RGS

Good topic. I'm particularly interested in the impact that going to a bigger screen might have on one's vision. I've always used large monitors, from 21 inch 4:3 CRTs (back in the day!) to 2x 24 inch 16:10 LCDs and for the past 8 or so years a 30 inch Apple Cinema Display (I'm not a fan of multiple monitors; the 2x setup was prior to working for myself). The 30 inch ACD is by far the best monitor I've owned to date and has given me less eye strain than any used previously (with the CRTs being the worst, particularly as they aged). I would have thought that a larger screen could actually be a lot better for your eyes than a smaller one as: 1. You tend to sit further away from it. 2. Your eyes actually have to move *a lot* more, darting from corner to corner (compare this to reading on a phone/tablet at close range). Ideally I'd like to switch to a 55 inch 4K 60Hz Sony TV, for both full-time work (3D/2D graphics/design primarily) and simming/gaming (I remember the upgrade to the 30 inch being a real eye opener; it felt as though I was no longer looking through a window, but now it feels a little limited and 4K offers the chance to go bigger without compromising the details). I view my current monitor at arm's length; the TV would be about double that distance. Due to the large size I'd be moving my eyes even more than the 30 inch, which I'd have thought would be a good thing, but am slightly concerned about sitting in front of such a beast for such extended time periods, particularly as it's a TV and not a monitor (not sure how much of a difference there is these days, but obviously one was designed for extended use at close-ish range, the other not). Luckily I sit next to a window with a great view, so giving my eyes a rest every now and then is easy . Thanks for your thoughts, Robert

Is it possible to still download + run MS Flight? I'm interested to look at full SpeedTree integration + also see what they did with some other effects such as sun glare etc. I did give it a test at time of release, but due to its arcade/casual nature quickly dismissed it. Cheers, Robert

Yeah - I really hope so. That'd be excellent .

LODs should take care of the worst of the performance worries (obviously there'd still be a hit) and instancing help address the memory issues. It's very important to have an consistent world IMO; a mix of high quality and low quality visuals is a real enemy of immersion. These trees, applied globally, would make such a massive difference to helo flight.

@Brandon Thanks for the info. I reported the shadow bug on the LM forums a while ago; I understand it's a little difficult as you're effectively having to render the shadow of a hidden object (exterior model) but don't want the performance hit of having to calculate it (and it's handled differently to FSX). Still there must be a solution, it's clearly broken and shouldn't just be left as is IMO. Shame about the lack of a sun glare; unlike the shadow issue I really can't understand how this has escaped them. It's such an easy effect to get in (you could probably even buy it off the shelf!) and aside from adding greatly to the immersion is also rather important for realism and accurate training I'd have thought. I really don't understand the absence of things like this. Rain on the wind shield (not the ancient FS9 rendition...) is another one. The effect would have to be setup by third party devs for their a/c, but requires the coding, tools and shaders to be set up by LM (as they are now doing with the SpeedTree tech). Though more difficult than the sun glare, this effect (Train Sim version embedded for ref. at end of post) should be pretty easy to get working from a graphics programmer standpoint I imagine. I'm sure it must be present in a number of modern racing games too and thus shouldn't require a lot of R&D (rain running down the a/c skin would be another nice touch, though far less important). I don't mind LM leaving certain things to third party devs, in particular aircraft and high detailed sceneries (which makes total sense to me), but I really think they should strive to increase the fidelity of the base sim across the board. We've seen some great stuff with the cockpit shadows, HDR, volumetric fog and 3D waves (and I'm really looking forward to the avatar mode) but there are some simple things, which would not be difficult to introduce and provide an instant 'win' that just seem to get ignored. Rain on wind shield effect:

I really hope we'll see these as an official LM replacement for all autogen trees. They're clearly a big step up from the old 3 plane ones and have a good track record in the games industry. Couldn't the models simply overwrite the old ones (on a like for like basis) without even having to touch the autogen tree placement? Whilst I totally understand that there will be an FPS hit; one of the good things about SpeedTree is the LODing system. All of the distant trees will just be quads anyway, it's only those you're close to that are high detail. Not only that, but the existing models and textures can't take up a lot of space - I imagine it'd be easy to just add a tick-box under performance settings for low detail/legacy trees. I think it'd not only be a great shame to limit these to third party airports and sceneries, but it also creates an inconsistent world filled with massive quality gulfs. As a helicopter pilot, you'd desperately want to see these new trees wherever you fly and not just specific locations. In fact, due to the inconsistency, I'd almost rather just the old quad-based models than an awkward mix of the two which impacts on immersion and the sense of a believable world. Here's hoping...

@Brandon Thanks a lot for the info, much appreciated. So A and D are used for turn rather than strafe? That might feel a little on the odd-side... I'd have thought a middle mouse click or similar to toggle mouse look on/off would have done the trick, but I guess I haven't tried it yet so maybe best not to comment . Does it feel natural and smooth as a standard FPS would, or is it a little on the clunky side? Also, I added a cheeky extra Q about the sun glare (or lack thereof) above if you have time to answer. Thanks again. (if there are any extra graphical tweaks they've made that have impressed you I'd love to hear them!)

One more quick Q for you beta guys: Does the aircraft's shadow cast on the terrain now correctly reflect that of the exterior model or is it still the VC? EDIT: Actually, make that two Qs Is there a new sun glare effect? I notice that 'removed old sun glare' was listed in the log, but in Rob's most recent video there doesn't seem to be any glare at all. Cheers. Am pretty sure it's been confirmed (via Orbx) there are no new trees actually included in the sim as such, only the separate models and the tools with which they can now be added by third party devs. Bit of a shame really; upon reading the change-log I'd hoped they'd updated the base autogen. Still, it's a nice feature for further down the line.

@Brandon How does the avatar mode work? Is it simply another viewpoint you select (and then first of third person) or is there more to it than that? I assume controls are via keyboard and mouse as with a standard FPS? Also, do you happen to know whether if the a/c is developed with the avatar in mind you can use the same model as the pilot? Thanks for the info.

ATC window looks great. Really nice; clean and minimal just how I like a UI .

Anyone else get the impression that v.4 may well not be too far behind v.3 (in terms of release)? Firstly, a few testers commented that they were aware of both versions 3 and 4. Then earlier today someone was asking about increasing the LOD distance on the P3D forum. The first response was from a tester who remarked that the feature wasn't in v3, but would/should be in v4 and the second comment, from a moderator, was to read the previous reply and "Watch this space!" These posts have subsequently been removed by Beau who stated fairly enough that "I deleted the posts referencing v4 to avoid confusion and edited my post for clarity. We aren't currently commenting on the timing or content of future major/minor releases." "Watch this space" doesn't sound like the sort of thing you'd say for a wait of a year or two (I'd have thought anyway), making me wonder if v.4 could effectively be v.3 in terms of features/content, but 64-bit and potentially Dx 12... Or maybe LM have simply decided to release a new version each year and cut down on the point releases . Elsewhere you can read comments such as "Add-on content with paths configured for v3 will update much more seamlessly with future releases of Prepar3d" which also suggest to me that LM are thinking about v.4 and not just 3.x which strikes me as a little unusual given the previous versions' two year life cycles. As to the cost of the upgrade/new version: I suppose it depends how serious you are about flight sim. £120 is a lot if you view it in 'game' terms and the content you get is IMO less than you would have between previous versions of Microsoft FS (for e.g. there has been no new terrain textures, autogen or clouds in any of the releases and very little in the way of 'designed for the new version' or even first party aircraft). In contrast, I would expect Dovetail's 2016 offering (or FS 11 had it been made) to have all new graphics, whereas LM are still using much of what was there with FSX. I'd expect a new MFS/more mainstream title release to have fully implemented the SpeedTree tech as autogen for e.g. and not just 'unlocked' it (together with all new autogen buildings, 3D grass and normal map support for terrain textures - Yes, there'd be a performance hit, but the low detail SpeedTree LODs would just be planes in the distance anyway and I imagine it wouldn't have been all that difficult to maintain the legacy models as a low-end/tick-box option). I've not yet seen v.3 in the flesh myself, so it's hard to comment, but certain graphical elements such as a decent sun glare and rain effect (particularly on the wind shield) are oddly MIA for a 'full title' along with other bits and pieces such as built-in real world weather (as we had with FSX). I get the impression that P3D's budget is nowhere near that of previous MFS releases though, and rightly or wrongly LM leave a lot of base sim graphics to third party developers (REX + Orbx for e.g.). Of course I might be completely out on that one; clearly the product's got an entirely different focus and primary target audience. The actual release itself is also incredibly low-key; no previews or high quality screenshots even, just a few links to some previously released YouTube vids made by testers, which many had just assumed were 2.5, and aside from the avatar one (yes!) showed nothing new at all - Let's face it, if you have to ask "Is this the new version?" it doesn't exactly point towards monumental changes. It's probably not the case, but to me this seemingly casual launch gives the impression of a small development team working with limited resources. Again though, this is just the impression I get if ignoring the different target audience etc, etc... That said, given the state of the simulation industry I for one am very glad LM are there to take care of the serious side of things, even if releases are a little light in the way of content at times. DCS is a great sim, though purely combat oriented and somewhat limited outside of that scope and who knows what DTG will bring to the table in 2016 with their new sim (other than a lot of DLC of course ). By it's very nature and license P3D is in no danger whatsoever of being 'dumbed down' and if it wasn't for LM we'd still all be using the ageing and no longer supported FSX (which, good as it is, is looking a bit dated these days). P3D gives us all the familiarity of FSX, but with a host of bonuses and is under constant development. For the serious simmer, £120 across 2 years for an updated core sim (which only LM themselves can deliver) is absolutely worth it IMO. The VC shadows and HDR alone breathed a huge amount of life into the platform and made it feel current again and the 3D waves were also a great addition. I really hope we see some new graphical features in 3.0 and more to come in subsequent 3.x releases. There are certainly a few new things for designers to play with at launch (SpeedTree and real-time reflections to name a couple) which is excellent news, even if LM haven't given any examples of what's achievable through their own content. I'm also personally pretty pumped about the avatar system (first person will be my pref.) as aside from a/c inspection, I think it'll help to ground the world around you and should make the experience much more tangible and immersive. So... Very much looking forward to v.3 myself and seeing what's possible with the platform over the coming months. I do wish that LM would be a bit more communicative about their plans though and that v.4 won't arrive in 4-6 months time for £120 without an upgrade path .

No probs Rob, totally understand - Thanks for the reply. Cheers, Robert

Hi Rob, Just posting my message again below in case you missed it previously. Would you mind telling me if the following issues have been addressed?

Hi Rob, If you have a spare moment would you mind checking if the following bugs have been addressed next time you load up the sim? 1. Camera clipping through the ground from the virtual cockpit view (load up the R22 and move the camera/viewpoint around whilst landed, you can 'see through' the ground at the corners of the screen where it's closest to the eye-point camera). 2. The shadow cast onto the terrain from the VC uses the VC model rather than that of the exterior (so as you can imagine often most of the aircraft is missing!). Incidentally the shadow also seems to mip-map way too early making it overly blurry from most ranges other than very close. 3. Helicopter rotor wash effects do not seem to be working/visible (kicking up dirt from the ground etc.). All these topics have been brought up on the P3D forums, but not seen an official response. Generally P3D seems like a really good program to me, but I do find it annoying when simple things get broken and are then left unfixed. Thanks in advance. Robert

Hi Steve, Thanks a lot for responding. I read your blog link, very helpful. Also I think this article does a good job of explaining the issues associated with shadow mapping and their potential solutions: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ee416324%28v=vs.85%29.aspx So, as I understand it we have a few issues: Resolution (high perspective aliasing?) - By far the smallest problem right now. This already looks decent overall IMO and isn't really a big issue but I think it could probably look better still. This can be increased by upping the dimensions of the shadow map, correct? Are you using 4096 maps for this and If not could it be an option? Also ensuring that the cockpit is filling the entirety of the depth map's dimensions (unlike the jets which have a lot of wasted space). now on to the awkward stuff... Acne - Needs to be overcome by offsetting the geometry so that the code doesn't get confused and cause a texel to self shadow. OK, so I think I get this; it's an accuracy thing. Basically you need to bring the offset/bias down to as small as possible a number without seeing any artifacts. The offset is what's causing the 'peter panning' but it's a necessary evil to overcome the built in inaccuracy of the system, which would otherwise lead to texel self-shadowing if not set? I *really* hope you can improve this as it's killing the effect for me at the moment. I wish I could suggest something but not being a programmer I really have no idea what's possible within FSX (especially when you don't have access to the C++ code!). Is there anyway the depth map or calculations can be made more accurate? Would adjusting the near and far clip planes help? Can the bias be reduced much further without causing 'acne?' If any of the above need to be set specifically on a per aircraft basis for best results could the code look up this info via a text file placed in the same directory as the aircraft config? This 'peter panning' is the biggest issue for me. High-projective aliasing - This (I think!) is what you mean by the issue caused when you have polygons that are parallel to the light source. I understand why it's causing problems now and I hope that you can crack it along with the one above. Anyway - Thanks a lot for explaining the issues. The shadows have taken a big step forward with your work, I really hope you're able to go one step further and find a way around these other obstacles. As I say I'm not a programmer - but I am an artist. If there are any test scenes (VC replacement .MDL files) you'd like made which would be useful in testing various shadowing techniques please drop me a line and I'll put some together for you. All the best and good luck! Robert (I take it my pipe dream of being able to set coloured glass 'tinted shadows' might be difficult without the support of a pre-export material flag, not to mention some existing code support. However would it be possible to add some code via a material naming convention such as say 'Glass_SDW_Green' where the code then tints this shaded area to a set RGBA value? Obviously this isn't at all important to the immediate success of your product [no... really ], but as a developer it's something I'd be very interested in if you do manage to crack the problems mentioned above)