Snow blowing across the ground, grass and trees leaning in the wind, waves moving and amplified to match wind, water on windscreens, visible ice...these are all worthy immersion details to have. Ask any pilot if the density of cars or how their headlights shone upon the ground have ever been used as reference from the air for any purpose of the flight. I'm willing to bet most pilots on the other hand have had to estimate wind from observing trees and wave action on water!

 

Some things that receive so much effort in flight sim development kind of leave me scratching my head at times. Improved ground lighting, improved runway textures, super high detailed airport terminals with people inside the terminal...really? I guess Tusser had it right long before flight simming was popular.

 

 

Ask any pilot if the density of cars or how their headlights shone upon the ground have ever been used as reference from the air for any purpose of the flight.

 

Fair enough.  But there's "reference from the air" and there's also "things you see while flying, that if they're in the sim, make you feel you're there."  Just because a ground feature doesn't have technical value doesn't mean it isn't important to the experience.  I know FSX users get accused of being eye candy addicts, but on the other hand, there's a tendency on the part of X-Plane afficionados to look at the program as a wonderful wind-tunnel simulator - great when it comes to airflow modeling but not so good when you look outside the window.  As usual in these debates, it may come down to how you want to use the sim, or what features each user considers most important for immersion.  At the risk of repeating, back when FS9 came out, there were people who complained about the absence of bridges, and others who said, "who cares?  It's not a bridge simulator."  Yes, but the bridges are in fact used as ground reference by VFR pilots.  So it's very much a matter of how and what you fly.

 

I for one would like to see some additions to X-Plane that make me forget that I'm sitting at my desk.  I'm frustrated by the absence of these features precisely because so much of the program is so good.

But there's "reference from the air" and there's also "things you see while flying

Yes...the ground references you look for while navigating, the traffic you are scanning the horizon for, and the instruments you are scanning to monitor your aircraft performance....and then the stuff you catch a glimpse of from the corner of your eye, that you quickly dismiss as unworthy of your attention.

 

I think we understand each other well enough, but for all intensive purposes, the only reason I see to have super high def "everything-around-you" addons would probably be just so you could fly around by yourself and say "wow look what my computer can do! I should post a pic!" It's not like your passengers are actually looking at any of it.

That said, if someone were to make an optimized FSX for morden architecture, one that doesn't need tweaking, editing and hardware overclocking/supercharging... One that works out of the box and has the basics pertaining aviation set, and then has someone add a realistic road traffic AI onto that, I'd be all for it.

Sigh... I couldn't stop dreaming for that day to come... whoever can make a modern FSX like that I'll be BEGGING him/her to take my money (up to $200 or so?)...

Yes...the ground references you look for while navigating, the traffic you are scanning the horizon for, and the instruments you are scanning to monitor your aircraft performance....and then the stuff you catch a glimpse of from the corner of your eye, that you quickly dismiss as unworthy of your attention.

 

I think we understand each other well enough, but for all intensive purposes, the only reason I see to have super high def "everything-around-you" addons would probably be just so you could fly around by yourself and say "wow look what my computer can do! I should post a pic!" It's not like your passengers are actually looking at any of it.

Apparently you don't fly VFR. Seeing interesting things out the window is one big reason why pilots do fly VFR.

Any link to a vid showing this great XP10 traffic?  Curious exactly what it does that FSX traffic doesn't.

 

scott s.

.

It mainly looks good at night.  In general, XP looks much better at night than FSX.  And it should... it's a modern engine with nice HDR effects.

I personally like the fact that I can "virtually drive" on FSX from my r/w house to Hartsfield-Jackson Airport with Ultimate Terrain and then fly my Delta flights.   The drive is eerily realistic, even seeing Stone Mountain right before the 316 merge with I-85.    I have added extra scenery for Atlanta, and would love for Aerosoft to make Atlanta better.  

Any link to a vid showing this great XP10 traffic?  Curious exactly what it does that FSX traffic doesn't.

 

scott s.

.

Great video!! 

Apparently you don't fly VFR. Seeing interesting things out the window is one big reason why pilots do fly VFR.

Seeing interesting things out the window is a definite benefit to being under VFR flight, but I could just as easily fly IFR in the clear sky and still see the interesting objects. The point I was going after is not why pilots choose the flight rules they fly under...it was to highlight that all the fancy high-def scenery is not always a benefit to the simulator experience. Sure it looks good, but sometimes eye candy is just fluff, that does not add to the immersion factor that I lean more towards, and that is the practice of pilotage, and not the practice of sight seeing.

 

It's an alternative view intended to open avenues for discussion, perhaps to weigh the pros and cons of constantly seeking new eye candy for the simulator.

Any link to a vid showing this great XP10 traffic?  Curious exactly what it does that FSX traffic doesn't.

 

scott s.

.

 

these videos are old, xp10 has been updated.

Downloaded the demo for XPlane today.  I've tried it in the past and always deleted it.  But this post has made me want to try harder to see if I can get it to be enjoyable.

 

I'm going to give it an honest shot!

 

Stan

 

 

I've tried it in the past and always deleted it.

 

I've been the same way, always trying it but then ultimately giving up.  But recently I tried a flight into KMSP at night. With foul weather... and it was amazing.  Busting thru the clouds, seeing the city alive with cars and lights, then approaching the runway that has a slight dip (something fsx doesn't model at all).  It was a lot of fun.  I admit that I am not sold all the way just yet, but if things continue to improve, then maybe I'll consider investing in the better payware planes/scenery. 

I think it was FS2K2 that a member of our community came up with traffic for FS and it was just several white light dots but it definitely gave us the impression of vehicular traffic at night. He added it to his own personal sim and I think ran a short video and we were all amazed at what he had done and immediately asked for the program he used to add the white dots. Microsoft, not to be outdone, came up with actual vehicles in subsequent versions of FS.  I'm not entirely sure what the OP is looking for as there are vehicles (albeit not as nice as those in X-Plane).  But, they are there and they give you a sense of immersion especially at night.  Now, instead of just white dots appearing, FSX set it up so you can see the red brake lights when traffic is going away from you and white 'headlights' for traffic coming toward you (now we need the amber lights to indicate turn signals!!).  Just turn your vehicle traffic up to 100% at night and fly around.  Very realistic!  Even at 20% it looks nice.  I think the OP has made his point though that the FS9/FSX traffic is not as nice as X-Plane and we should leave it at that.  It's not going to get any better for FSX anytime in the future as it is not being upgraded like X-Plane.

 

Best regards,

Jim