barrel_owl

Members
  • Content count

    901
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

barrel_owl last won the day on May 18

barrel_owl had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

226 Excellent

About barrel_owl

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Brazil

Recent Profile Visitors

704 profile views
  1. Would you mind posting the link? Thanks
  2. Very nice, indeed. I see some stuttering, especially in side views. But based on my (limited) experience in creating videos, I tend to blame the compression in this case. It would be interesting to know the FPS by the author. Anyway, very promising, but we need a tool for autogen and 3D objects to bring AF2 to the next level. The potential is really enormous.
  3. As a long time FSX user and now XP11 user, I can testify that such statement has no basis of credibility. First of all, please define "better visuals" and "better performance". Which scenario are you describing exactly? Vanilla? With/without Orbx addons? With/without payware aircraft? Which resolution? First time I tested FSX-SE vanilla with the trike I had about 250 FPS. This itself proves nothing, though. I can guarantee you that "visuals" at 250 FPS in FSX-SE are way poorer than visuals at 100-120 FPS in Aerofly or visuals at 40-50 FPS in FSW (which has Orbx Global as default) or visuals at 50-60 FPS in XP. Not to mention that XP is set by default to a much higher LOD than any FSX and P3D version. All these factors must be considered, if we want to make a fair comparison. Performance should always be measured in a typical "work environment", meaning with your usual addons installed and properly set. Otherwise it is nonsense. Anyway, good luck using other 64-bit platforms with that rig. I see people with a 7700 and a GTX 1080 fighting to get 20 FPS. Just telling. Care to scroll down the thread list to find a wide array of evidence for what I am talking about.
  4. Thanks a lot, Mitch. I definitely prefer the normal default light with no reshades and post-processing. Your second batch of shots looks stunning, in my view. But again, as you said yourself, this is strictly personal.
  5. Hi Mitch, I really love the terrain, but... why are your shots so dark? Your earlier shots did not look like that. Are you using some kind of reshade? Just curious.
  6. BARGAIN

    More expensive? Not sure what you are using as basis for such a claim, but X-Plane addons cost in average 30% less than similar products for FSX/P3D. For the records, based on my experience, the Aerobask Eclipse NG 550 is a steal at 39 dollars for what it actually offers, imagine at $31. To have anything comparable under FSX/P3D, you need an external Garmin GTN 750 (which is very expensive, not to mention the problem of having updated FMS data) and the model itself would probably have a price tag in the house of $50. The last vFlyte release (Twin Comanche) is being sold at less than 30 dollars and is receiving excellent reviews!
  7. Again: virtually every simulator, even if running on a NASA rig, can be brought to its knees at some point, if you really want to. What really matters, however, is: how much room do we have until reaching that point? That gives us a measurable basis for a comparison. Fact is, as of today, Aerofly is the only platform which has the potential to support VR in the future with a more than decent balance of complexity and performance. Not only because it provides a native VR support, but also because you have plenty of room before you drop to a critical point under which your experience is definitely compromised. Not even X-Plane, which in my opinion is way ahead P3D both graphical and performance wise, is capable today to keep up with AeroFly FS2 under this specific view. In fact, Laminar needs to improve their engine a lot yet, although they're working seriously on this.
  8. This is a typical misconception based on an arbitrary application of years of ESP experience to a quite different platform, which has in fact been built with a much more solid and advanced technology. Obviously, as you add more and more addons and you keep your settings to the highest resolution, performance will always tend to decrease. As the number of addons and additional load you can put on a simulator is virtually unlimited, even the best performing simulator can be brought to its knees at some point. This does not prove, however, that all simulators are the same and keep up with high additional loads in the same way. Jarrad Marshall, who developed the LOWI scenery both for FSX/P3D and Aerofly, explained in detail weeks ago in the Orbx forum why such view is little more than a speculation. IPACS actually built a very solid platform that will be capable to support many addons in the future without compromising performance and experience. As a matter of fact, most of us fly over NYC and LOWI well above 100 fps (I get about 100 fps over NYC at Ultra settings and about 200 fps over LOWI with a i7 4970K at 4,5 GHz and GTX 980 with 16 GB RAM, which is an average rig for the simmer community). You can test yourself the different performance on LOWI, if you happen to have both versions. Keep in mind that no road traffic is present in LOWI even in the FSX/P3D version and also AI is limited there due to the very special approaches. Also, are you serious when you say "no autogen"? Ever watched any video of Aerofly over NYC? That's the highest concentration of 3D objects I have ever seen in any civilian simulator so far. The scenery does not cover only Manhattan, it includes large sections of Queens, Brooklyn and especially New Jersey with all major airports. That itself and alone would bring any current ESP version to its knees even in the vanilla state and with conservative settings (actually I see a lot of stuttering in lots of videos even in far less demanding sceneries, but I prefer not to elaborate here).
  9. 30 fps is technically not immersion killing and, in my opinion, an acceptable performance depending on your rig, your settings, the amount of your addons and other factors. Problem is when you drop below 20 fps...
  10. Great shots, Ryan. I am seriously considering this new vFlyte model.
  11. Have you guys considered the possibility that NGIS was a genuine and honest project, that simply failed? Also, please read the link. There is an implicit explanation as to why they decided to give up at some point. When you lack money and so many competitors are bringing up high-level simulators to the market at the same time, obviously your task gets even harder.
  12. Wait. You are probably right, however we can't always blame the hardware for the lack of performance of the platform. This was and still is the constant argument used by many in another section of this forum that I prefer not to mention and, as a matter of fact, is also the reason why a lot of users ended up switching to X-Plane at one point. Orthos seem to be the future in this market, AeroFly is also walking on that path apparently, so X-Plane needs to improve further this aspect and provide an acceptable performance even to users with medium range systems. Don't get me wrong, I have been using X-Plane for few weeks and I am very happy, I also noticed some improvements in loading areas with orthos with the latest update, however please note that not everyone can afford or may be comfortable to spend money to get a graphic card with 10 GB VRAM. This can't be a requirement to have an acceptable performance.
  13. To be honest, I did not even try any update yet. That was just a 'preemptive question' as this is my first update in XP. Anyway, @longrangecruise, yes, I always backup my sims. I was sure this rule of thumb would also apply to XP :-)