Guys....Keep the comparisons between Sims non-existent!  This is the MSFS2020 forum! 😡

8 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Stop showing examples from other games or gaming engines, lol. Show us examples from X-Plane!

Seems like one of MS trolls. No idea about what ever a base material is or what I'm talking about and still insists for "my simulator is better" war while I already, multiple times, mentioned that this has nothing to do with Xplane or any other. say hello to the lads in the farm mate!

7 minutes ago, akita said:

The data that MSFS uses is not exclusive to microsoft, or google. 

It is not.   But you are, as far as I can tell, arguing that you would rather see rendering done using canonical data rather than using satellite imagery and interpolating structural and elemental data based on it.

And, to the extent that we're talking in abstract, you're correct.   That would be wonderful.  That's almost always the better way to proceed.

But doing that with high quality on a global scale simply is not feasible at this moment.

If all you're saying is "there is another way, that would be better", then yeah, no disagreement here.

If you're suggesting that a sim should be built around this now, and XPlane (or whatever your sim of choice is) would be better if it went that way, I disagree with that.  There's no way to match the quality of what MSFS has done on a global scale using third-party data sources available today, and probably won't be for a good long time.

26 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

It's amazing that Microsoft/Asobo can do that for $60 USD.  And there isn't a subscription fee for it either!  This is something people dreamed of in past flight simulators, where they can fly around the world to whatever spot they wish, and the place they fly to may resemble what they see in real life.  No additional scenery is needed to be installed, and I don't have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for it.  Just $60 USD.  What a deal we got as customers of MSFS.

This is so spot on thank you for reminding us of what we actually got for $60-$119.  I'm confident the various issues will be resolved over time and look forward to what DX-12 can do for enhancing performance.

19 hours ago, 737_800 said:

That what counts is patience now. 

Absolutely--this innovative project is miles ahead of anything offered by the others and it will take time to polish it up so yes, patience is in order, stop the incessant hand-wringing.

2 minutes ago, akita said:

Seems like one of MS trolls. No idea about what ever a base material is or what I'm talking about and still insists for "my simulator is better" war while I already, multiple times, mentioned that this has nothing to do with Xplane or any other. say hello to the lads in the farm mate!

No offense, but you are coming into the MSFS forum.  We aren't in the X-Plane forum. 

 

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 is the Best Flight Simulator ever, with the most advanced Graphics and Physics!!! 😃👍

 

Edited April 12, 20215 yr by OSM

On 4/11/2021 at 5:16 PM, VFXSimmer said:

So many times when I read threads like these I am saddened at the jaded outlook so many have... 

............

Its like buying your first self-driving electric car, discovering its onboard AI has suddenly become sentient and can write its own poetry, and then returning it to the dealership for a refund because the cup holder is smaller than the SUV you just traded in.

..............

Well allow me to dissent. I'd rather say it's like buying your first self-driving car only to discover that from time to time you are locked out and the AI won't open the door. Another time it's the trunk. Then one day the window will not roll down. A few days later the thing won't go into reverse, so you have to take a cab. One afternoon, it suddenly crashes into a wall, because of some bug in the A.I. Not to mention the problem with the engine: sometimes it inexplicably hiccups, stutters. Oh and the air conditioner is a bit erratic: it decides the temperature and you have no say in it, like that one time with 40 degrees C outside and 45 inside.

Now it's more like that.

A.

 

Edited April 12, 20215 yr by ADamiani
To make it clearer

23 hours ago, jpc55 said:

I can't believe how many people on here have forgotten that this is a 10 year project. start complaining after 10 years!

I have said it before, I have will say it again, I have not had any problems running MsFS no CTD nothing, so if you are having problems with it, It's being created by YOU!☺️

So why did I have to pay for it? If it's ready in ten years, I should pay in ten years.

The fact that some people (claim that they) have no problems doesn't mean that all others are seeing things or are creating problems. Do you think that the rest of the world is full of idiots? That we haven't tried to fly with medium (actually I tried with low) settings, no addons at all, default airplanes?

I have, we have, and guess what? No difference.

A.

3 hours ago, kaosfere said:

But doing that with high quality on a global scale simply is not feasible at this moment.

I think you are underestimating what GPUs are capable off.

*Note that this video is not aiming to prove better quality or performance, or better for flight simulation rather a different approach of planetary rendering that is already possible for years, for those you that are eager to miss the point.

 

The better the data, (and then how you walk it through the pipeline) the seamless it's going to be compared to ortho-imagery, i.e. will almost have ortho patterns but with 10x higher resolution world, in which you can define the smallest rocks.

Current generation GPUs are capable of much more in that term, even for a large scale scene, it's *scalable* through the pipeline more speaking in a targeted low-profile API implementation.

Now what MSFS does, kinda tries to do the same but with orthos as a base texture. then masking it with higher quality decals but the material lighting inconsistency is still there since it's already baked in a from-the-beginning-low-quality albedo channel=aiming to produce more out of an albedo. if it's only a grass field, it'll still work as procedural grass will mask it all. for anything else i.e. a breakwater, it'll always look blurry with orthos. All i'm saying is, I prefer rocks will look like actual rocks and not a bunch of weird low quality shadow patterns. Every time I see buildings have double shadows it's an immediate deal-breaker for what should make sense to my eye. so yeah it is a matter of preference. and it's clear what side next-gen graphics is taking for the next years (ain't the point of this thread?). less baked detail.

 

Edited April 12, 20215 yr by akita

3 hours ago, akita said:

There is a workflow to make a base-material shine with displacements, tessellation, PBR and all the fancy shaders.

Why do you assume, that the PBR layers can not be derived from orthos? I fact, as everything in MSFS is based on PBR, I am pretty sure, that MSFS already has generated PBR layers for the orthos. In MSFS, I can see the sun reflecting differently depending on the material it hits. Dirt is different than asphalt or water or still water or grass. AI done on the fly. Unbeatable.

25 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

So why did I have to pay for it?

You sound as if you were forced to buy it. Many can get tremendous value from it. But if it has no value for you, you should not buy it. Every buyer is reponsible to buy only stuff he likes. Especially in the area of hobbies.

If the covered functional scope does not meet your needs, you should pick another product, which suits you better. Sometimes people seem to think MS is obliged to build MSFS to suit their personal requirements.

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

Why do you assume, that the PBR layers can not be derived from orthos? I fact, as everything in MSFS is based on PBR, I am pretty sure, that MSFS already has generated PBR layers for the orthos. In MSFS, I can see the sun reflecting differently depending on the material it hits. Dirt is different than asphalt or water or still water or grass. AI done on the fly. Unbeatable.

Of course it is, those are part of a rendering pipe-line, the AI just helps with; "this is a road", "this is a field" etc... so that it fits, but from an otherwise low res texture, hence much less detail can be captured by the AI compared to what can be achieved.. let's say with a ZL50 (exaggerated by purpose,) ortho-imagery.  makes sense and obvious doesn't it?

now ZL50 ortho-imagery are not practical yet, and it still does not solve static shadows and wrong static lighting.

Both have ups and downs, but one approach will make sense to the eye and can be pushed to almost ortho-patterns (enjoying both worlds), while the other will always have immersion killer baked detail. 

A great example is water masking, where at lower altitudes water still looks good and gradually when getting close to terrain detail gets blurrier, this kind of scale shifts kills it.

 

Edited April 12, 20215 yr by akita

2 hours ago, akita said:

I think you are underestimating what GPUs are capable off.

I know full well what GPUs are capable of.  What it's possible I'm underestimating is your ability get them to magically generate a world from data that does not currently exist.  That is why I say it is not feasible at the moment.

 

2 hours ago, akita said:

for those you that are eager to miss the point.

I don't think anyone here is really missing the point.   I just think you came into this thread looking for a fight, for some reason, and you're determined to misconstrue everything everyone says to give you a strawman to sneer over.  I'm not feeding into it any further.

5 hours ago, OSM said:

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 is the Best Flight Simulator ever, with the most advanced Graphics and Physics!!! 😃👍

 

Who is making that PC6 ?