Jump to content

P3D V5.1 HF1 PBR textures seem to need an update? Glossy film visible


Recommended Posts

Hi at Aerosoft.

 

The PBR textures don´t look right since P3D V5.X. Currently I am on P3D V5.1HF1. Dynamic reflections "off" does eliminate this glossy film. All other Dyn Reflect. settings (like Low, medium high or ultra) does not have any influence on this glossy film.

 

This glossy film is also visible on the inside cockpit textures with PBR. Turning Exposure on/off or changing HDR sliders does also not have any effect.

 

 

Is an update planned to make this plane compatible again? 

 

System specs

Prepar3D_v5_Academic_5.1.12.26829

Edition Windows 10 Home
Version 20H2
Installed on 20201023
OS Build 19042.630
Windows Feature Experience Pack 120.2212.31.0

Latest Nvidia Drivers

i9 10900K @ 5.2 Ghz | HT OFF | 1.32V
Mainboard ASUS ROG Maximus XII Formula Z490
32 GB RAM 3600 Mhz Corsair Vengeance | 4x8GB
RTX 3090 24GB
32" Samsung UHD Monitor using 4k
Custom Water Cooling | 2x 360MM | 1x 240MM Radiator
HP Reverb v2 VR HMD | Steam VR

Main Addons

ASP3D | BETA
FSRGW
ChasePlane | Via ORBX
FSReborn Prof.
GSX 2
FSUIPC6
AIGAIM | Latest Version
SODE | Latest Version
MultiCrewExperience | Latest Version
Aerosoft Airbus A330 | Latest Version
Aerosoft Airbus A320/321 | Latest Version
PMDG 747/748 | Latest Version
QW787 | Latest Version
FSLABS A320X | Latest Version
FSLABS A321X | Latest Version
Navigraph Charts
ORBX Base
ORBX LC
ORBX TE NL
ORBX TE NCA
ORBX Regions
ORBX HD Buildings
ORBX HD Trees V1 & V2
REALTURB | All Continents
+200 Addon Aiports | via .xml method added

Screenshot Wrong PBR Glossy film 2020-11-21 083617.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Lockheed settles on a settings that is documented in the SDK we'll check what we can change. For now we are not willing to spend  money on a moving target.  Not with sales for that platform being next to zero.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your Reply @Mathijs Kok 

 

Isn´t that the case right now since HF1 on V5.1? When will that "settles" be? This means your A330 product is not compatible with P3D V5 at this moment and for uncertain time. Right?

Is there a Timespan which you can communicate. Days, weeks or maybe months would be enough feedback for me?

 

I do really understand this from your point of view. But hopefully you see also the users point of view. They are "hanging" in the air for an unknown timespan which surely does not lead to raising revenue.

 

First of all: I like Aerosofts products and own many of them! Airports, planes etc. 

 

I hope you will support us further and update the products which are announced as "compatible" within a couple of days/weeks. I do like the fact LM does enhance the platform and SDK. I do also like the fact it is getting really good right now. But only if the 3.Party do follow and update their products too. Otherwise the platform P3D will be usable, but worthless  and Aerosoft products are not usable and therefore also  worthless. That would be a pity. 

 

@mopperle I did add them because most of the devs want to see what a User is using to get a 360° view for analyses purposes. Sometimes conflicts occur only between 3.Party products and not between 3.Party and P3D. So some devs ask for them and some do not like it. I can not know which of Aerosofts devs would like to see them and which won´t. So sorry for that.

 

Regards, Marcus 

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 15 Stunden , Mathijs Kok sagte:

When Lockheed settles on a settings that is documented in the SDK we'll check what we can change. For now we are not willing to spend  money on a moving target.  Not with sales for that platform being next to zero.

 

So you are in other words stating that you will cancel Prepar3D support, even when there is no aircraft with acceptable system depth in sight within at least the next year for your prefered simulation game? (Which is also constantly changing due to an ongoing development process and focus on "easy usablitliy" instead of deep system simulation)...

I'm sure all your customers who stayed loyal to this and other projects even with the major development delays and long update intervals would appreciate some compatibility updates and even pay a small amount for it. With the steps P3D development makes currently that platform is far from dead for complex aircraft simulation.
You don't have to answer but just think about how long it will take until your airbusses work in the new simulator, and they don't even have a real deep system simulation. I don't expect any advanced aircraft addon for that platform until at least 2022. Until then, P3D should be supported.
I'm sure people won't complain when you cut P3D support the day usable aircraft addons are available for the supposedly better platform.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read Mathijs' statement more carefully:

 

On 11/21/2020 at 7:42 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

For now we are not willing to spend  money on a moving target.

 

He didn't said that P3Dv5 support is canceled completely. He just said, while LM is changing one part of the simulator with every update it doesn't makes any sense to update all add-ons for each and every version. Once you have done so, LM releases the next change which invalidates all update you have done before...

 

That's what Mathijs said. Nothing more and nothing less. Most importantly he didn't say not to support P3Dv5 at all anymore. So please do not read something into a post which is simply not there.

 

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

When Lockheed settles on a settings that is documented in the SDK we'll check what we can change. For now we are not willing to spend  money on a moving target.  Not with sales for that platform being next to zero.


This statement is very confusing because you are willing to spend money on a much more moving target with an incomplete SDK at MSFS? But a much more complete SDK with LM is a no-go? Very odd. It might have just been easier for you to just come out and say Aerosoft is done with P3D and no further support will be provided. What you wrote is just dancing around that anyways. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mpo910 said:

@mopperle I did add them because most of the devs want to see what a User is using to get a 360° view for analyses purposes. Sometimes conflicts occur only between 3.Party products and not between 3.Party and P3D. So some devs ask for them and some do not like it. I can not know which of Aerosofts devs would like to see them and which won´t. So sorry for that.

It is ok, when you are being asked for.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 2 Stunden , masterhawk sagte:

It’s a difference if you have new settings with every update or if you work close with the simdev and have some influence to define a standard.

Than why don't they work close with P3D LM too? Their products are sold as compatible and working close with LM is something other devs do too. 

I am also confused about the controversy statements or actings from Aerosoft. MSFS had 6 patches in 4 to 5 months. LM had 3. In that time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mpo910 said:

I am also confused about the controversy statements or actings from Aerosoft. MSFS had 6 patches in 4 to 5 months. LM had 3. In that time. 

 

You still haven't got the reason why Aerosoft will not jump in immediately and fix the problem?

 

Then let me try to explain it to you one more time in form of a simple question: are you able to show me an Aerosoft Airbus which is getting affected by MSFS updates at the moment?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...