efis007

This is exactly how Reshade should be used; the differences between the two graphics should never be too extreme, but rather slightly different. We can compare Reshade to a "makeup kit for women": it helps highlight the beauty of the face by correcting a few (but effective) fine details. And it's no coincidence that I've only used Reshade with XP10 and XP11; that is, I used it on simulators that had a less than attractive "face" that needed makeup. With XP12, however, we have a face that's already convincing by default, so makeup isn't necessarily necessary. I agree; stability comes first. If Reshade compromises XP12 stability, it's best not to use it.

I agree, but it depends on the simulator you're using. XP11, for example, has never been realistic in its imitation of reality. This sim's graphical flaws were so numerous that the use of Reshade was practically mandatory. Here's an example of the benefits Reshade introduced in XP11. The first image (XP11 without Reshade) looks like it was captured by a "pocket Polaroid camera". The scene appears very flat, lacking dynamics, with little sense of depth, and the colors aren't beautiful. The second image (XP11 with Reshade) looks like it was captured by a "professional Canon camera". The scene appears alive, dynamic, with a greater sense of three-dimensional depth, and the colors are very similar to how the human eye would see them. So, Reshade is an excellent tool if used with good taste. I've always used it in XP10 and XP11, reaping enormous graphical advantages from both simulators. With XP12, however, I don't use it because XP12's overall graphics are already good and don't necessarily require any further processing. The graphics can certainly be improved even further (Laminar knows this) and will improve them in the future, but personally, I think XP12 is already very well-balanced in terms of overall graphics even without using Reshade.

I didn't say Reshade is harmless; I said Reshade doesn't change Xplane's datarefs. As for whether Reshade could crash XP12, I think it depends on the user's misuse. If the user uses too many post-processing filters, the chances of the entire platform becoming unstable also increase. If, on the other hand, the user uses a few filters to make only small (but effective) corrections, then Reshade is less likely to interfere enough to cause a crash. I use Reshade with XP11.55 Vulkan (XP11 only) and haven't had any problems. I usually only use three filters in XP11 (a light/color correction, a sharpness adjustment, a bloom adjustment), and these three small corrections are enough to make XP11 similar to XP12. In fact, these filters act precisely where XP11 lacks detail compared to XP12. In XP12, however, I don't need to use Reshade because: - XP12 already has better lighting than XP11 - XP12 already has a sharpening filter in its default menu - XP12 already has the bloom effect built in This is why I don't use Reshade with XP12.

I'm not aware of Reshade modifying private datarefs. How can an external graphics post-processing utility modify xplane's internal datarefs? These filters modify the graphics after they've been generated by xplane; they can't make xplane generate something it wasn't designed to do. For example, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that xplane doesn't have photometric light. No Reshade filter could make xplane generate photometric light! If such a thing were actually possible, we could apply the same Reshade filter to FS9 and we'd have photometric light in FS9 too. 😊 Obviously, that's impossible. Reshade isn't a "graphics generator"; it's just a collection of filters to beautify (or ruin) the overall graphics after they've been generated by the simulator.

The clouds are generated with the "Enhanced Skyscapes" plugin ( https://fsnews.eu/enhanced-skyscapes-for-x-plane-becomes-a-free-add-on/ ), customizable with this other plugin ( https://github.com/JT8D-17/Enhanced-Cloudscapes-Controller-for-X-Plane?tab=readme-ov-file ). The scenery is generated with the popular "XPlane Map Enhancement" plugin (I use it in freeware mode, BING server).

I strongly advise against using GTX 9xx series cards with XP12! I had a GTX 960 and suffered from the infamous "magenta bug." After several comparisons with other users, it emerged that all GTX 9xx series cards suffered from the same problem. So if the question is, "Can I use a GTX 9xx card with XP12?" my answer is, "The GTX 9xx works fine with XP11, but it should be avoided with XP12 !"

Aircraft: Toliss A320 Addons: Enhanced Skyscapes, XP Map Enhancement Airports: default

I agree with Franz. Mike... capturing images with your phone (or external camera) isn't the best way to show us the results of your edits. You must use the PRINT SCREEN button to capture the simulator directly! The resulting image will be 100% accurate, and will not have any defects due to monitor settings or color aberrations from your phone (defects that are very visible in your previous images and make them completely unreliable). We're interested in seeing the outside view, only the outside view, in full graphic detail. Press PRINT SCREEN and you'll get a similar photo. 😉

Impressive realism 👍

The "rediscovering the potential of XP11" series continues. Let's not forget... I'm getting all this awesomeness with a ridiculous PC (in signature) that was originally designed to fly with FS9. Do you see now why XP11 is simply amazing? 😀

With XP11 I use Map Enhancement with the default autogen.

Alaska flight PAYA - PAJN. Aircraft: Toliss A319 Plugins: XPlane Map Enhancement, atmoXphere sky environment

I like that stretch of coast. Which airport is it? I'd like to try a flight with XP11 in the same area to see how it performs graphically. Note: Due to my poor PC, I'm afraid I won't be able to use XP12 anymore (even with all the settings at the lowest, I get constant crashes due to Vulkan device loss, a real torture that started with version 12.2), so I'm currently forced to fall back on XP11 to fly with xplane.

Nice shot. 👍 Have you tried comparing ASXP on... and ASXP off (i.e., with XP12's default weather display)... to see which one better represented the weather conditions where you took the photo?

Absolutely agree. The LevelD 767 was truly a remarkable product for its time. I'm lucky enough to still have it with FS9 and fly it every now and then, and every time I'm amazed not only by the avionics accuracy but especially by the flight dynamics. Hand-piloted, it handles masterfully, flies like a dream, and truly feels like flying an "X-plane inside FS9." A truly beautiful airplane. The LevelD's only flaw was the main panel graphics, created via rather crappy 2D photography (the PMDG 747's was a little better, though not by much), and the panel wasn't in widescreen format. But at the time, it was fine (until I decided to redo the entire main panel graphics, and so now I can still fly it today).

Absolutely agree. The LevelD 767 was truly a remarkable product for its time. I'm lucky enough to still have it with FS9 and fly it every now and then, and every time I'm amazed not only by the avionics accuracy but especially by the flight dynamics. Hand-piloted, it handles masterfully, flies like a dream, and truly feels like flying an "X-plane inside FS9." 😲 A truly beautiful airplane. The LevelD's only flaw was the main panel graphics, which were quite pitiful (the PMDG 747's were a little better, though not by much), and it wasn't in widescreen format.