Comments on: Physically Based Rendering Is Always On https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/ Developer resources for the X-Plane flight simulator Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:53:03 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 By: Eric https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15644 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:53:03 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15644 In reply to Ben Supnik.

Add dirt and grass runways to that list. Trees need a refresh as well!

]]>
By: Ben Supnik https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15643 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 13:23:37 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15643 In reply to Chris K.

The runways are due for an upgrade. I’m hoping to not just increase the texture res; the runways are so close to the aircraft that we could use insane amounts of VRAM and still have them only look “okay” up close. In the meantime, that giant chunk of VRAM would be costing us on final approach and a bunch of other flight conditions. (Very modern GPU cars can do GPU memory paging to help alleviate this cost but that’s a complicated and heavy handed solution that not every user can use to the problem of “we just burned VRAM like cigarette paper.”)

With v10 we started applying high frequency noise textures on top of lower res daytime textures, with interaction between the two layers for added detail; this kind of thing could work well for runways and let us get more detail while recycling some of the higher res components. It’s crazy to have to have 36 copies of a high res texture so that big blocky numbers can get swapped out, for example.

We’ve also talked internally about using some of the new shading to make the apron pavement better. The runways could use an upgrade but the aprons are really unrealistic – they’re just massive expanses of repeating tile, and there’s only so much you can do with patchworks of polygons and some decals. Real aprons have an arbitrarily complex mess of oil stains, rubber marks, paint, cracks, patches, and natural variation in the look of the materials that break up the view – I’d say right now the aprons are the biggest “tell” that you’re looking at a computer image among everything on the ground. (Well, that weird bug where the trees become mirrors is a bit of a tell too. 🙂

Finally, there’s one rendering tool that I think we’re missing – it’s been on my wish list for the low level engine for a while: a draped polygon with “edging” on it. Right now if you put a draped polygon down in the sim, the edge is sharp, and the author has to manually wrap something around the edge to smooth the transition, e.g. you can put taxi lines around the edge of your pavement. Sometimes this is automated (e..g the road files have the edges built-in) or easy (you can pick an edge line for a WED taxiway polygon) but it has to be done by something every time and it’s repetitive and wastes GPU memory. I’d like to be able to apply a repeating polygon of material (with low and high frequency effects running on top to add detail and break up repetition) and get the kind of nice, soft, “chopped” edge we get in other parts of our engine, but automatically.

]]>
By: Ben Supnik https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15642 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 13:15:50 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15642 In reply to Franz.

Probably not – you’re already pushing the envelope of how much CPU power you’re making available. Further improvements (especially to get up into the 60 fps range at higher settings) have to come from perf improvements on our side – more optimal code in our engine, use of newer graphics APIs, and better parallel processing -within- the frame. X-Plane does a decent job of putting loading on the second core and sometimes gets some work per frame on other cores, but making both work together without limiting fps is tricky.

]]>
By: Franz https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15640 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 11:29:56 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15640 In reply to Ben Supnik.

Thanks alot for the reply! Sorry if I sounded critical, but X-Plane is very dear to me and has a special place in my heart…

You’re right, I just did a rough over clock to 4.7Ghz and there os a slight improvement in FPS… Is there anything I can do to help even more? I’m just surprised by the amount of CPU power needed 🙁

]]>
By: Chris K https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15639 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 06:51:57 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15639 In reply to Chris K.

Some non-nil pointers:

FlyJ: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/16270-enhanced-runways-
hd-by-flyjsim/

MrX: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/35172-airport-environment-hd/

Sabach: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/30047-runway2016/

]]>
By: Chris K https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15638 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 06:49:36 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15638 Any plans on finally replacing the default Runway/taxiway/asphalt textures with 2k x 2k (or 4k x 4k DDSs) and finally rid ourselves of the old ones which look like they were made for X-Plane 6? 😉

Since many of the Terrain .DDS textures in XP10/Xp11 are 2k x 2k (and most aircraft are now doing 4k x 4k textures), isn’t it time to update these “stock” textures to say, at least 512 x 512? 😉 With a “low”texture setting in the XP11 “texture resolution” prefs, these would look alot better if people have to “dial down” the VRAM settings. They don’t lose out on a blurry runway when theyre close-to-the-ground

There’s no library entry for them, so there’s no developer-friendly way to replace these textures liek we can with a .POL (and possibly add things like normals/UV to change the shinyness when viewed at glancing angles, or add a decal to them to simulate horizonta grooves like most runways have now for rain dissipation..).

I’m sure some of the freeware developers who’ve developed their own replacement textures (FlyJSim, MisterX6, Sabach, etc..) are more than happy to “Let Laminar have these” to use in XP11 gratis — If only to make the “stock” software much more visually appealing to the new users. (Nothing like seeing the same blurry/ugly runways weve been using since X-Plane 8 runways when you load.. ugh..)

– CK.

]]>
By: Ben Supnik https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15635 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 02:19:15 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15635 In reply to Franz.

If you’re getting 42-55 fps with a 970, I am not surprised that you saw no improvement with the 1080 – you’re probably limited on the CPU and not the GPU, and therefore using a bigger GPU just means more idle GPU resources.

I’ll write up a separate post on rendering settings as soon as I can; there’s logic behind the changes, but I need to focus on getting public beta 2 bug fixes out first before I can spend the needed time to write something coherent on the subject.

]]>
By: Jon https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15634 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:05:51 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15634 I don’t know how difficult it would be, but I was wondering if you would ever consider using something such as Truesky for the clouds and sky. Someone on the .org contacted them and they responded saying, “Thanks very much for your message. We’d be happy to support a project to create an x-plane integration or plugin for trueSKY, though we don’t have the manpower free to do this internally just now. If you or anyone you know is interested, do let me know.”
Their website is here: https://simul.co

]]>
By: Ricardo Bolognini https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15633 Mon, 05 Dec 2016 22:45:07 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15633 In reply to Ben Supnik.

Thanks for the answer Ben,
it is what I wanted to know.

]]>
By: Franz https:/2016/11/physically-based-rendering-is-always-on/#comment-15632 Mon, 05 Dec 2016 21:25:22 +0000 http://xplanedev.wpengine.com/?p=7298#comment-15632 Why are rendering setting options so basic? Turning off useless features (for high altitude or IFR flyers) like road traffic and ocean reflections, I can squeeze out a few more frames to use for other settings.

I can get better frames with more autogen on XP10.

Also, why does it perform terribly on medium settinhs on a 6700k and a GTX 1080? I’m getting 42-55FPS, and lower with certain weather settings. Please don’t impose dumbed down options settings – it seems like you’re trying to appeal to Apple’s idea of simplicity.

I’ve been an X-Plane flyer since 7.63, and am worried about the perfomance issues. On X-Plane 10, when I updated my GTX 970 to the 1080, I saw ZERO FPS improvement, and I’m not alone in having this problem, it is easily recreated. How on earth is this properly optimized? I will be making a video on this to bring the performance lies to light.

]]>