in simulation and I know how to judge simulators myself.
Usually the people who cry "victimhood" every time you try to tell the truth about this simulator are others, certainly not me. 

It wasn't about you being a victim of X-Plane, it was in a completely different context, but let's not go there, it's not going anywhere.

23 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

I am not sure why but control sensitivity seems to be matched to the model or aircraft type a lot better, so the C337 gave feedback in motion and response to what I would expect a 337 to be like on the controls and the same with the Boeing, gave a response that was a lot stiffer, heavier and as a result impression of a large aircraft and speed. Sim ran constantly on the international flight for over 4 hours, no lags no stops and fluid throughout.

As said in the thread for beta 2, I also noticed this with the R22. Looks like Austin did some tuning under the hood that doesn't show up in the changelog.

Edited May 19, 20242 yr by Bjoern

2 hours ago, Bjoern said:

As said in the thread for beta 2, I also noticed this with the R22. Looks like Austin did some tuning under the hood that doesn't show up in the changelog.

Some 2 months ago Alexis ( @Alec ) here at Avsim, pointed Austin in the direction of some findings he did regarding the efficiency of some control surfaces, namely the elevator, and the associated CL variation with their incidence that Alexis found was always lagging behind RW data.

Austin acknowledged his findings, told him he was going to investigate further but was very busy at that time.

Maybe he found some way to better model it based on the feedback Alexis sent him?

 

The helicopter effect on the snow at 1:30.  Now THAT'S some next level stuff with particles.

5 hours ago, GoranM said:

The helicopter effect on the snow at 1:30.  Now THAT'S some next level stuff with particles.

Yep, can't wait to see that implemented. Another thing that could add immersion is to have grass/vegetation effects blowing under the helicopter as well, this would look great but also provide a somewhat more visual cue when flying in 2D.

On a side note, I think Austin narrates really well and would make a great TV presenter :D

6 hours ago, GoranM said:

The helicopter effect on the snow at 1:30.  Now THAT'S some next level stuff with particles.

Wait…that was a real helicopter wasn‘t it? No way that this was XP! Seriously I couldn‘t tell for sure. If it‘s XP then it really looks extremely realistic!

10 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Wait…that was a real helicopter wasn‘t it? No way that this was XP! Seriously I couldn‘t tell for sure. If it‘s XP then it really looks extremely realistic!

Yep, it was a real helicopter, Austin mentioned they recorded it to show what they want to achieve with the particle effects

5 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Yep, it was a real helicopter, Austin mentioned they recorded it to show what they want to achieve with the particle effects

Ahhh 😅 Yeah that‘s what I was thinking but wasn‘t sure suddenly 😊

1 hour ago, tonywob said:

Another thing that could add immersion is to have grass/vegetation effects blowing under the helicopter as well, this would look great but also provide a somewhat more visual cue when flying in 2D.

Processing power needed for that would be eye watering.  But Austin has done things in X-Plane that I didn't think would ever be possible 10 years ago.  It's like he says "Challenge accepted" when someone challenges him to add something.

31 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Yeah that‘s what I was thinking but wasn‘t sure suddenly

For a second or two, I did do a double take, myself.  

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

Processing power needed for that would be eye watering.  But Austin has done things in X-Plane that I didn't think would ever be possible 10 years ago.  It's like he says "Challenge accepted" when someone challenges him to add something.

For a second or two, I did do a double take, myself.  

processing power available on modern GPUs is nothing short of miraculous 

I think the particle effects are in, because I saw new ones while hovering during yesterday.

The challenge with most things now is the time it takes to turn into something that can be used rather than just demo'd. had a mini tantrum when the wind nearly blew me into the lake because the 4+ year old (reported) windsock not working at all like a real one bug hadn't actually been fixed. Ive been embarrassed for xplaners to talk about that one, because really, not having a working windsock is surely an issue that shouldnt take 4 years+ to fix in a flight sim /rage.

Anyway, as with most things xplane that make me scream, I fixed it up myself, sent the code I made for it over to LR on a MIT licence, so hopefully it does actually get fixed soon, and in the meantime, and in the meantime I finally have a working windsock so I can use the simply glorious real weather we now have.

 

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

For a second or two, I did do a double take, myself.  

FPS counter gives it away, must remember to turn that off when doing videos

 

10 hours ago, GoranM said:

The helicopter effect on the snow at 1:30.  Now THAT'S some next level stuff with particles.

If it doesn't also model pebbles under the river bed, I'm not buying it.

well given mSparks little test video - I am impressed! May not have the complete vortex look of the real thing but hey pretty impressive! 

Weather or cloud and lighting gets a tick from me - real weather west of Tamworth NSW today about 1700 LST. Looked like that out the window!

Still continue to be impressed with the intertia management or control responses now.