安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
For instance, the Better Pushback plugin has recently released an update that is Vulkan compatible.
https://github.com/skiselkov/BetterPushbackC/releases
If it was up to me, I would be conversing and monitoring the up to date *by minute which Developer plugins had updated and now compatible with Xplane-11 and modifying the Release note page accordingly.
Even though Laminar are a small team, they are too complacent with their attitude regarding keeping the public informed . With Microsoft FS2020 due this year, i would be making sure a Customer focus is a number one priority (constant communication) so as not to lose player numbers.
I have a 6 year old AMD R9 290. The jump in frames has almost been two-fold in external views. Laminar show brilliance in some areas (Flight model & Vulkan ) that are let down by complacency in other areas ( improved ATC being promised for some years).
If they want to keep player numbers, I would be conversing with Google and negotiating a deal so as to use Google Maps for AI updates to scenery (which is far more accurate than Bing -eg YSCB Canberra which uses images over 5 years old, the airport is still not under construction!!!)
Lol, you're kidding right? There are literally thousands of plugins and other third party elements for X-plane. No developer in the world ever has or ever will test or guarantee a huge list of third party elements while trying to launch their software. You're like the nuts who expect devs to keep all their mods working and compatible too.
Yes, you are right about a huge number of plugins on offer and I should have perhaps clarified my point further.
On the X-Plane 11 release page for Vulkan, they have already given examples of plugins needing further work in order to be compatible with the Vulkan API.
https://www.x-plane.com/kb/x-plane-11-50-release-notes/
Aircraft using DreamEngine Sound
BetterPushback
Ground Traffic
Flight Factor A320
Flight Factor 767
JAR A320
JAR A330
JAR Ground Handling
librain
Some Orbx TrueEarth regions
SkyMaxx Pro
ToLiss A319 & A321
Traffic Global
xEnviro
xPilot
XPRealistic Pro
xSquawkBox
I'm sure Laminar know fully well which plugins are used most / paid for by X-Plane 11 simmers, thus the listing above. I use the Zibo 737-800 mod which uses Better Pushback (now updated for use with Vulkan) and AVI Tab (which isn't updated and causes the loss of being able to switch views when utilised)
It is of course the choice of 3rd Party devs if they decide to keep their Plugins updated, but not all are free like the many listed above.
In this case, these devs should absolutely be keeping their mods updated and compatible with each new X-Plane release and yes Laminar should be providing constant updates so as to keep their player base enthused. (Up to the minute updates was too extreme, perhaps weekly would be more appropriate).
I am very happy with the Vulkan B1 so far, even though the majority of my 3rd party plugins currently don't work. Being able to land without the fps falling below 20, improved shaders and textures, and reduced stutters have certainly breathed new life into the Sim.
For example, flight factor b757 told me the X-plane version is unsupported, then it said there was an update, and walked me through the update process. It is still going, but I am sure that when it is done and I launch XP I will have a working aircraft supported in XP11.50.
I consider that a good example of how a plugin vendor should support transitioning through versions and/or major transformation of the XP engine.
What I consider not good would be having to launch XP, have it not start, or crashing, and then I have to go through the laborious process of troubleshooting which XP plugin is the culprit. Then find, for that plugin, there is no real support site, just an email support, which will send you back a form response (thank you for your inquiry.... etc."
XP11.50 was in developer beta for long enough that plugin vendors should have tested and ensure their product works, and issue an update to correct problems.
I don't put this on the XP development team or support. If we did that, then XP11.50 will come even slower.