Jump to content

Longranger241

Members
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About Longranger241

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

158 profile views
  1. Well, to bring some context into this discussion. XEnviro uses a trick that is in fact nothing new. It implements ,as a shader, standard workflow that was used in Photoshop or Lightroom. It is by itself rather simple and fast in todays GPUs. So the general expectation is, that all newer Flight Simulators will implement such a mechanism as a core of their climate or weather systems.
  2. The airport is praobably identified as EGLC. Since this airport was already confirmed as a new airport and the only one of the new slot in the south, this seems to be a pretty certain bet.
  3. I am not sure if LM would be as interested as Laminar.in such a demo. It simply has a different core market. For big parts of their market it isn't even a flight simulator anymore. The connection between flight training and "to be prepared" and a scenery of the UK isn't really obvious.
  4. I think we have to be careful with the question what the proof of concept was. It was a proof of concept for P3D but it was based on a free or donationware workflow from X-Plane.Tony had been working on improvements on his consept for years, but such things are a bit too big for freeware. But when he became a part of OrbX after he had rescued the Meigs Field Scenery for X-Plane, he had his conepts.I think his proof of Concept was in fact the Barton Scenery. OrbX had the guarantee that they would get at least get an additional X-Plane airport and Tony had the chance to demonstrate the power of his concept by implementing Manchester. And I think this is the real problem behind it. The core of the TrueEarth group is strongly attached to X-Plane. They don't really have so much knowledge about P3D. Now it is simply more effective to let them do their thing. The people with the peak knowledge about P3D will also have other projects outside TrueEarth. When they worked for TrueEarth Australia V2 and Africa were on hold. Now these projects have started again and TrueEarth will be developed by the UK group. They will have to start their own P3D workflow and probably improve the automatic conversion techniques a bit further. This takes time at the moment, but in the future this will probably in a much faster and better conversion for P3D and AFS2. And at the same time they will also get additions that P3D can now use too, like PBR AutoGen buildings.
  5. Yes, later. There are currently no useable photo textures available.
  6. As JV posted: it won't happen: Hardly a surprise since they are working on so many additional UK airports, that need photo sceneries.
  7. This is the problem that I talked about. In X-Plane the size of the river can be as big as you want. And the custom 3D building will have the correct size for the X-Plane mesh. In P3D you can't push the measuring points for the mesh around, instead you have to decide if the river bank is in this line or the next. In X-Plane the renderfarm can simply add some additional triangles to the mesh that follow the correct location of a riverbank ( https://www.simflight.de/2014/08/15/mesh-und-landclass-der-x-plane-welt/ ) , The result: the distance between two riverbanks can be significantly different between the X-Plane and P3D mesh. Since they use the same custom object... And if we are talking about London and so on: Not all bridges and buildings can be custom buildings. On the one hand it would be extremly expensive to draw every single object. If you use the same object multiple times the computers can simply index these buildings. If you draw the same kind of building hundreds of times the GPU doesn't need more resources than to draw 10 buildings.
  8. Hmm, I can guess what the problem is. P3D and X-Plane don't have the same mesh. P3D is still based on the old regular mesh of FSX, this means its height measuring points have always the same distance from each other, it doesn't care what kind of terrain you have to model. And ,if I remember correctly, it further complicates the problem by using tesselation, this means the terrain can different if you change settings or GPU. X-Plane on the other hand uses an iregular mesh. You can position the measuring points, wherever you like. So it can follow the edge of a cliff or a mountain with a huge number triangles, while you only need very few triangles to describe even terrain. In the case of a bridge you now have a real problem. The bridge is a simple 3D object with a predefined size. But you only have one model for all simulators and their meshes. And you position them directly into the terrain mesh. The problem: While the differences in the meshes aren't always obvious at a first glance they differ from each other by several meters. But if you add a measuring stick like the 3D model of a bridge you suddenly see some of the differences. While there are a number of tricks to work around some of the problems, there aren't always solutions. And I think in the future we will have even more differences, not less, since they will all use dynamic elements like tesselation. We will have to see what kind of tricks will be invented to modify the 3D models for their environment.
  9. Totally different things. Active Sky is at the moment only a weather source and wind effects generator, while it uses for the display of clouds the X-Plane 11 default engine. Ultra Weather on the other hand tries to improve the cloud display of X-Plane. In fact you can even use Active Sky XP together with UltraWeather.
  10. Well the BitTorrents made a lot of sense right after the release and especially with the older/bigger versions. In first release of the HD Mesh the downloads crashed flightsim.com and even aerosoft had trouble when they first offered the files. But now they are no longer as big and the servers are faster. I think the complete UHD Mesh v4 is smaller than OrbX TrueEarth Great Britain North and the HD Mesh v4 is only slightly bigger than the default X-Plane installation. So it isn't to hard to load them down from Aerosoft for example. AlPilotX tried to describe the installation as careful as possible near the end of the main webpages like http://www.alpilotx.net/downloads/x-plane-11-uhd-mesh-scenery-v4/ for the UHD Mesh files. The zzz_UHD... and zzz_HD... directories that you have to create will have to be the last entries in your sceneries_packs.ini file, the UHD mesh above the HD mesh, then everything should work ok if have written the name of the "Earth nav data" folder correctly and took care that you unpacked the files correctly into the "Earth nav data" folder. If you don't see the entries in your log simply reread carefully through the direction of AlPilotX.
  11. The HD and UHD classifications have nothing to do with your monitor resolution it was only compared with the Data that was in the Default Mesh.This Data was always limited due to the DVD size and originally due to the 4 GB limit of the first versions of X-Plane 10. AlPilotX was a volunteer that delivered the data to X-Plane and he simply knew what he had and what X-Plane 10 had. So after X-Plane was able to handle more than 4 GB (with X-Plane 10.20) he offered an HD Mesh for download, with the real data that he had. It had in some places a better height profile but more importantly he was able to increase the number of landclass tiles which allowed a much better differentiation of the AutoGen and the landclass textures no longer looked so repetetive. At a later data he tried to put everything through Renderfarm (the Programm that generates the mesh directories for Laminar) what he had. He saw that this amount of data was bit to much for cities but in the mountains it brought the ground textures to a complete new level while the performance was even under X-Plane 10 quite good if you had 16-32 GB of RAM and there were no big cities involved. In X-Plane 11 there were several improvements behind the scenes. The scenery loading is much faster while the DSF size was reduced significantly ,without any data loss. And the added detail was no longer real problem for the renderer. So while the amount of raw data has increased significantly the performance is better. The UHD mesh v4 has more or less the same the performance that the HD Mesh v3 had. In my experience the UHD Mesh v4 of the olympic mountains is in fact better than the ortho versions of this area.
  12. In the OrbX 2019 roadmap there is a Orbx Global for XP11 product.
  13. Careful, while they are working on a global base pack don't think of it as a conversion! It would be a new product and how good the results will be, compared to the default and their products for fsx and P3D will have to be seen since the technologies are quite different.I think this will be one of things where I expect changes also from some of their competitors and from Laminar itself.
  14. And I find it especially nice in connection, that we finally got acknowledgement from Laminar that they are working on Bones Animations ( https://youtu.be/eshXNtLtPmw?t=2166 ), that in my experience gave especially OrbX airports an additional edge. And that they gave to the push to Vulkan a higher priority is quite understandable. Vulkan simply gives them a much bettert control on performance ahnd many additional possibilities.
  15. Difficult to say, since they are in the process of writing a new SDK.In 11.30 they just now exchanged the complete shader system in preparation for Vulkan. So all shaders currently have to emulate the old shaders. We have to wait to see what they were really build for.
×
×
  • Create New...