Prepar3D v2.3 coming soon

[Daube]

Hi all,

On Avsim there is a topic talking about the incoming 2.3 version and what it contains.
Not much details there, but two important performance optimizations have been listed: the impact of the cloud shadows and the transparency antialiasing (SGSS) seem to have been greatly reduced.
In 2.2 I had to disable the cloud shadows. They were looking excellent, but the impact on the FPS with heavy weather was too high.
I'm curious about the AA too... transparency AA is banished from my computer for the moment, because it makes my FPS crawl down to single digits levels each time there's a bit of smoke or clouds on the screen...

[roger-wilco-66]

Thanks for the head-up. Looks promising.

Links for those who are interested:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/445202-a-first-glimpse-at-prepar3d-v23/

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/80631-pngboridi-an-aerial-view-using-the-latest-p3d-v23-beta/

The 2.3 version is in the beta stage, but I have not found any closer details yet in the LM forums.

Cheers,
Mark

[Naismith]

http://youtu.be/4mC75qUr0cM

looking good

[falcon409]

I assume that what we're looking at is the fact that at high speeds, low level with radical movements or straight and level, the ground textures remain relatively sharp with little or no blurring?

[letourn]

arE they going to add a working IFLOS so people that do carrier ops will might start to buy p3d with that release?

[roger-wilco-66]

Letourn, as of yet, there is not much first hand information from LM. You might want to inquire directly in the LM forums. If the issue has not been mentioned there before and If you decide to open a thread I think you should be a bit more specific about what is working / not working about the function that is in question (professionals like that :-) ).

Cheers,
Mark

[letourn]

Mark there is some old threads on the LM forum.

They never answers to the guys

[falcon409]

Mark there is some old threads on the LM forum.
They never answers to the guys
What I have found to be true, more often than not, is that if you post a question like this, something that they find irrelevant or most likely would be left to 3rd party developers to produce. . .it's usually ignored. Sometimes it might spark some replies from other users, but the professionals, those within LM who do the nuts n' bolts work are so busy with the task at hand, that unless it's a specific problem with the current version, or a beta testing question. . .it won't get any serious consideration.

From a gaming standpoint (yes I know that's not P3D's market) what you're looking for would be targeted to a very narrow portion of users. It's something you're interested in, but not something that every user of P3D would want or need. On the professional side of P3D I would imagine as a military training device it would be more apt to be implemented, but the average user doesn't have pockets deep enough to afford that nor would most even want to.

[SkippyBing]

What I have found to be true, more often than not, is that if you post a question like this, something that they find irrelevant or most likely would be left to 3rd party developers to produce. . .it's usually ignored. Sometimes it might spark some replies from other users, but the professionals, those within LM who do the nuts n' bolts work are so busy with the task at hand, that unless it's a specific problem with the current version, or a beta testing question. . .it won't get any serious consideration.

From a gaming standpoint (yes I know that's not P3D's market) what you're looking for would be targeted to a very narrow portion of users. It's something you're interested in, but not something that every user of P3D would want or need. On the professional side of P3D I would imagine as a military training device it would be more apt to be implemented, but the average user doesn't have pockets deep enough to afford that nor would most even want to.

I think part of the problem is that the FLOLS effect in FSX was actually quite limited, in that it really only fits Nimitz class carriers and can't be altered in elevation or glide slope, which makes it of limited benefit for any training. The RFN Gauge gets round most of these problems, but the carriers have to be modelled to use it.

[roger-wilco-66]

What I have found to be true, more often than not, is that if you post a question like this, something that they find irrelevant or most likely would be left to 3rd party developers to produce. . .it's usually ignored. Sometimes it might spark some replies from other users, but the professionals, those within LM who do the nuts n' bolts work are so busy with the task at hand, that unless it's a specific problem with the current version, or a beta testing question. . .it won't get any serious consideration.

From a gaming standpoint (yes I know that's not P3D's market) what you're looking for would be targeted to a very narrow portion of users. It's something you're interested in, but not something that every user of P3D would want or need. On the professional side of P3D I would imagine as a military training device it would be more apt to be implemented, but the average user doesn't have pockets deep enough to afford that nor would most even want to.


Ed, I agree on the third party software standpoint, however, if the problem is described well enough in a professional manner and is adressed to the pros with specific questions, the chances are high that they pick it up or a knowledgeable forum member will jump in.

I see many withering posts there that I wouldn't bother about either due to a lack of the properties mentioned above. But maybe I'm to rigorous about that because I'm in a similar role in my job (3rd level support).

Cheers,
Mark