Jump to content

mauri2007

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

66 profile views
  1. Like you said: I will be flying same P3Dv5 like you. Why do you think I hate P3D? Surely I have flown it more than most of you and will continue to fly. And I will not go back to FSX. I have only highlighted something that is evident to me. And that is neither good nor bad. Could the P3D graphics engine have improved much more than it has been? Yes, but not by me, I am happily retired. Well, even if I wasn't, I couldn't either. Not for 5000 other guys. Have you been part of a former development team? Did you write some line of a source code related with flight simulation? Sometimes it happens that someone who was in one of those teams (noooooot meeeeeee) tells you things that seem to contradict what you think you know about the world of simulation. The things that the current license owners tell you. And they can do it. They must. It is marketing. And it may or may not be true. Fortunately I am not venting. I hadn't had that much fun in 15 years.
  2. Let me smile while I really, really know things about FSX source code. Let me smile... PT knows them too.
  3. Sorry if I seem to be trolling 😟, but I was very amazed with that video Prepar3D v5 Night Lighting: The FSElite First Look. I really hope it's a joke. 🙄 On the other hand, although I am sure that FSX and P3Dv1-4 have the same graphics engine, despite all my complaints, despite W6KD's precise explanations, I know that I am going to buy P3Dv5. I know. I think it will be worth it. If only because of the new effects of water. But I will continue to claim that the FSX and P3D graphics engines are.... blah blah blah ...😁
  4. I´m here again.... After seeing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Y0u1tedlZu8&feature=emb_logo I must admit that I was completely wrong. The P3Dv5 graphics engine is not the same as the FSX. The P3Dv5 graphics engine is the same as FS2002 graphic engine. Compare them, please: I hope FSelite is playing a joke on us.😁😁😁
  5. I completely agree with you that "Tessellation, in particular, as it is implemented in the P3D graphics engine, would have brought even the best early FSX-era GPUs (eg GeForce 6800, GTX280 / 480) straight to their knees". But Tesellation has been around since DX9. However, at Aces Studios, they never considered using the corresponding API's due to the high computational cost that they would have had. But even though P3Dv3 incorporated tesselation, the problem is exactly the same as FSX: A multi-threaded, single-core graphics engine. The reason is the one I have been exposing for several posts: They are the same graphics engine. Or that is what I suspect, because I really have no evidence or argument for this. What I am convinced of is that if the current hadware were used, the quality of the graphics and the performance of the simulators would be much better than what we have. And that is applicable not only to P3D but also to DCS and X-PLANE. But, as I am tired of all this, if you all prefer to think that P3D has developed new graphics engines with each new version ... of course, you can do it. I don´t do it. However, I enjoy this home flight simulation much because it´s the only we have. Bye. M.
  6. Wrong? What does the DX have to do with the graphics engine? Do you know what you are talking about? DX is a set of APIs (Application Programming Interface) that facilitate communication between your source code (graphic engine, sound engine ... etc) and the various functionalities of the operating system. When you develop a graphics engine you take into account if you are going to have APIs and what they are. You could develop a primitive graphic engine with no DX. But once the engine is developed, you could evolve the API calls for a later DX with not too much effort. But the graphics engine will remain the same. You can have a Chevrolet Corsica or a Porsche Panamera (Graphics Engines). But if you give both cars better wheels, what you have is a better grip on the asphalt ... but you have the same cars. In my case, a Corsica 😞 Remember Microprose Falcon4 back in 1998? Originally it used DX5 and when the source codes were leaked, one guy (eRazor) modified the calls from DX5 to DX6. 30% FPS earned. And, I can assure you, eRazor did not modify a single line of the F4 graphics engine.
  7. I really know nothing about P3Dv5 graphics engine, nor graphics engine P3Dv4. I believe none of us here know. But I really know about FSX graphics engine. I don't want to pretend what I am not anymore. I have enjoyed flight simulation since 1985. And I have been a software development professional since 1987. The only thing I wanted to say is that I´m convinced that FSX graphic engine and P3Dv4 are exactly the same: I haven´t seen the P3Dv4 source code. For this reason I´m convinced , but I don´t really know it. Only thing I can do is "To be convinced" But I know that FSX was designed as multi-threaded software on a single physical core. Is it feasible to have tens, or hundreds, of threads in a single physical core? Yes, it is feasible. Any first year computer engineering student knows how to do it. Even in an architecture as simple as Arduino. You only need an interrupt clock and a task dispatcher. In the 2004, the state of the art on home computing was: "A single core, as fast as possible. Even 7.5 or 8.0 Ghz". But Intel decided to change the scenery to add some physical cores, reducing speed. But the FSX graphic engine had already been completely designed. But, as parallel programming experts know very well, it is difficult to develop true programs from scratch on multi-core architectures. And what's even more difficult, if not impossible, is adapting a single-core multi-threaded architecture (Like FSX was) into a multi-core architecture. You could see that P3D graphics engine seems to run into 2, 4, 8 or more physical cores. But it is only the appearance. What you actually have is a single-core multi-threaded architecture running on multiple cores with the intervention of the operating system (Windows, MAC or Linux), not the simulation software (P3D in this case). Yes, yes, yes, some developers from LM can tell: "We have been working very hard to separate threads into differents cores...bla bla bla". Why, then, do we have the same FPS´s with a slight improvement in the aspect of the graphics with a hardware (CPU and GPU) that is, at least 10 times, more powerful than in 2006?. As I said in my first post, take a look at teaser trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Jz6KE8dflBc&feature=emb_logo) between 00:34 and 00:38 seconds. You can compare the 2006 shooter games with the 2020 ones. Believe me, although I can't tell you where I was working from 1998 to 2006: It´s the same engine graphic. Although I have no proof (I haven't seen a single line of P3D source code), I think so.
  8. Of course I hope you are right and the performance improvement makes me forget the core0 problem. I really hope you are right. But after 10 years ...
  9. It's not about how many lines of code P3d5 shares with FS9. It´s about that the P3Dv3 graphics engine is the same as the FSX graphics engine. Exactly the same. I know what I am talking about, although I am not a "guru". On the other hand, I really wouldn't know how to build a new (and better) graphics engine. Even though I had 1000 years to do it. But the truth is that the graphics engines are the same. I'm so glad you enjoy P3D. I have done a lot for years with P3Dv4, DCS or X-plane. But that does not stop me from complaining about the problems inherited from other times.
  10. I´ve just realized that you've been sitting next to me all these years, in front of my monitor. What I don't know is where you have seen that I have hundreds of add-ons, pushing sliders to the right and not vanilla P3D. Because the core0 problem can occur even in a vanilla P3D. On the other hand, it is good that there are thousands of clients, like yourself, who are still willing to pay LM for a graphics engine from 15 years ago. I hope that with what they earn, they can develop their own graphics engine. In this century. Best regards.
  11. LM never wont give you an answer to core0 bug. The problem with core0 has been in the graphics engine since 10/2006, when FSX was released. And wasn´t fixed with SP1 and SP2. When LM released P3Dv1 in 10/2010 they could have re-build the FSX graphics engine. They didn´t: Problem with core0 When LM released P3Dv2 in 10/2013 they could have re-build the FSX graphics engine. They didn´t. The same problem with core0 When LM released P3Dv3 in 09/2015 they could have re-build the FSX graphics engine. They didn´t. The same problem with core0 When LM released P3Dv4 in 05/2017 they could have re-build the FSX graphics engine. They didn´t. The same problem with core0 I purchased V1 and found the core0 problem. I waited 7 years to purchase V4...and still the same problem. In the Release Notes (https://prepar3d.com/home-slider/2020/04/115906/) you can see that the word “fixed” appears 34 times. That is to say that V5 it is not a new simulator or a new version of V4, but rather an update of V4 with the corresponding "fixes" in its failures. Please, take a look at teaser trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Jz6KE8dflBc&feature=emb_logo) between 00:34 and 00:38 seconds. Don´t you think you are seeing FSX again?. Again and again. Why do you think this time, with V5, will be different?. But, of course, you are free to purchase it again. Again and again. Happy flights in core0!!!!
×
×
  • Create New...