efis007

Looks good.

It wasn't a criticism. You wrote "I think XP is top-notch for simulating flight dynamics" (plural). That comment, written in that way, is misleading and deceptive. If you mention "flight dynamics" without ever specifying which airplane you are referring to, the FDE's of all airplanes (including airliners) will be implied in the comment. So I asked a simple question: Do you believe that hundreds of thousands of dollar professional simulators from Boeing or Airbus use "Xplane flight dynamics" to accurately simulate the aerodynamic behavior of all the airliners produced by these companies? The professional simulators where airline pilots are trained to fly B737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787... which FDE's are using those hundreds of thousands of dollars simulators? Do they use the flight dynamics of the Zibo737 contained in a small ACF file of a few megabytes made with Plane Maker? Or do they use the FlightFactor 757-767 flight dynamics contained within a small ACF file of a few megabytes made with Plane Maker? It's a simple question, requiring a simple answer: "Yes" or "No."

I underlined that word: flight dynamics. Forgive my curiosity, but do you really think that professional simulators costing hundreds of thousands of dollars exclusively use the flight dynamics of Xplane or MSFS or P3D? A simulator system like this ( https://resources.flightsafety.com/flight-simulation/ ) ... let's assume for the qualified training of Boeing or Airbus pilots... do you think that the B737-A320s flight dynamics simulated by this system come from Xplane with Zibo737-Toliss A320, or MSFS with PMDG737-Fenix A320 ? 😊

Great shots man 👍

Top must-have addon? Personally I would like to have just a few bug fixers.

To get around that problem any serius certified instructor will tell you that it is absolutely forbidden to take off in a 150 kts crosswind.. independently of the simulator used. 🙃 If the instructor (who I pay real money, I remind you) doesn't teach me this fundamental rule of real flying what would be the point of taking a "simulation course" with a certified instructor? 😕

I thought the same thing. 😄

Why do they use the old XP10 instead of XP12?

Photo n°2 is a masterpiece 🥇

I'm afraid I've lost the path, what was this topic about?

Wow! 😲 👏

Wow, this aircraft during the turn shows a very futuristic design, I like it 👍

Those screenshots were taken with the same default Cessna aircraft, with the same camera angle, flying over the same lake (Swiss Geneve), with the same "calm water" setting to favor the reflections of the mountains and clouds. Those screenshots weren't made "artfully" to detract from one simulator (XP12) and enhance another (XP11). They were made to compare two "Xplanes" simulators in the exact same graphic/geographical situation and observe how they behave. If you don't like my tests above the Swiss lake, please provide me another geographic location of another lake for further comparisons. I will gladly compare the two simulators and show you (again) that XP12 SSR gets the reflections of objects on the water wrong, and also generates artifacts behind the aircraft. It's not absolutely true. That day I was flying with XP12 over the Swiss Alps with the intention of looking for the famous "anomalous clouds" that had been reported by some users. So the purpose of my flight was of a completely different nature: to find anomalous clouds and, if I found them, to photograph them. Subsequently the weather became bad, I was flying too high, the visibility was poor, so I lowered the altitude with the plane.... and it was ONLY in that instant that I saw the bug of the reflections on the lake. 😳 That absurd white shadow of the Cessna projected on the scenery... I had never seen that thing with XP10 and 11. How was it possible that the powerful XP12 generated those horrible reflections? I knew nothing. I didn't know that bug existed. I didn't even know what SSR was. 🤔 I was happy, I thought I had discovered a new bug!! 💪🥇 Instead I discovered another sad truth: ALL the forum members already knew about the existence of this bug !!! 😄 Only I didn't know him! Now.... you're telling me that that bug doesn't exist and that my evidence isn't evidence? You have a great imagination man. When the water of a lake is very calm, the mirror effect is easily generated in nature. This effect is much more common than you think, especially in lakes in the morning and in the evening. When the water of a lake is calm, the reflection of the surrounding environment on the water is so evident and defined as to make one lose orientation, it literally seems to see the world upside down. I'm not ignoring anything. I am well aware that XP11's reflex system is a compromise, and as such has some flaws compared to XP12. But here in this topic I'm not talking about "accuracy of calculation", but about "compromise in the best visual aspect". This photo below with this white shadow of the Cessna was calculated by the SSR. And most likely the calculations are 100% accurate as well. But even if the calculations are 100% exact, the visual aspect is very ugly, it is not realistic at all, in nature the white shadows of the planes in front of the scene are not generated. 👎 In the XP11 photo instead, the reflection is probably not accurate... probably is not calculated with the same precision as the SSR... maybe it's even a totally invented reflection. But the visual aspect of that reflection is more realistic than XP12, and above all it doesn't have those terrible white aircraft shadow artifacts caused by the SSR. Therefore, between the two sim reflections, the visually more "realistic" one, (i.e. the one that comes closest to a TRUE photo of a lake's reflection) is undoubtedly that of XP11. 🏅 I will verify this theory in other flights with XP11 and 12. I repeat, I don't care in the slightest how a reflection works and if it is influenced by scattering and other parameters. I am only interested in the result I get visually ! At the moment XP12 loses the comparison on what concerns the environmental reflections on the lake. Do you like seeing the ghostly silhouettes of a ghost plane on the water? I honestly don't like. Since XP12 came out, people keep talking about "realism realism realism realism" and then accept the wrong reflections? 🤔 Hey Sir, on my system XP11 runs at 90 fps with reflections set to max, and XP12 runs at 30 fps. Until today the "performance costs" I have them only with XP12. So what do we say to all the XP12 and MSFS users (yes, them too) who complain about having reflection artifacts everywhere caused by the SSR? Do we tell him it's a good thing? Do we tell him this is progress? Only after all those reflection bugs disappear from the scene we can loudly say it's progress. Obsession? ... Me ?? 😄 I don't have any XP12 obsession. I have only shown photographs showing that XP11 does lake reflections better than XP12.

Affirmative. I mean the reflections of objects on the lake, in this specific case the reflections of mountains on the water without any graphic artifacts. XP11 does it very well while also maintaining a very high framerate. I wish XP12 did exactly the same. It currently fails, so I modestly cannot accept the verdict that Xp12's reflections are nicer than XP11. As I already wrote, if we talk about reflections on puddles, reflections on metal, PBR improvements and ambient lighting ... everything is ok, I agree that XP12 has taken a step forward in this area. But if we talk about mountains reflected in the water currently XP12 is lower than XP11, so it has taken a step backwards on that specific sector. You can agree or disagree, that's fine. 🧐 But I showed pictures. Those photos prove that the lake reflections of XP12 are worse than XP11. And they prove that XP12 creates artifacts in the scene where XP11 never creates them. Those photos prove I didn't write any wrong words. Words can be interpreted. Words are just words. But not the photos! Photos prove things better than words.

Yes Bjoern. I checked the log, but there were no errors. I think the problem is with the weather engine that works "the Xp12 way", and randomly creates strange cloud shapes. Sometimes they are seen in bad weather. Other times they are seen in good weather. I honestly don't know why this phenomenon happens, apparently the bug doesn't seem to follow a "weather logic", it seems something random in data interpretation and cloud rendering. The Laminars surely know the problem best and will fix it. 🤞

Too bad you didn't photograph it, it would have been interesting to see. Sometimes graphic bugs are "beautiful", they create absurd and spectacular shapes that deserve to be photographed. 😃 Next time have the "Shift + Spacebar" ready... and capture your clouds! 📷

Forgive me, but in front of this image how can you write that the "reflexes are now overall improved"? 🤔 In the photo the reflections are all wrong. - To the left of the image is an unrealistic blue reflection. - There are strange white halos on the reflection of the main mountain. - There is the horrible phantom shadow of the Cessna in the middle of the scene. - And the reflections of the clouds on the water are also missing (the water was very calm, you should have seen the reflected clouds too). Are you confused why I'm confused? 😊 Sorry, I'm the one getting more and more confused. 😁 What I have seen and photographed has no correlation with the words "reflexes are now overall improved". I don't see any improved reflections in that XP12 image, I just see a lot of bugs and bad reflections. I see the improved reflections in this other image: XP11. Those are beautiful reflections! 👏 XP11's reflections will be old... they will be outdated... they will be unrealistic... but visually they are much nicer than what I have seen XP12 do above that lake....(moreover, the reflections of XP11 look very similar to reality). When XP12 can get reflexes done right then my confusion will vanish and I will gladly accept the statement "reflexes are now overall improved". But now I don't accept that sentence because it doesn't correspond to the truth. The evidence is in the pictures. 🧐 Perhaps XP12 has focused more attention on the puddles on the squares and the reflections on the metal sheets. However, a few puddles or shiny bodywork are not enough to assert that the reflections of XP12 are overall improved. XP12 has actually improved some parts (the ambient lighting for example I really like), but it has ruined others (the reflections on the lake are bad compared to XP11). He took one step forward and one step back. However I am not making a criticism of XP12. 😉 MSFS also has the same flaw, I read about it on their forum and saw it on video (I don't have MSFS!). So Xp12 is not the only sim to have that problem. And this thing is curious. It is curious to know that XP11 makes reflections on the lake better than the powerful MSFS and XP12. 🤭

I did some research and I confirm that MSFS has the bug too, this video will show it. 👍 On the MSFS forum I also read an explanation of how the SSR system bug works. "This is NOT a bug, this is just how “Screen Space Reflections” work. It is already in the name: it can only refelct what is shown on the screen, so things obscured can’t be refelcted. The pro is that they can refelct the UNOBSCURED environment pixel perfect, the con is it can’t refelct the obscured environment. Now there are two solutions to mitigate that and you wil see in a minute why Asobo decided to go with SSRs: Possibility 1: Cube maps: to be accurate (and contain moving items) the engine needs to render the whole scene → this is very hardware intensive and thus cube maps usually have a much lower resolution or even omit some geometry. → not that accurate Possibility 2: Ray tracing → that didn’t need much explanation … this can be done only with very high end hardware Conclusion: So SSRs are currently the only middle way to get somewaht accurate reflections with not blowing up the computer". This is the explanation they wrote on the MSFS forum. Which is basically similar to what some users have written here. I understood the explanation. However I continue to have many doubts about this SSR technology. 🤔 On the MSFS forum they write that the SSR is to increase the framerate. And I say "we discovered hot water!" If part of the graphics is inhibited by the calculations it is obvious that the frames increase! but it seems to me a very old-fashioned way of gaining frames. Someone on the MSFS forum calls SSR a "modern technology". I call it a real limitation. Truly "modern technology" should do the exact opposite, it should generate stunning graphics WITHOUT any viewer limitations. If, on the other hand, I make limitations... for example I remove the reflections on the water (to increase the framerate)... or I remove the shadows of the clouds (to increase the framerate)... what kind of "modern technology" is it?! 😳 So at this point we remove everything, we also remove the realistic light and we will increase the framerate even more. The second point I disagree with is the argument that SSR "increase the framerate". Fortunately I can directly compare XP11 and XP12 in the same visual weather conditions and the exact same scenario every day, and I can guarantee that the framerate of XP11 is at least 3 times higher than XP12. How is it possible? If XP11's reflexes were so heavy to compute that they would blow up my PC (words written on the MSFS forum), why do my field tests confirm the exact opposite of this theory? 🤔 Why does XP11 Vulkan run blazing fast at 90fps on my hardware, and XP12 Vulkan run at 30fps? If XP12's SSR technology is meant to increase framerate, why does XP12 run 3x slower than its namesake XP11 without SSR? Apparently words do not follow actions. However one thing I think I understood: for XP12 it will not be easy to get rid of this bug. He gave us new things, and made others worse. Modern technology? 🙄 I don't think so... modern technology shouldn't work like this. However I am confident in the developers, I hope they fix it. 🤞

Sorry but I don't understand what the problem is. Are you saying that without RTX it will be impossible to have artifact-free reflections? There are "old" simulators that worked without Nvidia RTX, and the reflections of objects on the water were generated perfect and without artifacts. These simulators didn't take advantage of the power of recent Nvidia cards with Raytracing, and therefore these older simulators confirm my thesis that reflections can be generated perfectly without using futuristic RTX technologies. XP11 XP10 (I captured this image on August 21, 2015) In both photos the geometry of the mountain reflected on the water is not altered in the slightest by the object/plane passing in front of it. How is it possible that simulators older than XP12 (at that time I was using an old GTX-960 card with no raytracing processing) can do better reflections than XP12? If XP 10 and 11 did it, then XP12 must do it too. Here below XP12 is not making a "new effect" never seen before! It's doing an "old effect", a normal reflection on water, exactly the same as how XP10 and 11 did it. So this bug is not excusable in the year 2023, they need to fix it. 😒

Let's hope they fix the problem, these graphical bugs aren't nice to see (especially knowing that his "brother XP11" currently has better reflexes) 🙄

@turbomax As I said, not all users have had the good fortune (or bad luck) to see that bug. 🤷‍♂️ If Goram and other users say they've never seen it, I believe them, they're probably all telling the truth. However it is widely known that the bug already existed in beta6, and I can now confirm that it exists in beta7 as well. If the bug really didn't exist I would never have seen it. 🧐 I understand that it's a rare bug and it's hard to see... ok... we're all agreed. But it exists ! In the next patches they will fix the problem. 🤞

I don't give up easily when it comes to investigating potential bugs. 🧐 I did another flight again, always with real weather, and always in the same Swiss location,... and this time... Bingo!... I saw anomalous clouds. After this test I confirm that it's not your PC that has problems, it's XP12 that has problems, beta7 has a bug in the clouds, it's confirmed. Users who say they've never seen it have simply been very lucky, they probably didn't find the meteorological situation conducive to the formation of those strange clouds. 🤞

Forgive me but XP12 does not use Ray Tracing. Also your explanation of the algorithm that "calculates only what the eye can see" seems a bit strange to me. The reflections (on the water) of the mountains must be calculated and rendered regardless of whether there is an object (the aircraft) flying in front of the mountains and partially hiding them from view. XP11 doesn't have that problem, it correctly generates reflections of the mountains on the lake even if there is an airplane in front.

Ah ok, so it's a relatively recent bug.

I didn't know him, when was it discussed?