Jump to content

Longranger241

Members
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Longranger241

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Yes, later. There are currently no useable photo textures available.
  5. As JV posted: it won't happen: Hardly a surprise since they are working on so many additional UK airports, that need photo sceneries.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. In the OrbX 2019 roadmap there is a Orbx Global for XP11 product.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. To make it clearer why I have doubts. This isn't the first time that we had in X-Plane 10 a nearly perfect solution but in the long run it was a severe problem. I am talking about the clouds of X-Plane 10! In the first versions of X-Plane 10 we had really beautiful clouds in X-Plane 10. We had three sliders and it was very often possible to correct with these sliders the clouds to a really good compromise between looks and performance. But when the system was switched to an automatic... I would expect that for a first example there was some fine tuning by hand required. Nothing unusual about it. But in the final version the shaders have to be capable to react by themselves and in a performant manner to changes in the cloud cover, the amount of snow, changes in the terrain, the height of the sun or the viewing distance and how the scenery looks at night. And all these adaptations have to look realistically. There is a considerable amount of work between a single picture that demonstrates that it can work and a solution that you can sell! And this is the simple reason why I am not really convinced that this really is the solution. It is a candidate but especially when we are are talking about weather effects, there are often some compromises involved. A solution might be perfect in one situation, but in the next minute it looks more like the result of a car crash!
  16. There is a difference between: It works and it works well! In reality there are several additional things that will have to work: Automatic exchange to other trees. Snow that doesn't only react on a date. 18°C... People are running around in T-Shirts, plants try this unexpected spring weather but the simulator says: Everything is covered in snow... But I am certain: When the first company shows: it is possible, many competitors will be there. The problem with XEnviro is that it isn't the first time that they promised great new features. But it doesn't help if the core system doesn't run stable.
  17. Not yet. This is something that they promise for the next version. We will have to see how good it really works without any additional help. But I think if they will present a feature that works sometimes the chance is pretty high that Laminar or other 3rd party publishers will also get active.
  18. And I don't see why your PC shouldn't be able to handle True Earth. I just replaced my really ancient i7 950 (originally build with FSX in mind, but later upgraded to 18 GB RAM and a GTX 770) with an i7 6700K and a GTX 1070 and 32 GB RAM. The processing speeds of the CPU and GPU play a less significant role compared to the amount of RAM and VRAM. The flight simulators simply have to handle more objects with their textures. So compared to normal games our flight simulators simply need a bit more memory. But an upgrade to 16 GB of RAM shouldn't be too expensive although the RAM prices are currently crazy, compared to the time when I build my 6700K. And your 1060 should be fine if you have the 6GB VRAM model. If you only look at performance benchmarks you see totally unrealistic results. In reality all our flight simulators are currently bound by a single core, so 6 or 8 core machines don't help if you don't want to stream at the same time. Even normal video recordings can be done on the GPU alone without significant losses. In reality everything from the old Sandy Bridge 2600K on can work decently even nowadays with some tweaks. And everything from a Skylake on is more or less in the same ball park since it works on the same architecture. A more expensive CPU can bring a few fps, but in reality the differences aren't huge. That's the real problem of the CPUs. From generation to generation we are now down to 5%, a difference that you won't see if you watch something different than the fps count. Everything else is either clock speed or you run in a RAM or VRAM limit. In fact even mechanical HDDs do their job quite decently with TrueEarth or other photo textures. Once the scenery is loaded, you normally won't see a difference to a SSD in a flight simulator , if you don't run out of RAM. Sometimes people get the impression that they would have to replace their complete system but this is wrong. The 64 bit simulators don't need so much more power they just have to be configured slightly differently. The big advantage of Landmarks was really that they needed less address space and so they didn't need RAM. But 64 Bit systems were constructed to use more RAM, since it is rather cheap. In the same manner the modern GPUs want to work with compression since it lowers the amount of VRAM that they need and the transfer speeds are much higher.
  19. Because they take care of a lot of the money too. Don't expect that these shops work for free.
  20. I don't think that this is really possible. Think about it. You would need stable, clear weather and it would take many days to make the pictures. But even in this time snow would melt or drift and you would have stripes of images that were obviously not made on the same day. If you want to hide this, you will loose most of the image details. I think the only possible way would be artificial snow, either painted by hand or shader based with object replacement. This would mean more or less new technologies either by LM and Laminar or by OrbX themselves. The shader based approach would really be much more useful since it could be used in multiple sceneries with very few changes and possibly in multiple simulators. But if and when such a technology would be ready is pure speculation.
  21. Carefull with the hopes for XEnviro. They always had very promising elements...but their track record isn't really good. My hope lies more on Laminar. I have my doubts on if a pure shader based approach is efficient, but with additions in the objects and file definitions it should work. But this would be something only Laminar could do.
  22. It is and it isn't. The areas are much bigger, so the costs would be higher. And we must not forget the net problem. The big advantage for Orb is, that, in the long run, P3D and X-Plane will be slightly different outputs of the same workflow. But if you now integrate seasons for P3D this would totally break this workflow. It would add significant costs that P3D would have to pay for by itself. It would be two totally different versions.
  23. Both depend on the Taxi routes and stands like the default AI traffic and both can work with an airport, when these informations are given. And they should never expect any additional information by a scenery designer! That is the job of the AI traffic programs. Or do you really expect that scenery designers will update their sceneries if additional AI traffic programs appear?
  24. I don't think it makes sense to ask every time. These routes should be a part of the normal procedures by now.
  25. I am not sure if this would be really the problem. Those standard buildings are used many, many times to fill the scenery, so every tiny detail that these buildings contain has a big impact on the resources at run time, even with tricks like indexing. And you don't really can't see where critical areas might be, since there are many places where they can appear. Improvements can be done at a later time, when they simply have more time. And since they are in the process of hiring new people tiny details are normally a good way to bring a new guy up to speed, when he has to learn new tools.
×
×
  • Create New...