I don’t think anyone ever filed that.

All the very best for 2019
Dave

Oh @#$@#$@.

So…there was a reported bug in r1 that’s fixed for r2 (which is in the final test process now) where heat particles could appear inside the cockpit as long as they were not physically blocked by geometry. So if the heat stream made it _into_ the passenger cabin (and particles do not collide with OBJs right now) you’d see them. That’s why the throttle quadrant in the 172 is blurry.

I put some code in for r2 to occlude heat particles in the cabin just like we do billboard particles – e.g. even if ‘in 3-d’ the particle _is_ in the cabin, we still nuke it on the grounds that the real cabin is sealed and the particle stream shouldn’t be in there.

Now…what’s scary about what you showed in that pic is: that’s the forward no hud view…and it’s virtually impossible for us to EVER make the forward-no-hud view work the way people want. What should you be seeing in this view? The airplane interior has been _intentionally removed_ and you are seeing the space where it would have been. Should you see smoke emerging from where the tail-pipe was? How about prop discs? If the smoke is partly occluded by the cabin, do we ‘cut’ just that smoke?

My experience with forward-no-HUD has been that it’s heavily used for external visuals and there is no consensus about what should and should not be visible in this view. I expect effects to be in the same category: if we leave them in we’ll get “this is a bug, this isn’t visible out the window” and if we remove them we’ll get “what about this thing you can see out the window”?

Anyway, I consider this to be a SEPARATE bug than the blurry throttle handle, which _is_ fixed for r2. With the blurry throttle handle, X-Plane knows enough about the 3-d cockpit to not have the bug, and r2 does this right. With forward-no-HUD, we have no sane way of knowing what to do, except for _specific_ customization of the aircraft to meet one user’s needs.

Same problem here, not only with the Zibo, it happens with other planes as well. Something is wrong with the internal lights. Only in release candidate. Hopefully it gets fixed when next version rolls out!

That’s not bad considering it’s a 1050. The problem is: as soon as you dial in anything GPU-centric like AA or trying to get to 60, it’s going to run out of gas.

My personal view is that 2K with good AA is a better investment in GPU power than 4K – the underlying textures aren’t built at such a res that there’s a lot of detail out there, so you’re basically paying for smooth lines in the most expensive way possible.

Many thanks!

I had just tried XP on 4k with my 1050ti for fun, after buying a 4k monitor for graphics work.
Surprisingly it works quite well. (I have to admit, with no SSAA and -ahem- an auto-LOD script. But, believe it or not, even with world objects on max. As long as I stay away from too many cloud layers and from NY city, I usually get 30FPS with default C172.)
And surely, you can live very good without 4k and many say it’s not neccessary. But once tried, I don’t want to go back. : )

I’ll look at fill rate with Alex, but 4k + a 1050ti? That seems like an under-powered GPU for that res.

I see your optimisations now noticably take away load from the CPU and so, in general, performance with 11.30 is better and really smoother.

But, are you aware of, that the new engine exhaust effects (which look very good), really can bring down FPS a lot, especially in 4k and in cockpit forward view?

For example, default C172 standing on runway, cockpit forward view, GTX1050ti, 4k fullscreen.
Turning the engine on adds about 0.02 sec GPU time. (E.g. from 0.0250 to 0.0450, with vsnyc that’s from 30 FPS down to 20.)
For testing I had deleted aircraft_system.pss and then, engine on/off did not make any difference.

I have read many complains about performance (ok, quite normal with every beta… ; ), but some users also reported that FPS went down with more throttle and up with less. Looks like that is caused by the exhaust particles too.

(Also someone said that performance now would be better with bigger FOV. Might be also the, then smaller, particles.)

So, I would kindly ask you to consider decreasing the number of exhaust particles (maybe increasing alpha to compensate).

Cheers, Jörn

The fact that the cloud shadow bug is apparently on your radar is at least encouraging, Ben. Dare I ask, but is it safe to hope that it will at least be fixed before too many more versions pass us by, or is this something that really needs Vulkan to be in place before it’s safe to fix?