Jump to content

  •  


AVSIM NOTAM

The AVSIM Forums will be temporarily offline for software upgrades beginning 23FEB17 at 22:00Z. The upgrade could last as long as 7 hours. We apologize for any inconvenience.


In Loving Memory Of

Tom Allensworth,
Founder of AVSIM Online


AVSIM Online
Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!


AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!


Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.

Photo

XP vs Real life


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#1 Richard Sennett

Richard Sennett

    Member - 8,000+

  • Donor
  • 11,410 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:58 PM

Just saw this video posted - pretty cool - be play nice    :wink:

 


  • 3

Rich Sennett

           2qdvmgi.png    


Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

#2 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Awesome

  • Members
  • 1,113 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:00 PM

X-Plane is better, because when you crash, you don't die.

 

:P


  • 6

#3 BobFS88

BobFS88

    Member

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:19 PM

That's the beauty of it.

Bob
  • 0

Robert Norman


#4 J van E

J van E

    Member - 8,000+

  • Donor
  • 9,172 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:25 PM

Not bad considering default scenery is used...!
  • 0

With regards,

Jeroen


#5 exodus1977

exodus1977

    Member

  • Members
  • 202 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:48 PM

One of the things I didn't like about XP 10 when I tried it was that just about everywhere looked the same. Granted, I never got into add-on scenery, but I figured that the "plausible scenery" technique would be something that I just wouldn't connect with. XP11 has come a long way in changing my mind...great video.


  • 0

#6 Pascal_LSGC

Pascal_LSGC

    Member

  • Members
  • 941 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:54 PM

Duh... it's Google Earth, not real life !!! :t0117:

Pascal


  • 2

#7 irrics

irrics

    Member

  • Members
  • 247 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:06 PM

X-Plane wins because the fuel is free...


Duh... it's Google Earth, not real life !!! :t0117:

Pascal

 

 

That was my immediate disappointment with the video...

To me a "real life" comparison needs shots out the window of a real airplane..


  • 1

#8 CarlosF

CarlosF

    Member - 1,000+

  • Members
  • 1,167 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:33 PM

Google earth is very very close to what real life is....I doubt someone would spend $$$$$ for RL video.

 

This comparison does work for me.


  • 0

Carlos Franklin

 

Asus Sabertooth z77 - i7 3770k @ 4.6 HT WC - 32gb Corsair @ 2133 (XMP) - GTX 970 4gb - 250 Samsung Evo Pro SSD for XPlane

 

 jlbtmj.png


#9 domae001

domae001

    Member

  • Members
  • 95 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:51 PM

Is real life 64-bit?


  • 0

#10 hjsmuc

hjsmuc

    Member

  • Donor
  • 852 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:16 PM

It's GE or Bing but both are close to real. It also shows that XP11 still needs color correction, easily done with MaxxXP. Add a photoreal background and then you are close to real. I am just doing a little experiment, all of the CA coastline in photoreal, but only at ZL 16 and with the default overlay OSM data from XP. So far, this is looking great. Once I'm done I'll post some screenies.


  • 1

Hans Schmitz


#11 Richard Sennett

Richard Sennett

    Member - 8,000+

  • Donor
  • 11,410 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:44 PM

It's GE or Bing but both are close to real. It also shows that XP11 still needs color correction, easily done with MaxxXP. Add a photoreal background and then you are close to real. I am just doing a little experiment, all of the CA coastline in photoreal, but only at ZL 16 and with the default overlay OSM data from XP. So far, this is looking great. Once I'm done I'll post some screenies.

 

Please do I'm a bit new to ortho and not sure how to do it also concerned about hard drive space even though I have more than one - just dont like to jam my hard drives 


  • 0

Rich Sennett

           2qdvmgi.png    


#12 hjsmuc

hjsmuc

    Member

  • Donor
  • 852 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:46 PM

It's a fun job but sometimes not as easy as it seems, the sources are kind of unpredictable in terms of output. Just switched to USGS and will try a couple of tiles again overnight. I'll keep you posted. 


  • 0

Hans Schmitz


#13 Richard Sennett

Richard Sennett

    Member - 8,000+

  • Donor
  • 11,410 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:51 PM

It's a fun job but sometimes not as easy as it seems, the sources are kind of unpredictable in terms of output. Just switched to USGS and will try a couple of tiles again overnight. I'll keep you posted. 

 

Thank you my friend can always count on you  :wink: and my great friend Tofi  :dance:


  • 1

Rich Sennett

           2qdvmgi.png    


#14 irrics

irrics

    Member

  • Members
  • 247 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 12:00 AM

Guys, maybe the sat scenery itself can look close/ to real life, but what I mean with a "real life comparison" is literally how the world looks out the window, including lighting, haze, etc.

 

Just seems weird to compare sat imagery to stock scenery in XP and call one of them the "real life" view.

Whatevs' - just seems odd to me.

 

 

Something more like this (but ideally from cockpit view of course):


Edited by irrics, 11 January 2017 - 12:02 AM.

  • 0

#15 Paraffin

Paraffin

    Member

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 12:34 AM

Guys, maybe the sat scenery itself can look close/ to real life, but what I mean with a "real life comparison" is literally how the world looks out the window, including lighting, haze, etc.

 

Just seems weird to compare sat imagery to stock scenery in XP and call one of them the "real life" view.

Whatevs' - just seems odd to me.

 

I agree. Comparisons like this with satellite imagery are great for showing the accuracy (or not) of placement in OSM-based roads and building autogen, but they minimize the differences in actual appearance between flight sims and flying over the real world.

 

These images are always taken under ideal clear sky conditions with no cloud shadows, and close to noon so shadows are minimized. You're not seeing the effects of different lighting colors through the day/night cycle. Which would be fine if we only flew our sims at noon with clear skies. 

 

For me, one of the great things about X-Plane is how each new version gets closer to showing what the world looks like in all kinds of different weather and times of day. Flying at low level I can see OSM autgen buildings casting shadows at different times of day, and lit up with varying sunlight color. Clouds cast moving shadows on the ground and open water, just like it looks in real life. When it's rainy or foggy, everything changes drastically into a softer looking world.

 

That's where a flight sim starts to feel real to me, and you'll never see that in a simulated fly-over on a satellite photo. 


  • 2

Primary sim is X-Plane 11 on Windows 10