24 minutes ago, J van E said:

The fact that you don't care about scenery is no excuse imho to call talking about that 'whining'. I am sure I am not alone in this.

I didn't say I don't care about scenery in general, I am specifically talking about HD scenery.  Maybe "whining" wasn't a good choice of words, but I do care about scenery and value everyone's view on it.  I think there is some middle ground to be sought and I prefer that middle ground as opposed to HD everywhere.  That's my only point.  I buy payware sceneries in my current sim, specifically airports, but I don't need, nor do I like very much the photoreal stuff that cover large areas. I bring this up because not everyone can afford cutting edge performance computers and have extreme bandwidth capabilites for downloading that kind of content.  That's why I look for the middle ground sim that can give me the immersion and enjoyment I seek in this hobby without going into the extreme requiring a second mortgage in order to enjoy this hobby.

2 hours ago, pressler said:

If great visuals mean 80-90GB downloads/updates for scenery/terrain like Aerofly2 uses, I want no part of that.  If I want that level of scenery, I'll go get my PPL and hop in a Cessna.  I don't think a flight sim is intended for this kind of visual detail around the earth.  IMO, flight sims are about flight dynamics, aircraft systems, weather, etc.  Having detailed VCs is awesome tho.  I think it's a little over the top to whine about scenery and terrain. I just don't care to fly around where I live and dive down to see my cat standing in the yard takin a dump.

Well, we don't all use a flight simulator the same way, so naturally, there will be different opinions about scenery detail.

For my $.02 opinion, I never fly tube liners, never spend much time above 15,000 ft. I fly bush planes and helicopters in the sim. With bush planes, I need good detail when threading my way through canyons, and the ability to spot a tiny grass strip among farmland or forest in the distance. I frequently zoom out the view to spot and line up with non-paved "runways." My eyesight in the real world is very good, and I remember how far away we could see things, back when I did a lot of commercial aerial photography on a clear day. I want my flight sim to replicate that, as much as possible.

With helicopters it's a little different. The emphasis shifts to how much texture and detail is at ground level, to judge that last 20 feet or so before landing in a hover. I need to see the ground, not a blurry pixelated blob underneath me, which is why I don't like orthophoto-based scenery (among other reasons). This is also important for doing something like landing a Porter or Kodiak on a sandbar, when judging when to flare.

So, yeah.... scenery detail matters for some types of flying. We've been putting up with very rough approximations for years. I came into flight sims when they were mono-colored polygons. We can do better now.

21 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

I need good detail when threading my way through canyons, and the ability to spot a tiny grass strip among farmland or forest in the distance. I frequently zoom out the view to spot and line up with non-paved "runways." My eyesight in the real world is very good, and I remember how far away we could see things, back when I did a lot of commercial aerial photography on a clear day. I want my flight sim to replicate that, as much as possible.

With helicopters it's a little different. The emphasis shifts to how much texture and detail is at ground level, to judge that last 20 feet or so before landing in a hover. I need to see the ground, not a blurry pixelated blob underneath me, which is why I don't like orthophoto-based scenery (among other reasons). This is also important for doing something like landing a Porter or Kodiak on a sandbar, when judging when to flare.

So, yeah.... scenery detail matters for some types of flying. We've been putting up with very rough approximations for years. I came into flight sims when they were mono-colored polygons. We can do better now.

Good point.  So, for something like Aerofly 2 or XP11, I have seen tarmacs and runway textures in Aerofly 2 and XP11, but for say a grass strip or a sandbar, these really HD sceneries provide that level of detail for remote areas?  Just curious.  It's really eye opening to hear different views on this topic.  You are correct that we all have "our own way" to see and use flight sims.  To be honest, I mostly fly GA aircraft around all of the Caribbean.  I have almost every payware airport from The Bahamas down to Venezuela.  I have one Mega Scenery Earth that I got free for Puerto Rico.  The photoreal stuff looks really good from way up, but down close is just mugly.  I guess I don't really look close enough at the terrains to really say that the current Orbx FTX Global doesn't work for me.  Then again, maybe I need to do some bush flying and see how far behind those areas are.  Something I would probably like would be enhanced airports similar to the Orbx Global Freeware Airports, but more inclusive to account for rural/bush strips.  It's the in-between stuff that I just don't see alot of value add in "my" eyes.  Thanks for your reply!

2 hours ago, pressler said:

Good point.  So, for something like Aerofly 2 or XP11, I have seen tarmacs and runway textures in Aerofly 2 and XP11, but for say a grass strip or a sandbar, these really HD sceneries provide that level of detail for remote areas?  Just curious. 

Yes, there is a significant difference with good land class texture. There is a fine detailed grain texture that looks like a "plausible" ground away from runways.

I'm also using high and ultra-high terrain mesh that doesn't increase that texture, but it creates more detailed coastline and river edges instead of big angles and straight lines. Again it's "plausible" at low altitude and on the ground, not a photograph, but at least it's not a burry. 

Another thing about that approach (and I know we're talking preferences still), is the way landclass scenery reacts to changing angles and color of sunlight throughout the day, and looks exactly the way it should at night.

  I like what i had seen so far a small team has done a lot with the code so far . I started simming in the days of FS95 by half the time FS98 was out i already had my PPL till this day that i now flight for a small private outfit desalt/falcons , 

 Even till this day i see people comparing everything that comes out to P3D ,, guys P3D is also old wine on a new bottle but some seem to forget that .... 

I WILL STAY POSITIVE the last thing we need is a negative welcome to the new guys like its been done in the pass ...

 

14 hours ago, pressler said:

I will not argue that point with you as I do agree; however, IMO there becomes a point where very detailed scenery just becomes too much - either in storage requirements or systems requirements, additionally one can even make an argument for bandwidth requirements.  I try to think of the value add for high level detail where simming is concerned.  VFR is one that I can think of but VFR doesn't necessarily need HD scenery because you can fly VFR in current sims.   Smoother graphics - I believe needs improvement, amongst other things, in the upcoming FSW (at least if you look at the videos that have been posted)  Anyway, I appreciate the eye candy, I really do, but the one thing I have noticed about the sims with great eye candy, they lack in other respects that FSX and P3D do not.  Now this could be because they are no where as mature as FSX and P3D or the developers focused on this area exclusively, but the differences are noticeable.  This is just an observation.  I'm just glad this community has something to talk about at this point.  Thanks for your reply!

+1

7 hours ago, rtodepart said:

 Even till this day i see people comparing everything that comes out to P3D ,, guys P3D is also old wine on a new bottle but some seem to forget that .... 

I keep hearing that "old wine" story over and over. Do you know how old X- Plane is? I don't know it. But I recall having tried early X-Plane trial versions certainly around or before 2000. However, for some strange reason neither the Wikipedia nor some other source I checked keeps an update history of X-Plane - contrary to MSFS with a well-documented history. Someone to enlighten my about X-Plane1? I read several people tried to document it but failed with the early versions. 

And keep in mind MSFS got a more or less complete rewrite of the rendering code for 5.0 in the 1990s.

Even the "brand new" AeroflyFS2" is based on AeroflyFS1 which I bought in 2012. This itself has been based on the RC simulators (AeroflyRC7 at present) made by Icarus .

The code base of all of those has been developed iteratively and evolutionary over many years. I don't know any of the present simulators which has been created from scratch within the last 15 years.  

Kind regards, Michael

9 hours ago, pmb said:

I don't know any of the present simulators which has been created from scratch within the last 15 years.

DCS World - 2008?

23 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

DCS World - 2008?

And the 777 Studios sims - Rise of Flight, BoS.

Very narrow focus with the combat sims though. Good aerodynamics, especially at the edge of the envelope. But no world model to fly in, and that's not so easy to build from scratch. Which may be one reason DTG licensed FSX instead of Flight from Microsoft.

15 hours ago, pmb said:

I keep hearing that "old wine" story over and over. Do you know how old X- Plane is? I don't know it. But I recall having tried early X-Plane trial versions certainly around or before 2000. However, for some strange reason neither the Wikipedia nor some other source I checked keeps an update history of X-Plane - contrary to MSFS with a well-documented history. Someone to enlighten my about X-Plane1? I read several people tried to document it but failed with the early versions. 

And keep in mind MSFS got a more or less complete rewrite of the rendering code for 5.0 in the 1990s.

Even the "brand new" AeroflyFS2" is based on AeroflyFS1 which I bought in 2012. This itself has been based on the RC simulators (AeroflyRC7 at present) made by Icarus .

The code base of all of those has been developed iteratively and evolutionary over many years. I don't know any of the present simulators which has been created from scratch within the last 15 years.  

Kind regards, Michael

i was just saying i cant understand why some people talk about P3D like is something that was built from the ground with all nEw tech . 

16 hours ago, pmb said:

 

On 5/16/2017 at 8:34 PM, rtodepart said:

 Even till this day i see people comparing everything that comes out to P3D ,, guys P3D is also old wine on a new bottle but some seem to forget that .... 

I keep hearing that "old wine" story over and over. Do you know how old X- Plane is? I don't know it. But I recall having tried early X-Plane trial versions certainly around or before 2000. However, for some strange reason neither the Wikipedia nor some other source I checked keeps an update history of X-Plane - contrary to MSFS with a well-documented history. Someone to enlighten my about X-Plane1? I read several people tried to document it but failed with the early versions. 

 

Apparently X-plane goes back as far as 1993 as a Macintosh only product?

Then there is this: https://www.bizapedia.com/sc/laminar-research-inc.html

5 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Apparently X-plane goes back as far as 1993 as a Macintosh only product?

Then there is this: https://www.bizapedia.com/sc/laminar-research-inc.html

Still remember when I was already using X-Plane's demo, which I liked mostly because - just imagine ! - it was the only sim that had winterland, with lot's of snow in the terrain :-)

Then, one day, Austin announced X-Rotor, also with a price base around $500, but... after a while, X-Rotor merged with X-Plane before even getting released...