Posts by HiFlyer

In another thread here, Jet-Pack responded to a question about Z-Fighting, and I've seen more than a few comments on it regarding Aerofly Fs 2.

This reminded me of something my friends over Outerra came up with: a solution having to do with near and far clipping accuracy, and it was a solution that was well thought of and has been since used by other developers. Just wondering If the Ipacs developers had heard of it, and if it was applicable.

http://outerra.blogspot.com/2009/08/logarithmic-z-buffer.html

http://outerra.blogspot.com/2012/11/maximi…-range-and.html

http://outerra.blogspot.com/2013/07/logari…imizations.html

Quote

"Some shimmering polygons on tops of mountains in Switzerland in VR. (GTX 1080, Win 10 Anniversary, Oculus Rift.)"

Do you mean z-fighting? I have that on my machine, too, I hope we can fix that. Its not as easy because you want high detail close to the camera (near clipping plane) and you don't want the world to end anywhere in the distance (far clipping plane). But the distance of the two planes greatly affects that z-buffer fighting. In great distance the precision of the graphics cards, which render only floats (except some newer very expensive cards) and floats have a lower precision, so sometimes a value for one triangle is greater than the other simply because of these calculation errors.
So question to you: do you rather want the cockpit to be clipped away at a radius of 1m or do you rather have z-fighting until the weather engine adds fog and hides all that lol

I had noticed quite a bit of (kind of stuttery) videos out there and it made me wonder, since my Aerofly doesn't do that even at ultra, so I did a fps test. Fps is in lower left corner, and is kind small so watch in full screen.

System is i7 6700 at 4.6Ghz (Hyperthreading on)
32Gigs Ram
Nvidia 1080Gtx
Aerofly Ultra Settings

I did not understand this request either.

No idea. I found this video, but suspect it was probably recorded using nvidia shadowplay.

Your post cautions against demonizing any group, but then feels like it downplays the need of more casual simmers.....

This is pretty much exactly what I was cautioning against, and exactly why I believe the simulation market has become such a small niche.

There has to be a compromise, and if any segment becomes aggressive in the belief that only their interests are legitimate, then that by definition tends to delegitimize other users.

Historically, the result has been a slide towards the type of product that has a narrow focus and limited appeal, and while such products work out fairly well for specialized third parties, they do poorly for the program developer unless they have some sort of robust secondary market like military or flight training waiting to take up the slack.

Ipacs might pull this off since they have other lines of succesfull products, but I would be surprised if they wanted to give up broad appeal to instead aim for a narrow market.

I would say let them build a robust base that everyone can enjoy, and let third parties do the specialized stuff.

Quote from Almdudler

What we have here is a raw product launched in 2012
not dedicating to a longterm perspective
other than adding scenery, some aircraft and oculus playability,
and an endless wait for third party developers to join the party.

And 64Bit.
And clickable cockpits
And autopilot
And working navigation
And radios
And a round earth.
And Night lighting
And nearly 200 new airports
And many more buildings....
And an SDK.......

I actually think they've come very far, especially for such a small team.

I also realize the original topic focus; I'm simply pointing out that its unlikely anyone gets to have everything they want, and that deeper aircraft fidelity and systems depth is only one part of a hopefully diverse and balanced buffet being offered by Ipacs.

Again, good luck to them!

The only problem is that VR thrill seekers seem to be a pretty volatile group, and while you might get a lot of sales (especially in the short term until something else comes along) its probably wise to factor in how many of them will treat it as a two hour thrill and then quickly ask for a refund.

To counter that the most obvious answer is to attract a broad cross-section of other types of users as well.

Its gonna be a delicate balancing act, especially as every group will tend to think they're the most important, and have their mouths open like baby birds to demand instant feeding.

Good luck, Ipacs!

Well the sdk is available and does have OpenGL extensions.

I suspect if you expressed interest, Nvidia might even offer assistance. Just a thought.

https://developer.nvidia.com/vrworks

https://developer.nvidia.com/sites/default/…al_handouts.pdf

The problem is, that it can be a mistake to assume that what one person finds important is equally important to others or vice versa.

Honestly, it only takes a quick google search to find references regarding Aerofly showing up all over the place in VR forums, and VR users are by definition early adapters with disposable income. (Those headsets are expensive!)

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-much-…us-vive-vr-sell

Projections for sales figures of these headsets show them quickly dwarfing the dedicated Flightsim community, and those new headset owners are going to be looking for graphics showcases to justify their purchases. It wouldn't do to downplay or underestimate that potential market, and this is one of the reasons I started another thread asking the developers about Nvidias VRWorks.

On the other hand, flightsim users are, as a community, much more conservative (and hard to please!) and tend to be locked into specific platforms already, such as FSX, X-plane etc.

A quick search finds that while Aerofly is definitely mentioned in various aviation forums, the interest only now appears to be be increasing, and among those users, many are the type who will sit on the fence, waiting for more and more advanced features before making a commitment to buy. Similarly, many 3rd parties will be watching sales numbers, and a lot will likely also sit on the fence before (reluctantly) diverting any resources from their main bread and butter of the last few years.

This leaves the early market to other types of more casual users, and if Aerofly can't attract those people in significant numbers, the company may simply never have the resources to implement the time consuming and labor intensive features of the type you're requesting.

In fact, expecting deep systems and super high fidelity from default planes may actually be a bit unfair.

I would say profit first, then everything else as and when possible.

Your mileage may vary, and also, I could be dead wrong, but I suspect I'm in the right ballpark.

Given Aeroflys high suitability for use in VR, are the developers considering enhancing the sim even further by taking advantage of the new VR technology's unveiled by Nvidia with its Pascal architecture? Specifically, I mean single pass stereo, lens matched shading, multi-res shading, etc....

Quote from Almdudler

I really hope they are not wasting time with VR-/oculus crap now but proceed with completing the core elements of what is.

Crap for one person may be very important for many others. I myself believe that the interest of VR enthusiasts is very much responsible for the surge in sales of this sim recently, and without sales, where does the money come from to implement the minutia so important to those who think that VR stuff is "crap?"

Another video by Miro Kantarsky

Quote from Dannynnad

Ok thanks but it should by default not in the cockpit at all. I like to watch other PIC's on Youtube too and they're have this problem also...

I like the lens flares.

Are you serious?

Drag the map until you are over switzerland.

Zoom in until you see the dots designating airports.

Select an Airport.

Fly.

Quote from karspilot

What is SGSS?

It stands for sparse grid super-sampling. Its an anti-aliasing mode that can be enabled on Nvidia cards through the use of Nvidia inspector.

Hey, you've become quite the Aeroflyer, haven't you?

I'm glad you didn't give up.

Bumped into this one on the web, and thought the Devs and others would like to see it.

It was made by: https://vimeo.com/user300845

Quote from virtual glider

The turbulance isnt modelled very convincing at the moment. Real turbulance can make you bumb your head against the canopy. See the next video of Bruno Vassel flying a glider ��
https://youtu.be/DYJufTZg3pQ

Nice! that will definitely keep you awake!

If you read through the comments on the video, you'll see that turbulence was also mentioned (unfavorably) as a possible cause. The issue there is that real turbulence at least as normally depicted, has a much more random aspect, but in Aerofly seems to manifest itself as improbably regular. Still something that begs for additional attention, because even if the cause is turbulence, the regular, nearly metronomic nature of the movement is just begging for nausea.