

But when there’s a high quality third party add-on readily available, which, by the sound of it, does a particular job better than the existing inbuilt solution, does that dissuade you at all from spending time on further development for that part of the sim? I recall that you have stated on a number of occasions that the fog problem is one which you guys are intending to address at some stage. It did make me wonder though, does LR take into account the availability of add-ons when deciding where to focus future development? For example, a lot of commenters on your (excellent, informative and insightful!) blog have bemoaned the lack of towering cumulus and poorly implemented fog. I’ll be sure to try it out, but I might wait until I have a more powerful computer first. Thanks for highlighting what looks like a great add-on. The next-gen CSL code sample that is linked from the article is tested and works correctly too. custom particle system drawing or any kind of effects code), please review the tech note, and email me if you have questions. If your plugin does any 3-d drawing (e.g. This is the time to draw translucent prop discs, coach marks and labels, clouds, smoke and particle systems, etc.

Getting a plugin that draws in 3-d to work with HDR mode requires some caution the plugin APIs for drawing were designed in X-Plane 6, when ‘deferred rendering’ didn’t even exist as a concept.

(I hate to see users have to pick between HDR and third party add-ons we want HDR to be the basis for superior next-generation aircraft and scenery.) From the user reports I’ve read, performance in HDR mode is good. X-Aviation just posted an update to SkyMaxx Pro – the new 1.1 patch brings big performance improvements and fixes rendering problems with HDR.
