PBR coming to P3D Soon!

[Mach3DS]

I just listened to THIS INTERVIEW (pcflight.net) with the project manager Adam Breed at LM over P3D. This is HUGE news. He also mentioned some other items in this interview that are bombshells of development news. Although this interview was PRIOR to Flightsim Expo 2018, the FSElite guys did an interview with him and one of the software engineers; IMHO, they didn't ask very good questions. They beat around the bush and avoided specific questions. Hopefully this will open the door to P3D looking more like this:

[Sundog]

Thanks for the heads up Rick, I know what I'm listening to tonight.

[Navy Chief]

Just read the following on another forum, regarding "PBR", which (until I Googled the term, for all I knew, it meant Pabst Blue Ribbon), for those of us older guys, it's always good to explain acronyms in the initial post. Just saying.....

"If LM implements PBR today all your add-on's will stop working immediately as it requires all content providers to "redevelop" their objects and textures, 3D objects would need to be redrawn on 3Ds Max to apply the PBR textures rendering materials and also being recompiled for the simulator, I imagine the current .BGL format would be incompatible or inefficient and therefor a new format of compiled objects would be required, the implications of this are huge!, so this is not something that LM would take slightly as it required the coordination with all 3rd party developers in order to minimise the impact and ensure the flying community takes the changes in the best positive way. "


Doesn't sound so positive to me, if the above is true. NC

[Mach3DS]

I'm not sure who said that, but as far as I know it's not exactly true. PBR rendered objects and can coexist with non. In fact it was proven in Flight Sim World (FSW). DCS also has True PBR and non-PBR coexisting together. Adam Breed says in the interview there is NO NEW GFX engine required to implement it today. Although they are likely to implement something new in v5.0 (he hinted) and that they are aware of backward compatibility issues. He does hint that at some point when a new GFX engine is implemented it will necessitate a change in the ecosystem (LM's term for the overall Flight sim community). As far as current releases from developers, those addons would require all textures to be redone to PBR standards if you wanted the PBR to render correctly (AFAIK); and of course all NEW content created would have to be compiled to PBR standards. He also said in no uncertain terms, that there are NO PLANS to change the Academic license whatsoever, and that the demise of FSW has zero bearing on P3D as P3D existed almost 10 years BEFORE FSW (among other things).

[Navy Chief]

When you say the Academic License will not be changed, do you mean PBR will not be implemented into it? NC

I'm not sure who said that, but as far as I know it's not exactly true. PBR rendered objects and can coexist with non. In fact it was proven in Flight Sim World (FSW). DCS also has True PBR and non-PBR coexisting together. Adam Breed says in the interview there is NO NEW GFX engine required to implement it today. Although they are likely to implement something new in v5.0 (he hinted) and that they are aware of backward compatibility issues. He does hint that at some point when a new GFX engine is implemented it will necessitate a change in the ecosystem (LM's term for the overall Flight sim community). As far as current releases from developers, those addons would require all textures to be redone to PBR standards if you wanted the PBR to render correctly (AFAIK); and of course all NEW content created would have to be compiled to PBR standards. He also said in no uncertain terms, that there are NO PLANS to change the Academic license whatsoever, and that the demise of FSW has zero bearing on P3D as P3D existed almost 10 years BEFORE FSW (among other things).

[Mach3DS]

When you say the Academic License will not be changed, do you mean PBR will not be implemented into it? NC

No, I mean, that when FSW announced that they were closing up shop, there were many who speculated that somehow LM would be forced to change their licensing arrangement because somehow - the fact that they existed - caused FSW to fail and so the thought was that some kind of legal action would be had against them etc. etc. etc. He clears that issue up completely. When PBR is implemented it will be in all versions. Since P3D is not 3 separate applications - just one core application - with some additional features in the 3 different licenses.

[Navy Chief]

Thanks so much for that clarification. NC

No, I mean, that when FSW announced that they were closing up shop, there were many who speculated that somehow LM would be forced to change their licensing arrangement because somehow - the fact that they existed - caused FSW to fail and so the thought was that some kind of legal action would be had against them etc. etc. etc. He clears that issue up completely. When PBR is implemented it will be in all versions. Since P3D is not 3 separate applications - just one core application - with some additional features in the 3 different licenses.

[CG_1976]

Scenery wise Im not to sure. Xp 11 has PBR and I have converted FSX/P3D Scenery working. Many of my favorite Canadian Scenery's and a few Texas to boot including NAS Corpus. As for AC just ask Carenado, they deal with all FS simulators.

[roger-wilco-66]

Hey Rick,

that is absolutely awesome news. Thanks for keeping an open eye on that matter, and posting. I've been waiting for that ever since I started to generate textures via PBR.

Your screenshots look amazing and are a nice example for the potential of PBR texturing.


Cheers,
Mark

[Penzoil3]

Since I haven't Googled it, I'm still back at Pabst Blue Ribbon!
Sue

[Manschy]

PBR means get the X-Plane characteristics with P3D live (animations, AI traffic as most important thing to me)? Would be the only profitable thing to me getting interest in it. On the other hand, this speed up sim development kills every two party addons sometime. Even if most big payware developers make a mint of money with new customers, sometime pre version users will no longer be content to update again and again and again. I am not referring to get FS9 models still running in P3Dv....5?6? but always the users check their credit cards for filled hangars again and again. Likewise two party developers (A2A, ORBX, Aerosoft) will be completely affected to develop new stuff by updating/upgrading/patching all previous versions to the latest. Look at Captain Sim for example. They are totally outbraked. AS the same (Junkers Ju 52 is on hold since almost a year - what shall they do? Developping it for P3D? Or XPlane first? What about AFS2? To me, it is a scary spiral where more and more people will come rushing down. The faster we get new developments, the slower (big) fs-software provider will be able to react. Not to mention all users who are trying to tweak and get running their addons just because the payware designers are not able meanwhile...
Not sure, but I am curious about when this trend to shorter and shorter steps will cause a collapse of flightsim in general. Don't misunderstand me please. I am delighted with each better development that let simulation comes to reality as close as possible. But I want to spend time (at least as long as I am able to configure my latest flightsim version) with it. I want to be positive that I can fly an aircraft that I like in sceneries that I like in weather that I like. For a longer time than from an upgrade to a newer version. But I am afraid they will kill the variety of addons faster and faster, especially because encouraged freeware developers will loose interest. I am bored to see perceived hundreds of 737 versions, thousand of Cessna 172 versions. Download sites are chock-full of freeware repaints of payware mainstream aircraft (preferentially 737 and Cessnas...).
As recently as FSX, there are so many different aircraft or helicopters - they are all gone....
Man, what does it do for me if I only have a perfect 737/cessna 172 inside a PBR capable sim? My 2 cents: Nothing....
But I still have an open mind for everybody which can calm me ....

[SiR_RiPPER]

To leave my 2c here, what is PBR?

Physically Based Rendering is simulating the behaviour of light on surfaces using the same physics calculations for everything. What's the big deal? Standardization and smarter drawing of graphics.

As far as standardization goes, PBR requires that textures follow a certain set of specifications, which leads to a uniform graphical result. This means that if a top artist from company X makes an F-86, and another artist at the same level of competence from company Y makes an F-86 as well, the two airplanes' bare metal will be identical in terms of quality, reflectiveness etc. The difference will then be in counting fingerprints and rivets. It can also allow for texture economy as we can now use repetitive assets without having to bake the ambient occlusion for each one of them. We only need one piece and the engine takes care of making them look unique, while we use the freed texture space to improve quality. Such examples are cockpit switches, scenery objects such as jetways, static vehicles, ship assets etc.

Now, for drawing graphics in a smarter manner, PBR unties our hands in many aspects. One big example is Ambient Occlusion; the pre-baked shadows that exist under switches, glareshields, seats and other dark corners are static and aren't affected by light in non-PBR engines, even if the sun shines directly on them. With PBR the shadows are in a separate texture and the engine decides whether to "shade" or "light" that area, giving a more realistic result. It is also much more accurate when it comes to reflection, refraction and similar effects of light propagation and scattering. While non-PBR engines are perfectly capable of doing cool effects such as refractive raindrops (Falcon BMS is one ancient example), PBR does it better, more easily and more efficiently.

Adding non-PBR assets into a PBR environment may work or may cause artifacts, depending on how the engine is structured. For example I imported our F-4 into FSW and all the shiny pieces such as the oleos went invisible, while other parts appeared OK. In DCS it seems like PBR and non-PBR can coexist but if you pay attention you will notice that the non-PBR items are somewhat different in their reflectance, shading and coloring -light dynamics are just different.

[Mach3DS]

Right we won't know for sure until we see exactly how P3D world with it implemented. I do disagree that the overall look will be identical between artists. It won't be. In fact, if you look at the vast numbers of F-86 Paints out there they are similar but not identical and the true artist still will they've in PBR whole mediocre will also be there. PBR really requires the painter to understand light/brightness and color, as the diffuse layer c ok for and brightness play a role in the RoughMet output.

[Mach3DS]

The difference between FSW and p3D moving to PBR, is that P3D is taking the time to invest in the community with 100% open 3rd party SDK including access to very low level core code. Giving your favorite 3rd party add-in devs the ability to continue with status quo. Which is really the most important part right?

[SiR_RiPPER]

I do disagree that the overall look will be identical between artists. It won't be.

I probably stated it the wrong way. The way to get the various properties such as metalness will be the same. So two artists that know their trade equally well will get almost identical metallic qualities in their planes, the difference being in the details.

The mixup and tricks that exist in non-PBR engines is no longer necessary as you know that metal is this group of properties, glass is the other and so on.

We know well from FSDeveloper that there are probably 10 different glass and metal recipes producing different results, whereas there should be one -well, you helped in that direction for bare metal .

[roger-wilco-66]

PBR materials will also open up new ways of texturing models with dedicated Software, like Quixel or Substance painter or whatever. You can use them even now for non pbr renderers like P3D or FSX, but the conversion of the materials and setting the material parameters is a bit painful, since there is no standard. Also, the results don't look as spectacular.

Depending on how the future P3D PBR renderer works I hope we don't have to fiddle around like we had to do to make it look right.

The object below was textured in Quixel, pbr texture sets converted. This is an in sim P3D screenshot.

[Mach3DS]

I probably stated it the wrong way. The way to get the various properties such as metalness will be the same. So two artists that know their trade equally well will get almost identical metallic qualities in their planes, the difference being in the details.

The mixup and tricks that exist in non-PBR engines is no longer necessary as you know that metal is this group of properties, glass is the other and so on.

We know well from FSDeveloper that there are probably 10 different glass and metal recipes producing different results, whereas there should be one -well, you helped in that direction for bare metal .

Ah yes, I understand what you are getting at. Yes, if 2 artists (all things being equal) know how to produce the results, then the results WILL look very similar. However, it's really interesting to look at all the various F-86 paint schemes available at DCS World User files. The difference I guess will be in the ability to paint the details, things like dirt, scratches, unique paneling and weathering. This will be the way you stand out in the PBR realm. Also, if you're an artist that creates something for the community, you'll find that it is much easier to plagiarize the work of others. I've had to specifically request that individuals NOT use my work, and I removed my bare metal scheme because 2 people were. Because the entire "look" of the aircraft resides in the RoughMet/Spec file. So the real artistry is in getting the paint looking EXACTLY as it is in photos.

[Mach3DS]

PBR materials will also open up new ways of texturing models with dedicated Software, like Quixel or Substance painter or whatever. You can use them even now for non pbr renderers like P3D or FSX, but the conversion of the materials and setting the material parameters is a bit painful, since there is no standard. Also, the results don't look as spectacular.

Depending on how the future P3D PBR renderer works I hope we don't have to fiddle around like we had to do to make it look right.

The object below was textured in Quixel, pbr texture sets converted. This is an in sim P3D screenshot.

Great work there Mark! yes, I need to venture into Quixel...I've not tried it yet, but it seems the way to go with Photoshop.