Every now and then I see a comment in an X-Plane forum somewhere to the extent of:
“Joe Author made this great scenery pack for FS2K4, I tried to contact him about a port. I got no response, and the pack is free anyway, so I’ve posted my conversion.”
Simply put, you can’t do that, at least not in the United States. Copyright law is very clear on this subject: if you don’t hear back from the author, the default is that you do not have permission to create a derived work.
(The fact that the original package was “free”, meaning cost zero dollars, is not at all relevant. The author retains his rights to his own work even if he doesn’t charge money.)
A simple thought experiment reveals why it has to be this way: if I was giving away my new program as a promotional period and went on vacation, and you decided to post a derived work because (1) it was free and (2) you hadn’t heard from me, I would have no way to stop an illegal use of my work that I did not ever want (nor ever indicated that I wanted). “Free” plus “no one is home” is simply not a high enough bar to protect authors.
I may be fighting a pointless and unwinnable linguistic battle, but I have to try. People very often refer to the default city buildings in X-Plane as “auto-gen” but by any reasonable definition of “auto-gen” they are not really auto-gen at all.
Now these are all made up computer terms, so we can’t really check the dictionary. But “autogen” scenery (short for automatically generated) usually refers to scenery that is created by a flight simulator itself, usually while you fly, and usually by placing 3-d detail in places that match the base terrain. This exists in FSX, and existed in X-Plane up to version 7.63.
X-Plane 8 doesn’t have autogen!!!!!!! X-Plane 8 has scenery that is generated by computer programs, but X-Plane is not the computer program that is doing it. When you see a ton of buildings piled up in New York City, that is not becaues X-Plane looked at the New York city base terrain and said “hrm – some buildings would be nice.”
What actually happens is we analyze New York City when we create the global scenery (before we ever burn the DVD masters) and the DSF generator places all of those buildings in New York City. X-Plane simply gets a huge list of buildings from the DSF and draws them.
I am going to try to coin the term “algogen” (algorithmically generated) to describe these buildings that (like autogen) come from a computer generating semi-random buildings from input data, but unlike autogen, algogen is a process that runs once before the scenery is made.
So how is algogen and autogen different?
- You can’t change the pattern of algogen building placement by editing files in the sim. The algorithm has already been run! You can replace the buildings using an overlay (that excludes the base) or by using a library of models to substitute models.
- We are trading data size for computation. The DSF is bigger because it lists the location of every building in New York, even if they were just algogen buildings, but the job of placing those buildings is less difficult because X-Plane does not have to check each building against each road. That has been done in advance.
- Changing the scenery via an overlay doesn’t change the algogen! Add an airport via an add-on and you have to exclude the buildings. (But if you send that airport to Robin, the next global render will include it and the algogen will skip the airport automatically.)
Note one of the interesting results of algo-gen: X-Plane can’t tell the difference between an alg-gen building and a hand-placed one! They’re all just objects in a DSF. The fact that algo-gen buildings disappear with lower settings is because the sim/require_object property in the DSF header tells the sim which objects are important, and our generator always signals the buildings based on obstacle data as important. But algogen as a process is not visible to X-Plane!
And that’s why I’m spending so many words on trying to distinguish between “algogen” and “autogen” – because the processes are fundamentally different, they’re very different for scenery authors to work with. As a result, authors coming from X-Plane 7 or FSX will be very surprised if they try to understand X-Plane in terms of autogen….they won’t be able to find the autogen config files, and the autogen buildings won’t react to other scenery changes, because they’re not actually autogen at all!
Algogen is a classic pattern of “precompute” vs. “compute-while-fly”. Generally precomputing gives authors more flexibility (in our case, we have an obj engine that can handle a lot of objects, so authors can make their own objects of the same density as algo-gen with the objects placed anywhere) at the expense of making it more complex to edit the existing scenery (edit the mesh and the algogen doesn’t change).
When we started the v8 scenery, two things pushed me toward precomputation:
- In the past, changes in X-Plane’s rendering engine had broken third party add-ons. So a precomputation strategy (by getting the scenery code out of the sim) means that the sim is doing less “interpretation” and thus the interpretation of scenery is less likely to change.
- We wanted to focus on performance, which means getting computation out of the sim whenever we could.
Now that last point isn’t quite as important as it used to be…when we were doing the design (during mid X-Plane 7), dual core for everyone wasn’t on the radar, so the penalty for complex computation while flying is lower (and thus we have more expensive in-flight computation, like forests and completely draped bezier curve-based polygonal pavement).
But I think precomputation is still useful. Even with dual core, the algorithm that places X-Plane’s algo-gen bulidings can take one to two minutes for a 1×1 DSF tile on a very fast computer. That’s still a load time that’s out of the question for us; even on the second core, the DSF wouldn’t be “ready” in time for you to fly it. So one use of precomputation is to run algorithms that are more expensive than you can have in real-time. (That algorithm to pack objects inside an irregularly shaped polygon made by roads and land features is not fast.)
More importantly, precomputing does give us a nice advantage in the use of storage data. We ship about 50-60 GB of final scenery, but the source data is well over 100 GB. When we run the algogen algorithm, we have access to the full set of source data: coastlines, elevation, and land use before any simplification is done and any data is thrown out. So we have the potential not only to do a more complex analysis, but to do the analysis on a larger data set.
The down-side of precomputing is that if integration of all data is saved until sim time, there is the potential for third parties to contribute separate data to the sim via add-ons and still have the integration of those data sets work well. This doesn’t always work out – see complaints in online magazine reviews about combining orthophotos and new road grids in FS2K4…they don’t integrate because neither of those types of resources can be integrated to match the other in real time. But autogen still does a much better job than algogen at this; algogen basically has to be recut when other data changes. (And that is our intention – if you change the road grid, exclude and replace the objects too!)
The story on X-Plane performance is never over, but the chapter that is 9.00 pretty much is. I think we’ll be RC in the next build (if all goes well). Certainly a lot of the things that are still performance “problems” will require changes larger than we can do in a late beta.
I say problems in quotes because a lot of what’s been reported lately is in the form of: a huge screen res + a lot of shaders + a lot of FSAA = slow fps. That’s not really a bug, that’s an engine limitation. Now I want to make the engine as fast as possible, and a lot of this pixel shader stuff is new to 9.0, so if our track record for tuning stays the way it was for v8, we’ll probably get some efficiency improvements later.
But unfortunately there’s an underlying limitation: the new water and fog both cause the rendering engine to consume significantly more hardware resources than it would otherwise. Turn them on and you get prettier pictures at a price.
Just to post a a few general things I’ve found:
- X-Plane 9 will tell you where your GPU really stands. GPUs that were very adequate for X-Plane 8 (like the GeForce 6600 GT) will turn out to have nothing left in reserve for v9, while GPUs that were bored in v8 (the GeForce 8800 GTX for example) will show what it really has.
- Generally the cost of going from no shaders to shaders with water reflections of “none” and no volumetric fog should be very low if your screen res and FSAA don’t add up to something crazy (like 16x FSAA at 2048×2048).
- If you do have serious performance hits, try –no_fbos in the command-line; some drivers seem to have trouble with them.
- The P180’s virtual cockpit is a lot more expensive than the other ones, because it has a huge panel that is used in 3-d. We’ll hopefully rebuild the cockpit at some point.
- Turning water reflections to “complete” is very expensive. Watch the water and use the lowest setting that looks good. You don’t need complete reflections if there are a lot of waves!
- Shaders, FSAA, and screen size are all pulling from the same set of resources – be careful about cranking up all three.
- Check your v-sync – a lot of users whose vsync clamped them at 60 fps in v8 will be clamped at 20 in v9.
- Do your testing with texture res set low, then crank texture res later; pixel shaders also require the allocation of VRAM that can’t be purged (for things like reflection images) so running out of VRAM can show up in some weird ways performance-wise.
- The new Intel iMacs have serious performance problems with shaders on. This is due to driver limitations; given the much better performance under BootCamp, I expect the Mac performance to get better when the drivers are updated. For now I’d keep shaders off.
For now, please hold off on sending me performance reports. I just don’t have time to address them. In the future I will try to solicit very specific performance data points that we need to check. Perhaps in the future we can also set up a database of fps-test results to have a more comprehensive idea of how the hardware does its job.
I expect future features to appear in v9 that further eat hardware; those features will have an off switch. You may have to pick and choose what graphics you enable; there is no free lunch here. I also expect new graphics cards to emerge that make the GeForce 8800 GTX seem quaint!
What a difference new drivers make. ATI’s latest OpenGL drivers (Catalyst 8.1) seem to work quite well with X-Plane. On two fronts:
- Linux. Turns out all you need to do to make X-Plane happy on Linux with ATI hardware is update the drivers. I’m running with the Cat 8.1 drivers on my MacBook Pro and things look good. Use Catalyst 7.11 drivers or newer! No more MALLOC_CHECK_=1 or –no_threaded_ogl. With the next beta, you won’t have to use –force_run anymre.
- Windows. We were getting reports of corrupt screens on startup, and with the Catalyst 8.1 drivers these reports became very frequent. Turns out our threaded OpenGL code was doing something naughty*. Beta 19 fixes this.
The only known issue I can think of is: if you see corrupt water reflections, run with –no_fbos.
* Well, the way you set up threaded OpenGL on Windows and Linux is not very well documented, so I say naughty in that we made the drivers unhappy. I have yet to find a document that states clearly whether what we were doing is correct or not. We had to guess.
I figure there are three things that making blogging suited for software:
- A small interested group of users can subscribe to a blog without giving out an email address.
- The information in the blog can be found using a general search tool like Google.
- It’s easy for a busy programmer to post.
I think this last point is not to be ignored – I post a lot here because it’s easy enough to whip up a blog post that I can write one while the sim is booting.
The down-side of this is that blogs are not self-organizing. The blog is chronological, and somewhere within a heap of 200+ posts are detailed information on scenery topics not documented on scenery.x-plane.com.
That’s not good. So I’ll be trying to make a concerted effort to write real permanent documentation for some of the new scenery system topics that I cover. Documentation on DDS is in the works.
Part of the problem is that my interface for updating the X-Plane scenery website isn’t that robust. One of the nice things about the plugin system being a Wiki is that it’s easy to organize and easy to edit. (And one of my frustrations with “support forums” is that they don’t self-organize…they mix questions and answers based on history and not a search key that a user might use, like “what’s wrong with my card.” We’ll be supplementing the Linux forum with a Wiki soon.)
Here’s a summary of the new airplane features in 9.0 (and some coming). Hopefully this will give you an idea of what new capabilities are available for modeling planes in X-Plane 9. This list will sound like a broken record – virtually all of these features are optional; you don’t have to recut your finished airplanes to use them in version 9.
2-d vs. 3-d Panel
You may have noticed the new “3-d panel” option in PlaneMaker 9. This allows you to build a separate panel for the purpose of providing the texture to ATTR_cockpit (or ATTR_cockpit_region). You can then:
- Provide alternate instrument artwork in a cockpit_3d folder. (This lets you have perspective artwork for the 2-d cockpit and orthogonal artwork for the 3-d cockpit.)
- Pack your instruments together tightly to save space. (There is a real cost to large panels, so using a 1024×1024 panel for the cockpit object is a lot better.)
The 3-d panel is strictly optional, fully replaces the 2-d panel only for cockpit objects, and is activated by providing a custom panel background in a cockpit_3d folder. (See the “Example Plane-Widescreen+objects” plane in beta 19.)
ATTR_cockpit_region
Cockpit regions are an alternative to using the entire 2-d panel to texture your objects. They provide a few advantages:
- Performance. By requiring a power of 2 and allowing you to use a sub-area of the panel, cockpit regions avoid a lot of wasted computing that ATTR_cockpit can cause.
- Next-gen lighting. Unlike ATTR_cockpit, real 3-d lighting is applied to the panel when you use this attribute. This means that you will get a gradual decrease in light on your geometry (correct based on the angle of the sun) that matches the rest of the object.
Please note that you can mix and match which way you get your cockpit texture and whether you use the 2-d or 3-d panel feature (above) independently. However, you can only use ATTR_cockit or ATTR_cockpit_region in your airplane, not boht. ATTR_cockpit is still supported.
Generic Instruments
Generic instruments let you build instruments that follow some basic shapes (needles, tapes, etc.) that can be tied to any dataref. This both lets you customize particular instruments very precisely or create an instrument driven by a plugin dataref. These instruments are optional in version 9 – the old “premade” instruments are still supported.
New Datarefs
X-Plane 9 provides new datarefs targeted at airplane authors. The datarefs are better organized and have clearer names. But the old datarefs still exist, so legacy planes do not have to be updated.
Generally the entire cockpit should use only sim/cockpit2/ datarefs, and the plane exterior should use only sim/flightmodel2/ datarefs.
One special feature of these two sections: if your plane is used as an AI plane, these datarefs will animate the plane with the AI plane’s control deflections, not the user’s control deflections. So using these datarefs fixes the “AI animation” problem.
Plugins in Aircraft Folder
Version 9 airplanes may have a plugins folder (inside the ACF package) with fat plugins inside them. If you develop a plugin for your airplane, consider packaging it this way — this will allow your users to install the airplane with a single unzip for all platforms and no extra “drag-this-file-here”.
Plugins in the airplane folder is optional – you don’t have to provide a plugin, and plugins that are installed in the main Resources/plugins folder will still work. Still, I encourage you to use this feature because it makes the install process a lot simpler. The X-Plane SDK website will have documentation on fat plugins.
Liveries Folder
X-Plane 9 features a new “liveries” folder. Liveries (replacement exterior paint for airplanes and their attached objects) can be placed in packages in the liveries folder to greatly simplify the process of repainting an aircraft. See the “Example Plane-Widescreen+Objects” for an example.
While the liveries feature is optional, I strongly encourage anyone doing repaints to adopt it. Liveries can be switched by the user in the sim without any file manipulation; there is thus no risk of accidentally deleting or breaking an aircraft.
Large 2-d Panels
In X-Plane 9, a panel can be up to 2048×2048 in size. You pick the dimensions. The panel will scroll horizontally if necessary.
Note that if you use the new 3-d panel feature, the 2-d and 3-d panel do not have to be the same size. I would recommend a large 2-d panel (to fill large monitors) and a smaller 1024×1024 3-d panel (for performance).
Hiding Parts
X-Plane 9 will allow you to hide aircraft parts. Many v8 planes use OBJs to model the plane geometry, and use a transparent ACF texture to hide the ACF. Setting the parts to “not drawn” saves the CPU time that X-Plane would spend drawing the airplane, and is thus more efficient.
Keyframes
X-Plane 9 supports key-framed animation; this is useful for the scenery system, but for airplanes it allows for much more complex and realistic animation. OBJs that don’t have key frames still work.
Manipulators
This is a feature coming in the future: the ability to control how the user clicks and interacts with the cockpit object in detail. In X-Plane 9.0 we only support clicking on cockpit-textured geometry; manipulators will make features like draggable handles a lot more workable.
Global Illumination
X-Plane 9 does not yet offer a lot of control of the in-cockpit lighting environment; we’ll be working on this in future versions. These features will be opt-in…that is, you’ll have to change your model to get the new features, and old planes will work the way they always used to. It is likely that you’ll have to use “modern” airplane-building techniques to use these new features (meaning OBJs, named or custom lights, lego brick instruments ,etc.).
I try not to divert this blog from X-Plane related stuff, but I just can’t resist. Go to the itunes music store and search for:
amichai margolis
Ami has been a friend of mine for years; Orah V’Simchah is the first CD he’s recorded of his own music (I played bass on it). A few time a year he pulls a band together and we play a few gigs. Anyway, enjoy the tracks!
We get a lot of bug reports showing strange reflections in the water. Some of these we can fix easily, and some will be more difficult, if not impossible. There are two fundamental constraints on the water-reflection code:
- A reflective surface (read: water) must be approximately flat to be correct. This is just how the algorithm works. (If you want to see why a non-flat surface fails, try to draw a camera position opposite the reflection plane and trace rays through this “reflection camera”. Draw reflected objects that are close and far from the water and then observe the parallax error you get if the reflection plane curves.)
- We need one “water camera” for each flat reflection plane. You can’t just statically offset when we have multiple elevations. (When drawing your diagrams, note how an elevation change causes a change in reflected angle, not just an offset.)
So the water will always have two problems: the earth is round (so nothing is really flat), and we can have lakes of multiple elevations (and we can’t afford to render a water reflection per lake).
X-Plane tries to get around the non-flat water problem by picking little bits of the water that are flat (and seem useful) and using them to define reflections. This algorithm will always have problems, but at least it can be tuned.
Now there are also some things that we can fix with the water:
- The math in beta 18 is simply wrong, something that will be fixed in beta 19.
- The ocean is built from polygons that are too large; this introduces approximation errors when we try to pick “a little bit” of water to use to figure out our reflection plane.
There is one more problem that I see, especially in airports like PAKT: if there are two water surfaces of different heights that are nearby, X-Plane uses a slanted water plane that tries to include both. This works very badly – the resulting slanted plane doesn’t look even remotely plausible. I’m not sure how soon we can tune this problem.
I get a lot of requests for settings…the email is typically something like:
- Some feature in X-Plane is defaulted to X.
- I like it better when it’s like Y.
- Can I have a setting to change the feature between X and Y.
Raymond Chen has a great posting that I think is very topical: “In order to demonstrate our superior intellect, we will now ask you a question you cannot answer.“
This brings up one of the main reasons why we shy away from more settings: the more complex we make X-Plane’s configuration, the less likely it is that the average user will be able to set the sim up correctly. Settings requests usually come from our most advanced users, but we also have users who have never used a computer before. Really! I’ve been on the tech support calls – they are very nice, but way overextended on the computer side of things. Should we allow them to pick whether scenery geometry is store in AGP memory vs. VRAM?
From our perspective, having a setting that a user doesn’t understand is worse than neutral, it’s actually harmful. Every one of those settings is something that can go wrong with the sim. I removed the ability to set the level of detail bias to positive (in other words, extend the visibility distance of scenery beyond its original design) after about 500 complaints of “low framerate” from users who had maxed this setting out (causing a 4x increase in 3-d processing load) without knowing (1) what the setting was, (2) what it was good for or (3) what the down-side was.
Could we present all the info to make intelligent decisions on the rendering pages? Honestly, probably not beyond a certain point…we would devolve our sim into a lecture on working sets, bottlenecks, and the OpenGL pipeline long before the user got flying. (Wait, that’s my blog! Doh!!!) At some point the sim just has to do its best to do the right thing, or something similar to it. Just as Raymond points out that the default answer to any dialog box is “cancel”, the default answer to any rendering setting is “all the way up.”
When I tell a user who wants a setting that he or she can’t have a setting because some other user will abuse it, the answer is almost always: well why don’t you have two settings screens, a simple and advanced mode?
Besides the irony (of trying to solve the problem of too many settings with another settings), Raymond also points out that no location to hide an advanced setting is ever quite good enough. This is something we have struggled with, choosing command-line options more for to pragmatic reasons than because it’s a great solution.
This doesn’t mean you can’t ask for command-line options…I am just trying to point out some of the thinking on the other side of the coin.
There are a few cases where you cannot use DDS files in X-Plane:
- Airplane 2-d panels (any layer – base, lit, -1 shadow layer, 2-d or 3-d).
- Airplane instrument images.
- Bitmap-based region specification referenced in a library.txt file.
- Any gray-scale/alpha-only texture (e.g. mask files in the scenery system).
Beta 17 is treating cases 1 & 2 as an error; beta 18 will simply stop looking for DDS files in those cases.
Please note that airplane panels and instruments are not compressed right now, so there would be no performance benefit to using DDS in these cases. (If anything, PNG has smaller file size when compression is not used.) If we ever allow compressed panel textures, we’ll probably allow DDS panels at the same time.
Case 3 is just a particular version of case 4 – that is, the region bitmap is black and white (1 channel) so DDS provides no benefit. Use a gray-scale no-alpha PNG!
