Jump to content


  • Posts

  • 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 scenery was downloaded it starts extractig and then the conversion of probably JPEG dsf files to png dsf files, but when he the conversion process is stopped it restarts the extraction and the conversion process from the start. Since this part of the installation takes much more time than the download itself a resume function or st least several fall back states would be much more sensible. I several times observed that the Central process simply vanished and when I got back to the computer everything was fine but the Central process simply was no longer there and he had not finished his works.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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,
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Well road traffic on bridges is in fact a general problem of X-Plane and the current solutions are mainly compromises. The main solutions I have seen: Ground Traffic on the bridges is really no solution for a big region, since you get one additional Ground Traffic process per bridge. And even SAM is no so0lution at this time. And since Laminar already talked about changes in the collicion detection with the switch to Vulkan this is a likely candidate for improvements by Laminar. And bridges allignment is also a difficult topic, since we have X-Plane 11 and P3Dv4 with a different mesh.
  17. When I wrote the report no. The Verify found a problem and now it loads.
  18. [SASL] Path to panel: D:\X-Plane\X-Plane 11\Aircraft\Carenado\Carenado C90_King_Air_v1.1\aircraft.key [SASL] Loading avionics... ERROR: object Aircraft/Carenado/Carenado C90_King_Air_v1.1/objects/Lights.obj has illegal param light airplane_beacon_sp ERROR: object Aircraft/Carenado/Carenado C90_King_Air_v1.1/objects/Lights.obj has illegal param light airplane_beacon_sp WARNING: texture Aircraft/Carenado/Carenado C90_King_Air_v1.1/objects/I2_NML.png has a size that is not a power of 2; it may not render correctly. G64: 127.907: Livery Changed:(Deepbluered) Folder:(Aircraft/Carenado/Carenado C90_King_Air_v1.1/liveries/Deepbluered/) 0:01:59.609 I/FLT: Init dat_p0 type:loc_tak apt:EGLC rwy:09 0:02:17.952 I/SCN: DSF load time: 20997671 for file Custom Scenery/Global Airports/Earth nav data/+50+000/+50+000.dsf (0 tris, 0 skipped for 0.0 m^2) 0:02:17.952 I/SCN: DSF load time: 1710760 for file Custom Scenery/zzz_Treelines_Farms_Europe_v2/Earth nav data/+50+000/+50+000.dsf (0 tris, 0 skipped for 0.0 m^2) 0:02:17.952 I/SCN: DSF load time: 1708010 for file Custom Scenery/Orbx_A_GB_South_TrueEarth_Custom/Earth nav data/+50+000/+50+000.dsf (0 tris, 0 skipped for 0.0 m^2) 0:02:17.952 I/SCN: DSF load time: 29239887 for file Custom Scenery/Global Airports/Earth nav data/+50+000/+52+000.dsf (0 tris, 0 skipped for 0.0 m^2) 0:02:17.952 I/SCN: DSF load time: 1808112 for file Custom Scenery/zzz_Treelines_Farms_Europe_v2/Earth nav data/+50+000/+52+000.dsf (0 tris, 0 skipped for 0.0 m^2) 0:02:17.952 I/SCN: DSF load time: 552980 for file Custom Scenery/Orbx_A_GB_South_TrueEarth_Custom/Earth nav data/+50+000/+52+000.dsf (0 tris, 0 skipped for 0.0 m^2) 0:02:17.952 I/SCN: DSF load time: 40073718 for file Custom Scenery/Orbx_EGHI_A_Southampton/Earth nav data/+50-010/+50-002.dsf (0 tris, 0 skipped for 0.0 m^2) 0:02:17.952 E/SYS: THREAD FATAL ASSERT: PING-FILE ERROR! 0:02:17.952 E/SYS: THREAD FATAL ASSERT: setjmp(png_ptr->jmpbuf 0:02:17.952 E/SYS: THREAD FATAL ASSERT: Custom Scenery/Orbx_B_GB_South_TrueEarth_Overlay/facades/european/dark/roof4.png 0:02:17.952 E/SYS: THREAD FATAL ASSERT: 0:02:17.952 E/SYS: THREAD FATAL ASSERT: C:/jenkins/design-triggered/source_code/app/X-Plane-f/../../core/TEX/TEX_png.cpp:85 --=={This application has crashed!}==--
  19. 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.
  20. As JV posted: it won't happen: Hardly a surprise since they are working on so many additional UK airports, that need photo sceneries.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  • Create New...