Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Longranger241

  1. They will be static as in the UK airports. The problem is that the technology behind it (Bones Animations) at this time only woks near the plane in X-Plane. And X-Plane decided that this is one of the huge number of changes that they can easier do with the support of the Vulkan debugging tools and with the advanced capabilities. But what we don't know if this will be a part of the First batch of Vulkan fixes or a bit behind. But there is nothing to do for OrbX, that's the job of Laminar.
  2. If we interpret Bens remarks correctly this is one of the the things that they fix with/after Vulkan/Metal.
  3. It depends on which base mesh has the higher priority.. Contrary to other structures there is only one Mesh per location active. So if you have the DD Mesh with a higher priority You get the DD terrain.instead of the OrbX one. An additional problem is the special roads directory that DD Seattle has. But If I remeber correcctl the mesh and roads file were all part of DD Seattle City. So I would disable all 3 DD Seattle City directories.
  4. The coversion is not the problem but if the computer has to run for such a time and stops working at 89% and then starts at 0% it is a clear sign of problems in the installation process.
  5. Well the unpacking of files is a bit ridiculous. If something happens it starts extracting and converting the photo sceneries from the start more than 4 hours.
  6. I think till we have Vulkan very little.X-Plane is at a very special moment, when other thonks become possible that were very difficult under OpehnGL.In a way I think the new Microsoft Flight Simulator puts some pressure out of the development process. In a year we will probably have a working Vulkan Version that will be comkpared with the new MSFS and I think it can compare favoribly.
  7. Totally different case. The enhanced P3D airports are ohnly used if you have the region, but the geateway airports have to work with the default scenery in most cases,
  8. The usual explanation. But in reality you have to explain to them why they should spend their money in this project. The flight sim community has a limited size. This was the reason why they shut down the ACES team. Other projects promised more revenue. But why do they return to this market? You must have a good reason. If you can string these arguments through their current money makers. They are the second largest public cloud service. That is where one of their biggest money maker is and exactly where one of their biggest competitors google invests. In cloud based games.
  9. Well, I doubt that it is really so much based on MFS but on their MAPS and cloud recources, together with their AI technologies. Their real strength is nowadays in these areas and in fact it would be a quite impressive demo of their "new" 3D interface for cloud gaming. This would be a very good explanation for this project. But it would also bring several restrictions with it. Like you can only fly while you are online. But right at this time we can only speculate. But there MFS knowledge is probably less important. I don't think that they did so many things with their engine after MS Flight. And you must convert the old code to 64 bit and add a new rendering engine. I think the flight simulation core is rather small compared to the other components and they added some of these elements to a new core.
  10. I can see the performance of X-Plane under OpenGL but we have no tool to see how the Vulkan code will be at a later time. OpenGL has some advantages but also problems.You have a big machine that automagaical (only the driver knows how it is done) does a lot of things but in several cases you have very limited tools for quick fixes and so on. Especially in the context of the deferred rendering. If it would be Ben alone I would be quite nervous if he might find better solutions than NVidia but together with Sidney they should be capable to improve the system compared to OpenGL but they have to do more work than under OpenGL. And if you double the resolution you quadrouble the amount of data. Moores Law no longer gives you these recources. In fact several of the GPU improvements were in fact internal compressions to handle the textures. For a long time the added amount of VRAM was considered unnecessary, but not under X-Plane we are used to huge amounts of RAM and VRAM. Even compared to P3Dv4 .Even more amount of VRAM is probably not a solution you have still the transfertime to handle that links the necessary amount of VRAM to the bus speed and the GPU speed. More doesn't always give you better performance. But at this time I wouldn't feel comfortable to optimize a computer for X-Plane. Vulkan will probably change the internal limits of X-Plane Till now the pure amount of VRAM and RAM were more important than the pure speed but if this will continue ? Probably not.
  11. Well, right at this time we are talking about a trailer, from a simulator that is more than a year away from release. But I think the terrain and so on have a simple explanation. Look at bing. They have everything as well as Google with Google Earth and Maps so they have the images in their company. And I presume they added on top a small flight simulator. In theory they could do everything with it and I am quite certain if you ask them right now the sky is the limit. But at this time they don't have to finance this project. I would expect they got their entertainment licence back from Dovetail so they can use their old name. First of all for them its a first step to add a new/old licence into their X-Box projects if it is or becomes anything more has to be seen. We are about one year from the promised release so I don't think that they have real weather in place right nowand they added for the video a lot of elements. Everyone would do it. They now simply continue their project and wait for rections. I presume for them it is only a beefed up bing map explorer. They might have some further wishes but that has to be seen. It isn't really a question for them how to do it, but how do you finance it.
  12. Don't try to second guess the memory consumption. Now we know our curreent consumption but somehow X-Plane has currently a hiegher memory consumption than most other programs. It is quite normal for OpenGL but now we have to see how much memo0ry we really need. X-Plane now has a much better control about its needs.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Yes, later. There are currently no useable photo textures available.
  17. As JV posted: it won't happen: Hardly a surprise since they are working on so many additional UK airports, that need photo sceneries.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. In the OrbX 2019 roadmap there is a Orbx Global for XP11 product.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  • Create New...