Jump to content

X-Plane News ONLY (not discussion)


Shaman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Austin (creator of X-Plane) has revealed X-Plane 10 features. Here's a quote of his post that can be found here:

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=47604&pid=527435&st=0entry527435

 

I have a write-up a mile long of all the features already done for X-Plane 10, but let's save all those details for later.

 

Other than a gajillion various flight-model and scenery over-hauls and a near-complete internal re-write to make the code more object-oriented and thus easier to modify and debug, let's look at the fundamental requirements I have laid out for my team for X-Plane 10, all of which are being developed now:

 

In a sentence, X-Plane 10 will have a plausible, scalable, dynamic world.

 

Here is what I mean:

 

Orthophotos are garbage. I see this all the time. I am zooming along in an airplane looking that rooftops of WalMarts painted flat onto the ground.

And the rooftops are blurry.

And pixelated.

And with a magenta or purple tint.

And with big blurry shears right through the middle of them when they fall between offset satellite passes.

It looks just terrible.

Then, to make the 2-dimensional, blurry, pixellated, mis-colored, distorted roof of a WalMart painted on the ground look even worse, if you throw in some REAL roads or auto-generated buildings, they invariably fall ACROSS the roof of the WalMart painted on the ground, compounding the wretched orthophoto with an Escher-like rendering-error.

This looks terrible, and is not even plausible.

 

Enter the plausible world for X-Plane 10.

 

We will build every city in X-Plane UP FROM THE FIRST BLADES OF GRASS.

 

Here is how it works: We will start off with grass or field textures for THE ENTIRE WORLD, INCLUDING THE CITIES, and then build up from THAT. We will take each individual parking lot and place it on top of the grass. We will place each building on the parking lot, in 3-D. At no point will the PAINTING of the ROOF of a building appear on the ground. This will NEVER happen. EVERY building will be a real 3-D building, planted by an algorithm in a location that is at least physically possible. Do we know where every building on earth is? Of course not. But, we DO have incredibly detailed road databases, and we have the algorithms to place parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, etc all alongside these countless roads. This means that our artificially-intelligent city-planning algorithm will build PLAUSIBLE cities. Cities where you would fly over them at 5 miles per hour, 10 feet above the ground, in a helicopter, and NEVER see anything that looks 'impossible'. Everything will be completely 3-D. Every city built from the first blade of grass. There will be no discoloration, blurriness, satellite mis-alignment or 2-D Escher-illusions… all of the cities will be completely plausible. If you turn down your rendering options to zero, then New York will be empty green fields. If you turn them up to max, then it will be a sea of 3-D roads and buildings at a level of detail that you could DRIVE in a driving sim, and Central Park will NOT be an overlay… it will simply be a part of the field that they have not put buildings on! This is the plausible world, and it is the first step towards a really detailed and convincing virtual reality.

 

 

As well, X-Plane 10 will be SCALABLE. While you will be able to taxi right down the roads, with plausible intersections at every crossing and only 3-D buildings off of either wing, you will be able to zoom out all the way to space and see the landmass from orbit. You will see the reflections and lighting of the land and sea from space, with smooth transitions all the way from space to sitting in someone's front yard, never with any sudden switch-over to a different rendering technology. Everything is done with level of detail that delivers smooth transitions from street-view to orbit, all in 3-D. The WEATHER system will be detailed enough that you will see cloud whisps right around your plane as you fly through clouds, but will go HUNDREDS of miles in every direction WITHOUT any repetition. This will let you have fronts and thunderstorms, areas that are VFR and IFR, clear and cloudy, all at once, depending on your location. If you want to fly like you would in reality, you will work through/over/under/around those thunderstorms and fronts getting from one place to another, since the weather is NOT homogenous or repetitive. It scales from local detail around your plane clear out to region-wide fronts and storms visible from orbit. Totally scalable across a tremendous range.

 

 

 

As well, the X-Plane 10 engine is DYNAMIC. I have now, for X-Plane 10, made it so that EACH FLIGHT MODEL RUNS ON IT'S OWN CPU. Here is what that means: If you have 20 processors, then you can run TWENTY AI PLANES WITH BASICALLY ZERO FRAME-RATE HIT. Crank the number of planes up to 20 in X-Plane 9 and watch what happens to the frame-rate. Try it now: Set the number of planes to 1 and look at the frame-rate. Then set it to 20 and look again. See the hit? That is because all of those flight models are running on ONE CPU, one after the other, in order. With X-Plane 10, each flight model can run on it's own CPU, all at the same time… if you have 20 CPU's, running 20 planes is no slower than running 1. Now, most of you don't have 20 CPU's, but if you have a quad-chip dual-core (per chip) Mac like I do, then that is EIGHT cores… and they can handle 20 flight models while hardly breaking a sweat… the frame-rate impact of 20 planes is small: We have eight cores splitting the work! As well, we have optimized the RAM-use of each airplane to be considerably lower. This means that there is less RAM impact to having 20 planes flying at once, making it much more feasible to have 20 planes at one time. So, X-Plane 10 will use less RAM, and give more frame-rate, than version 9 when loaded up with planes (all other settings being equal, of course). So why do I care about all these OTHER planes so much? Well, we have hired a full-time programmer JUST for the new ATC code for X-Plane 10. This new ATC will control ALL the planes in the sky, including yours, to deliver incredible ATC realism. Using pre-recorded WAV files, you will HEAR the controller giving instructions to the OTHER planes, and see them following those instructions on your TCAS and out the window. The other planes will all take-off, land, taxi, stop on the ramp, miss approaches and do touch-n-goes, all while taking commands from ATC, all of which are audible on your radio.

 

Of course, all of the other planes will use the same accuracy flight model as your plane, so you will see them move perfectly realistically across all phases of flight, from flying right down to taxiing. Put in a strong wind or turbulence and see how they handle it. It might not be pretty, but it WILL be realistic. Set enough wind and an icy runway, and they will all blow right across the ramp. Watch out.

 

 

So, THIS is the plausible, scalable, dynamic world that we are building for X-Plane 10, all of which sits on top of an object-oriented, RAM-optimized, CPU-optimized, multi-core-capable code-base. You will SEE these results as X-Plane 10 reveals incredible detail, motion, and accuracy at all scales … while the activity bars on ALL your CPU's run up into action.

 

NOW, if you only have ONE CPU and a LITTLE BIT of RAM, you will still be able to run version 10 just fine.. in fact you may see it even run FASTER and with LESS RAM than Version 9! BUT, you will have only ONE airplane, and the cities will be simply grass fields, and the air traffic controller will have very few people to talk to. BUT, if you get the 4 gig of RAM to load up the rendering options, the 8 CPU cores to run 20 AI planes with full flight-model at once with minimal frame-rate hit, THEN you will start to see the whole world enrich and come alive. But there is no way that is happening with 2 GIG of ram and one CPU. This type of world is all about parallel-processing: A lot of stuff happening at once. No surprise it will eat up all the CPU's and RAM (up to 4 Gig) that you can give it.

  • Like 1

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nice, setting the flight model on a separate CPU is a efficient use of the hardware. Maybe ED could also follow this tendency?

Spoiler

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (AM4, AMD X570, ATX), Noctua NH-DH14, EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti XC3 ULTRA, Seasonic Focus PX (850W), Kingston HyperX 240GB, Samsung 970 EVO Plus (1000GB, M.2 2280), 32GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16, Cooler Master 932 HAF, Samsung Odyssey G5; 34", Win 10 X64 Pro, Track IR, TM Warthog, TM MFDs, Saitek Pro Flight Rudders

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wont matter how well XP10 is until there are hardcore 3d party add-ons for it like PMDG etc.

Your statement is not up to date :smartass:

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Those do not appear to be hardcore, high fidelity avionics

Disagree. Because I own both Flight1 ATR 72 and Captain Sim C-130, and I find avionics more realistic in X-plane then in FS2004/FSX. Yep, I did fly in RL alone. Yep, I did fly on instructor seat plenty times in ATR72 and 42 and observed how it compares to FS2004/FSX "high fidelity added avionics" (X-plane wins already with stock avionics).

(2) They are simple aircraft, not the complex heavy commercial jets.

 

My point stands.

 

In this case, because you are looking for heavy airliner try researching project x737 and all the additional payable software for it.

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed owned cream of fs9 paywares Citation X , PIC 737 etc , X-plane planes are much more reactive , with X-plane when you land you'd better not finish your soda at the same time . with fs since your reduce your speed , your low down the flaps there are few chances you can mess . concerning XP 10 let's hope in won't be a FPS killer , that's what kept me not buying FSX


Edited by jpm1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, I fail to see how this plan for X-Plane 10 engine can be categorized as "revolutionary" as I've seen some people say. Everything listed there was already done by FSX, like autogen, ATC, weather, multi-threading etc. Shame the team got disbanded, but when you see what products like OrbX, MyTrafficX and ActiveSkyX managed to achieve on FSX engine, you realize XP10 still have a lot to catch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, I fail to see how this plan for X-Plane 10 engine can be categorized as "revolutionary" as I've seen some people say. Everything listed there was already done by FSX, like autogen, ATC, weather, multi-threading etc. Shame the team got disbanded, but when you see what products like OrbX, MyTrafficX and ActiveSkyX managed to achieve on FSX engine, you realize XP10 still have a lot to catch up.

 

 

Some of it has been done. But it was done poorly. The autogen was just terrible... not sure how it was done but I'm hoping Austin is referring to a procedural method, which could be very fast. Weather in FSX was never that impressive... Best we've seen, but still pretty small beans. A wider range of possible conditions and more dynamic visuals will make a huge difference. Doesn't matter to me what OrbX etc managed to put together in FSX... the simulator is still the most poorly optimized, clumsy piece of flight sim software I've used. Most aircraft handle like garbage. I've only flown one fast jet in FSX with drag modeled correctly. Light aircraft aren't too bad, so long as you don't want to do anything more than instrument flying. The only hallmark of FSX is flying heavy metal. If you're into tooling around in your PMDG 747, then FSX is nothing but fantastic.

 

 

What FSX did right was have a very open architecture and allow the community to take off with 3rd party work to enhance the experience. THAT is what ED should take note of. ;)

 

Sounds nice, but does this mean each city is randomly generated and will not look like the real world city? I realize no one here may be able to answer this question, but thought I would throw it out anyway. :)

 

Not randomly, but it's not a look-up table. It will be more accurate than the placement in FSX. He explains why well if you re-read... it places the buildings based on a pretty full-featured algorithm, and not just randomly. FSX still kinda just throws things around. The exciting thing about procedural programming, which is the wave of the future, is that it can put these cities together the same way every time. Without using a look-up table. (IE, without killing your frame rates like FSX autogen.) Basically, he creates a complicated algorithm to place the objects, then gives it a "seed" more or less, to run the math. Math is very easy to do for a computer, and very fast. If he gives it the same "seed" every time, it will generate the cities the same way every time. As best as I understood it, this is what he's talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of it has been done. But it was done poorly. The autogen was just terrible... not sure how it was done but I'm hoping Austin is referring to a procedural method, which could be very fast. Weather in FSX was never that impressive... Best we've seen, but still pretty small beans. A wider range of possible conditions and more dynamic visuals will make a huge difference. Doesn't matter to me what OrbX etc managed to put together in FSX... the simulator is still the most poorly optimized, clumsy piece of flight sim software I've used. Most aircraft handle like garbage. I've only flown one fast jet in FSX with drag modeled correctly. Light aircraft aren't too bad, so long as you don't want to do anything more than instrument flying. The only hallmark of FSX is flying heavy metal. If you're into tooling around in your PMDG 747, then FSX is nothing but fantastic.

 

 

What FSX did right was have a very open architecture and allow the community to take off with 3rd party work to enhance the experience. THAT is what ED should take note of. ;)

 

 

 

Not randomly, but it's not a look-up table. It will be more accurate than the placement in FSX. He explains why well if you re-read... it places the buildings based on a pretty full-featured algorithm, and not just randomly. FSX still kinda just throws things around. The exciting thing about procedural programming, which is the wave of the future, is that it can put these cities together the same way every time. Without using a look-up table. (IE, without killing your frame rates like FSX autogen.) Basically, he creates a complicated algorithm to place the objects, then gives it a "seed" more or less, to run the math. Math is very easy to do for a computer, and very fast. If he gives it the same "seed" every time, it will generate the cities the same way every time. As best as I understood it, this is what he's talking about.

 

What I like about x-plane is the fluidity of the instruments and the flight model, I would say that x-plane as it comes in the box is less attractive than fsx; at least the stock models in fsx come with virtual cockpit; so it feels more immersive; xplane also looks a bit dark; the lighting feels like it is overcast all the time. I guess with time xplane can become the best civil sim; it just need more publishers launching quality models, and more people doing their own stuff like on fsx, fs2004, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth... but who actually flies the default aircraft? You pick up better aircraft and fly them...

 

People who aren't hardcore flightsim gearheads with boatloads of money......

 

Thats the problem with FSX and flight simulator in general. You can spend over a thousand dollars just to make your sim look good and realistic. They put out minimal features and a framework of a sim.

 

I predict that MS Flight will be more of the same with LIVE rammed down your throat and dummied down for XBOX users. I personnally hate LIVE it's like xbox for PC. Who wants that for a flight sim? Youll have to buy microsoft points to spend on aircraft then they will deny you tech support because you didnt "pay " for your product you bought points that some lawyer devised a way of bilking you out of your money so that you have no legal recourse. They will loose a lot of developers. Probably a lot will shift towards Xplane...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

System Specs

 

Intel I7-3930K, Asrock EXTREME9, EVGA TITAN, Mushkin Chronos SSD, 16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z series 2133, TM Warthog and MFD's, Saitek Proflight Combat pedals, TrackIR 5 + TrackClip PRO, Windows 7 x64, 3-Asus VS2248H-P monitors, Thermaltake Level 10 GT, Obutto cockpit

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree FSX is bloated and inefficient. But I have to say, now that the hardware is there to run it well, FSX+Orbx for the NW+ASX (ASA is latest) for weather+SF260 for props or L-39 for jets=very, very nice experience for me.

 

As said above, we will need a replacement though, so I hope X-plane steps up.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...