Prepar3D V4.4 with PBR Engine Released

[Javis]

Totally unrelated to the current topic, but relevant to those who will utilize PBR for aircraft texturing, and more specifically Military Aircraft. I have a real problem with artists who feel the need to "dirty up" the appearance of fighters as though by their very nature and type of role they play it will show how "used" they are.

After 26 years of working on Fighters, from the F-100 to the F-16 and many in between, there isn't a Crew Chief worth his salt that would allow his airplane to look like the ones depicted here. It makes no difference if it's here at home base or somewhere in some far flung desert base. Two things are always on their minds "Corrosion control and cleanliness". Airplanes are cleaned daily before and after sorties (wiped down, grease spots or fuel streaks eliminated. . .canopy transparencies wiped and polished intermittently). Aircraft also get a visit to the wash rack at predetermined intervals. CC's take great pride in maintaining "their airplane" and having it not only Combat ready at all times but also devoid of any corrosive sediment, oils, moisture etc.

So please consider what actual aircraft really look like when doing your repaints. Just because it's an airplane that's been in-service for 20 years, doesn't mean it's supposed to show that many layers of dirt.

Drat! Here i was thinking i was getting a compliment for my screenies....

No worries, Ed, i'm sure you're right about sometimes too dirty jet aircraft textures in the sim. But don't forget that the screenshots here are particularly done to show the PBR effect in v4.4 and that the textures might not have been changed compared to the default ones. Could be like this F-16 in FSX or even P3Dv4.3 looks a lot less dirty.

But, hey, if you look for a RW dirty F-16 it's not like you can't find one... :

Obviouly hard at work in some conflict zone, no time for cleaning..

cheers,
jan

 

[Javis]

Kevin Miller
3D artist and developer (ACES)

Looks like Quixel materials work well. It seems like the PBR implantation is a bit basic, and I would LOVE more control over a few more things in the shader (like normal map power), but its "serviceable". Flight Sim World's PBR shader was much better overall, but this is still leaps and bounds above what FSX had.

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/546140-playing-around-with-pbr-in-44/?_fromLogin=1


P3Dv4.4

Very interesting, Ted ! Thanks for that !

cheers,
Jan

 

[TuFun]

He's going to provide a tutorial for converting Spec into PBR (manually) and a Quixel workflow for P3D. Also He will do a video later with a better explanation and break down the various components of the new metalness channel and how to properly use it.

 

[bazzar]

Very interesting, Gordon, thanks very much ! Yes, i'm sure these are going to be exiting times for P3D developers. "The sky is the limit" becoming more true each year. And i'm also sure we haven't seen nothing yet with the v4.4 F-16 when it comes to PBR.. ;-) I have a couple of models in the works myself so i'm going to follow everything PBR related with eagle eyes and have a go at it once i know how

Baz ( Barry, AH) says that the patch for the C-119 will include PBR textures. Not available here in Europe yet, sitting on the fence !

Thanks again, Gordon, looking forward to anything PBR related you'll come up with !

cheers,
Jan

Jan, the Boxcar has always had PBR-style textures produced using PBR techniques. The SP does NOT have models created for PBR. That would require the 4.4 SDK which has only just been released and the models would have to be made for PBR materials and exported with the 4.4 SDK. So whilst SPV1.1 has PBR type textures, the models are definitely NOT PBR dedicated. Just some clarification there.

On a general note, as a developer I am becoming increasingly concerned over people's expectations with regard to "PBR". A model produced with PBR materials will NOT be backwards compatible. Therefore for a product to be useable in earlier versions of the sim, and also be dedicated for V4.4, it will not simply be a matter of conversion. It is highly likely that developers will charge for P3DV4.4 dedicated add-ons - the work required cannot simply be absorbed.

P3DV4.4 uses a 'type' of PBR, not the full bells and whistles one is used to in high-end computer games and nowhere near the results you get in DCS.

Looking at the F-16 shots posted here, the effect is nice but in my opinion, so far, no more than what a well-produced specular and normal channel would give you. Have a look at our Spitfire shown here. And the sim that screenshot was taken from? FSX.

It will be interesting to see what happens with PBR-dedicated and just what emerges and when.

 

[Mach3DS]

Which is the precise reason I did not upgrade the A2A stuff for P3D. Because my guess is that they are going to charge again for the v4.4 or they simply won't update them at all....which would be a silly move IMHO.

 

[bazzar]

It seems to me that developers are penalised by having to absorb time and costs in preparing add-ons to suit a new development in simulation. 4.4 is most certainly not a simple "upgrade" - as many are about to realise. I wonder how many people remember the debates that raged over devs charging for FSX models over FS9? Again, they were not simple upgrades, they required new models.

Existing products can be made to be compatible with 4.4 with relative ease and without too much cost. But to make a model dedicated 4.4 is an entirely different story. Software requirements are different to start with.

Frustration might be better focused toward the simulator manufacturer in an effort to get them to support developers by making it easier and more cost effective to transition to a new engine. Put an hourly rate on the learning curves required and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Javis]

Jan, the Boxcar has always had PBR-style textures produced using PBR techniques. The SP does NOT have models created for PBR. That would require the 4.4 SDK which has only just been released and the models would have to be made for PBR materials and exported with the 4.4 SDK. So whilst SPV1.1 has PBR type textures, the models are definitely NOT PBR dedicated. Just some clarification there.

Barry that, Roger. Ehhh.... Roger that, Barry. Sure. Tis deffinately true though that, now with the SP applied, the C-119 looks absolutely marvelous ! Thanks for that, mate !

I'm only starting to comprehend what this PBR toy is all about. I seem to gather though that it's not something that will burst out of our screens but that it rather will give a delicate and subtle touch of light to the textures. As a hobbyist oil painter i can certainly appreciate that. Nothing more rewarding than to put delicate glints of light on certain objects which will 'bring them to life'. I.e. icing on the cake if you will.

On a general note, as a developer I am becoming increasingly concerned over people's expectations with regard to "PBR". A model produced with PBR materials will NOT be backwards compatible. Therefore for a product to be useable in earlier versions of the sim, and also be dedicated for V4.4, it will not simply be a matter of conversion. It is highly likely that developers will charge for P3DV4.4 dedicated add-ons - the work required cannot simply be absorbed.

Well, we've been practising a lot in this respect, haven't we. ;-) Atleast ever since the original MSFS got company... Not sure how much of the same aircraft models i had to buy again to keep up ( and expensive ones too, like PMDG... ) I also think that simmers who are still with FS9 or FSX (or even earlier...) don't care much about PBR inflicted aircraft models. Personally i have always loved to look forward to something relatively new in my fav flightsim.

P3DV4.4 uses a 'type' of PBR, not the full bells and whistles one is used to in high-end computer games and nowhere near the results you get in DCS.
Looking at the F-16 shots posted here, the effect is nice but in my opinion, so far, no more than what a well-produced specular and normal channel would give you. Have a look at our Spitfire shown here. And the sim that screenshot was taken from? FSX.

Sure looks the part, Barry !

But the F-16 in v4.4, this is what LM says about it : F-16 aircraft fully updated to PBR for both the interior and exterior models.

Would that really mean that the model itself is updated or is it really only the textures that are updated ??.... ( i mean, what do *we* know..... ;-) I.e. if the model is indeed 'PBR updated' as such, not only the textures, the effect really is a bit miniscule, isn't it....

It will be interesting to see what happens with PBR-dedicated and just what emerges and when.

Absolutely !

In ending here's a 'juxtaposition' of the 'PBR F-16' and two other 'non PBR' models of just about the same stature. I certainly do think that, compared to the other two, the F-16 has a certain 'je ne sais quoi' about it....

Cheers,
Jan

 

[SkippyBing]

Would that really mean that the model itself is updated or is it really only the textures that are updated ??

The model is updated to indicate to the sim that it has PBR textures applied.
You also have to set up the PBR materials, ie telling 3d studio which files to use for the albedo, normal, and PBR maps. When you think about how many textures are in the average model that's a lot of work, without taking into account making the new maps themselves (albedo and normal should be reusable I think).

 

[Dino Cattaneo]

...boy that F-35 looks cool even without PBR! ;-)

Anyway, thing is that PBR is not a spell that will magically make your model awesome. The artist ability will play a big role and, in many lighting conditions (e.g. normal daylight), there will not be a huge difference between PBR and non-PBR models. Where PBR should look definitely better is in cases such as dawn/sunset lights, multiple light sources and/or extreme angles.

That being said, I really dig v4.4: on my system photoreal textures look sharper, SpeedTree is finally useable (it had a huge hit to my fps before) and VR usability has done a big step forward.

 

[gman5250]

I've finally been able to download V4.4. When it snows here we go to smoke signal speed, so I had to download in chunks...took three days, but V4.4 is installed and all the bits are updated and working as expected. That said, one or two observations.

From the end user standpoint:
Yay...the new sim is installed, things look great...which models are PBR? Are all of the models PBR, and if not...why not? I'm totally confused as to which developer will upgrade to PBR, how long will it take and what will it cost me?

From the Developer standpoint:
Yay...PBR is here...more or less...kind of...but not entirely...WTF do I do now?
Step one, study the new SDK...again...hours and hours of head scratching and pondering as to exactly how the alchemy is going to help me achieve my goals.
Step two, look at my existing inventory and calculate how long it will take to convert all of those models to PBR.
Step three, try to explain to my customer the intricacies of the process and why I can't swallow those costs every time we get an incremental build that requires massive re-tooling at the developer level.

I have had a product line of four airport sceneries, two aircraft, a large vegetation and autogen library ready to market...for three years. I have been watching other developers endure massive costs to keep their inventory current, some absorbing the cost and some making decisions that incur the wrath of the consumers. As a result, I've taken the position that I will not release my scenery or aircraft until we reach a plateau where I am not required to spend all of my time modifying hundreds of scenery models to accommodate the most current builds.

At the moment, I'm evaluating the new SDK and my current inventory which has been largely converted to PBR. For the most part things look fantastic, but now there is room to enhance those models...again...to reflect current state-of-the-art PBR rendering in V4.4. Of course, this is not a plateau but another step in a process that may lead to full PBR integration and eventually...drum roll...ray tracing.

I'm lucky, because I don't need to keep anyone happy, except my wife who has followed the process for nearly six years now.

I'm wondering...would it be beneficial for someone like myself to do a video that illustrates the process of actually setting up a mesh for PBR production and illustrate how different it is from previous methods? The consumer has very little understanding of exactly what is required to convert an existing model, the costs involved and why developers cannot simply flip a magic switch to convert. A video that outlines the complexity of the process may be of educational value...or maybe not. lol

This whole conversation around PBR is going to become a focus, and demarcation point for flight sim development moving forward. At some point the hard reality that cross compatibility is simply unrealistic. It's going to be like moving into an entirely new sim. I've recently installed DCS World, and while I love the benefits of the platform, I realize that I much prefer the ability to build an IFR or VFR flight plan in a tube or old radial and just fly anywhere and any way I please. If that becomes available in Prepar3D, in full 64bit PBR integrated, ray tracing glorious techno bliss, I'll be quite satisfied.

Thoughts appreciated.

BTW Dino...that F-35 does look absolutely fantastic!

 

[Daube]

I can only speak from the customer point of view, but I think I understand your developper point of view when it comes to costs.
The new PBR effect require the developpers to invest in new tools (if they didn't already have them) like Quixel and others I don't know...
There is also the great investment in time.
Instead of wasting time and energy to convert previous models to PBR, I would suggest focusing on producing new, fully sale-able (I mean, at full regular price) products with PBR included.

The time it would take to make a "decent" conversion of an existing model to PBR would be problematic for a free update.
And I'm really not sure (polite way to say "I'm sure it's not possible") that it would be possible to charge a moderate fee just for a PBR update. Not enough customer would want to spend money for that, especially if the model already looks good as is.

 

[lagaffe]

To answer to Gman, if my memory is good one aircraft is with PBR texture: the F-16, and perhaps the AC-16. For that you must install Contents package.

I begin to study PBR last year during the summer. Last Gman's posts (2017 - 2018) about PBR subject were very interesting and so I try Quixel and Subtance Painter demos.
For personnal convenience, I choose SP and bought a licence during 2017 Black Friday.
Actually some textures of my Menestrel HN 700 wer created with Substance Painter and I think to transform my actual works in PBR textures to see all process needed.
I am also woorking on a scenery about CYMX-Mirabel (Quebec) and I think translate actual textures in PBR ones to see the results (runways, walls, etc).

I will try during theses researchs to share my "knowledge" if you want.

 

[TuFun]

Kevin Miller
3D artist and developer (ACES)

He's been testing PBR in P3Dv4.4 and his thoughts...

Quixel is cheap, relitivly simple, and can get good results fast. Substance is more expensive, MUCH more complex, and can get better results in a longer time. Also Substance has more industry support. If you have the time to learn Substance, you can get better results, but it will take longer.

Well just finished the next test. This was done to mainly show you the key feature of the Metalness in PBR (for those who dont know). Its one of the marquee features in PBR that sim artist's should take advantage of, and thats the Metalness channel. While playing around with this feature, I found something interesting out. The Prepar3DPBR shader in Max actually gives you a decent preview of PBR in Max! This is really HUGE as much of our time is burned loading up P3D to check out the changes. With this, we can get a general idea of what it looks like in Max before loading the Sim engine! This is massive! THANK YOU LM!!

On the left, a materials test in-sim. On the right, the same test in Max. To the naked eye, they look VASTLY different, but they key change is the reflection. The old "specular" shader ALWAYS had a crisp/sharp reflection. You could change the level of reflection, but not how soft/sharp it was, making metals that are not chrome almost impossible. Many of us would bake in reflections to get around this limitation. Now in PBR, we can control the reflections a lot better.
For example, the middle sphere in the lowest row looks like an anodized aluminum. This effect was IMPOSSIBLE in the past.

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/...ith-pbr-in-44/?do=findComment&comment=3935409

What will P3Dv.5 bring to the table?

 

[Sundog]

Hi GMan,

I agree with Daube. Product completed, is product completed. Make new product PBR. If people want old product to PBR, than an upgrade purchase will be required.

Having said, your tutorials go a long way towards really explaining to people that (A picture is worth a thousand words), why the cost of the upgrade. It isn't like you're just copying one of the texture layers and making minor changes.

That's just my .02c.

Ken

 

[TuFun]

My concern is 6 months later or longer P3Dv.5 is released and changes are made again that require updated models. I have a feeling v.5 will show up next year.

 

[bazzar]

I wonder. I would think the income to LH from all of this probably pays their coffee bill. So long as they have a stable platform for professional flight training and running scenarios, that's all they need. They don't need to be in the leisure market.

 

[Mach3DS]

I've finally been able to download V4.4. When it snows here we go to smoke signal speed, so I had to download in chunks...took three days, but V4.4 is installed and all the bits are updated and working as expected. That said, one or two observations.

From the end user standpoint:
Yay...the new sim is installed, things look great...which models are PBR? Are all of the models PBR, and if not...why not? I'm totally confused as to which developer will upgrade to PBR, how long will it take and what will it cost me?

From the Developer standpoint:
Yay...PBR is here...more or less...kind of...but not entirely...WTF do I do now?
Step one, study the new SDK...again...hours and hours of head scratching and pondering as to exactly how the alchemy is going to help me achieve my goals.
Step two, look at my existing inventory and calculate how long it will take to convert all of those models to PBR.
Step three, try to explain to my customer the intricacies of the process and why I can't swallow those costs every time we get an incremental build that requires massive re-tooling at the developer level.

I have had a product line of four airport sceneries, two aircraft, a large vegetation and autogen library ready to market...for three years. I have been watching other developers endure massive costs to keep their inventory current, some absorbing the cost and some making decisions that incur the wrath of the consumers. As a result, I've taken the position that I will not release my scenery or aircraft until we reach a plateau where I am not required to spend all of my time modifying hundreds of scenery models to accommodate the most current builds.

At the moment, I'm evaluating the new SDK and my current inventory which has been largely converted to PBR. For the most part things look fantastic, but now there is room to enhance those models...again...to reflect current state-of-the-art PBR rendering in V4.4. Of course, this is not a plateau but another step in a process that may lead to full PBR integration and eventually...drum roll...ray tracing.

I'm lucky, because I don't need to keep anyone happy, except my wife who has followed the process for nearly six years now.

I'm wondering...would it be beneficial for someone like myself to do a video that illustrates the process of actually setting up a mesh for PBR production and illustrate how different it is from previous methods? The consumer has very little understanding of exactly what is required to convert an existing model, the costs involved and why developers cannot simply flip a magic switch to convert. A video that outlines the complexity of the process may be of educational value...or maybe not. lol

This whole conversation around PBR is going to become a focus, and demarcation point for flight sim development moving forward. At some point the hard reality that cross compatibility is simply unrealistic. It's going to be like moving into an entirely new sim. I've recently installed DCS World, and while I love the benefits of the platform, I realize that I much prefer the ability to build an IFR or VFR flight plan in a tube or old radial and just fly anywhere and any way I please. If that becomes available in Prepar3D, in full 64bit PBR integrated, ray tracing glorious techno bliss, I'll be quite satisfied.

Thoughts appreciated.

BTW Dino...that F-35 does look absolutely fantastic!

I think I emailed you 1.5 years ago Gordon, and I remember I asked you about PBR. We had a good conversation. Take it with some context, Gordon has been looking ahead for a long time. When I first started into DCS painting with PBR structure I didn't know who else to turn to. I don't think at the time Gordon had solid answers either. It was known, but within the the Flight sim community it was not really known or at least used (at least among the painters). Perhaps bigger developers have been using it for a while; but if so, then why all the headache (if you've already been using it for years shouldn't you have those renditions in your files)? At any rate, this is a landmark update. It will pave the way for a competely New Rendering engine that is coming - Likely in v5 - (at least according to LM in an interview a few months back, v5 would be a good block point to introduce something like this) in which PBR would be standard gfx benchmark. Not sure what this is going to do to the community, but it really is a stepping off point. Away from the old and into the future. My own perspective is that FSX will now officially go the way of FS9. Used but no longer supported. I think the work flow is such that being able to develop a product for both P3D3/FSX & v4.4+ will become too time and resource consuming for most devs. Plus, as someone who is painting in it, it is far easier to use with far better results for the time invested for me to go back to FSX paint kits. I'm officially out of FSX/P3D3. It's a hard move. Because I've invested a lot of money into it. I'm not saying others should do the same. But I'm at a point in my hobby that I'm able to make this cold turkey move. Not for everyone, I get it.

Working on a Fictional "Have Glass" Hornet.... I"ve done this for a few aircraft now. I really like this paint job IRL. Obviously. LOL.

 

[gman5250]

Update:

I've updated P3D to V4.4 with no issues.

I've installed all of my scenery packages (and other 3rd party), installed the new SDK, updated 3DStudio Max 2015 to utilize the SDK and built a few PBR ground poly textures. My existing "fake and bake" textures work fine in 4.4, but I want to move into the supported PBR framework built in to the SDK.

I understand that Arno is working on updating MCX to work with the new PBR materials, so I anticipate being able to place ground polys with PBR texturing...as soon as MCX is updated.

Once I get a working set of ground poly textures in either KBIH Eastern Sierra Regional or KRNO Reno/Tahoe International, I'll shoot some screen caps and a video to show the process and functioning PBR ground polys and airplane.

I don't see any problem with using Quixel or Substance Painter materials for current P3D PBR support, but this build is a fundamental PBR framework...not the full pop deal. It is a good start, and does offer a user friendly interface to get those lovely bumps and specular sheets working on ground polys. Buildings, GSE and other 3D models are fundamentally the same approach as a PBR airplane.

The SDK does explain, in a not too painful way, how to place the various bits like ambient occlusion in their corresponding color channels, which is going to be a diversion for folks who have been skinning in previous platforms, but the logic is really basic and easily understood. IMO...it's a major step in the right direction, but as has been stated above there will be many conversations in the community as to where things are going next.


I agree that LM may or may not be interested in a state-of-the-art "entertainment" simulator, but at the same time if they are serious about drones...they need a talent pool to draw from. A tricked out simulator would be a great "recruiter".

 

[Dino Cattaneo]

PBR tests from a sleepless night (...just the fuselage, disregard the canopy glass)... looks much better in motion.

 

[Javis]

Well done,Dino ! Yeah, your F-35 certainly looks cool, with or without PBR ! ;-)

Did you use Quicksel or SP or something else maybe ?

What can be noticed on the 'PBR F-16' f.i. are the sunglints on the front edges of the vertical stab and in a less significant way on the horizontal surfaces' edges (under certain view conditions of course). Will be interesting to see on your F-35 where the vertical stabs are placed at an angle, not vertical.