Does MSFS do anything really well?

[bean_sprout 1,201]

1 minute ago, himmelhorse said:

I think we are all missing the point that the OP is having more fun stirring the pot than we are flying.  The more we respond, the greater his mirth.

Tony

It's kind of tiresome but fun at the same time.  lol

bs

[himmelhorse 1,276]

1 minute ago, bean_sprout said:

It's kind of tiresome but fun at the same time.  lol

I would add "Only for some" LOL

[Virtual-Chris 682]

Here's what I'm seeing... 

CYVR at night... There main North-South taxi way is completely unlit on the right (there are two vehicles on it in this shot).  There's a plane at the gate mid picture but you can't see it.  This is not realistic at all.

CYVR at night by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Here's another shot of the same area looking east.  Again, there's a plane at the gate mid-photo but good luck seeing it.

CYVR at night 2 by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Now Downtown Vancouver looks ok at altitude, but if you dare to look too close, you start to see to melted buildings, this is not uncommon with photogrammetry but unfortunately on my 75" 4K screen its more obvious than it might be for some others.

Downtown Vancouver by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Crop of mid-right of above photo...

Close up of mid-right by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

This is Long Beach on Vancouver Island, a National Park and one of the longest beaches in Canada ... covered in a 2d bush texture...

Long Beach by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Here's Chesterman Beach another beautiful beach on Vancouver Island that is covered in the same 2d texture... it should be sand

Chesterman Beach by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

All Marinas and even some land features I've seen look underwater.  Someone on the official forums suggested that they got sea level a bit too high. I would tend to agree. This is Tofino which has a very prominent pier several meter above sea level that vehicles can drive out onto.  It's completely submerged in the sim...

Underwater Pier by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Here's another Marina in Vancouver... (they all look similar)...

Sunken Ships by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Now here's what I tend to see on a lot of mountains... a giant smeared texture...

Smear Texture by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Other Mountains look OK, but hardly realistic.  These are the iconic Three Sisters in Canmore...  

Three Sisters by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Does it look anything like the real thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Virtual-Chris

[bean_sprout 1,201]

Beautiful shots - Thanks

bs

[RichUK 474]

Yeah. Screenshots look nice! If anyone doesn't like them they should install P3D!!

[dbw1 445]

8 hours ago, BusheFlyer said:

Elitist? Pilotage was taught to all students since before the war. Decades of accumulated aviation wisdom, that it was required that ALL pilots could draw upon to conduct safe and efficient flights. If today you are saying that it is 'Elitist' then I guess the warnings I heard many mention when GPS first appeared in the cockpit have come to pass.

Turn off GPS and your lost.. you don't know what your cross track wind component is, you have no idea what your ETA is at your next way point. All because the simple and basic skills to tell you all of this have been deferred to a shiny glass screen. Elitist... 

Furthermore, why are you even bothering to worry about flying RNAV approaches? Because it is self-evident that you have no understanding on what an RNAV approach actually is. Your plan is to select an RNAV approach from the shiny screen and hit APR on the autopilot.. and convince yourself you have just flown an RNAV approach? Congratulations..

Any of the default planes that are in any way IFR capable.. can fly a successful RNAV approach as it stands.. they have working NAV/DME do they not? You understand how to get a fix using those right? You can even use the autopilot to follow a heading, and v/s mode to follow your rule of three to minimums.

I am not espousing some elitist stuff. This is rudimentary knowledge that unless you understand how to do you have no business conducting RNAV approaches accept as a form of self-deceit that you can fly them. Sorry to be harsh, and yes this is just a simulator, but to hear the way you are complaining about the GPS and talking about RNAV approaches is ridiculous. Remember this, there are are entire generations of pilots who have crossed entire countries with pilotage, never once being lost, knowing this stuff wasn't the exception it was the rule..

Interesting talking about the new found almost total reliance on gps. A few years ago i retired from 40 years of a flying career that was more blue collar than white collar. Back in the 1970s potential forerunner to gps was called navstar and everyone thought it was just a wet dream. In the late 1990s I flew a beech 200 medivac machine based in the eastern Canadian arctic  and as backup to both traditional navigation and a "direct to" gps we had an astro compass on board and as captain I was trained on using it and looking back I was not too bad with the thing...fascinating way to navigate. The odd time a flight leg was 4+ hours so we'd get it up and kill time using it. A few years ago I found one for sale at a gun show so for $100 I bought it to sit in y den. Cool piece of history. When everything fails there's something to be said for being able to map read well...I was one of the few guys that had a paper set of WAC charts for my area.

[ShawnG 1,823]

@Virtual-Chris:

The default airport night lighting is horrendous, full stop.  fully agree.

as for Vancouver, here are the current best versions available in other sims, and keep in mind, these are not the default, which are much worse:

X-Plane 11

p3d

It might be helpful to know what your previous sims have been, and what your expectations are.  MSFS's depiction of the earth is a frigging miracle compared to what has come before, even through extensive payware, but that's not to say it's perfect.

also, a 75" 4k tv is part of your issue, if it's nearer your face than across the room.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

My CYVR at night.

 

1 hour ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Crop of mid-right of above photo...

Close up of mid-right by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

I'm not certain what you are trying to prove here. If the point is that you take a picture from beyond the range of an lod, and then blow up a portion of that picture to show it has not switched to a better texture yet...

What?

Do you fly with binoculars? 

If you legitimately want to show what the buildings look like up close.... Then you fly up close, instead of using a telephoto lens from beyond lod range! 🤨

1 hour ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Here's another Marina in Vancouver... (they all look similar)...

Sunken Ships by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

What you are showing are the limits of photogrammetry: sometimes better, sometimes worse. If the area is indeed such an eyesore for you, you could try turning off PG and flying in a world similar to Laminar's plausible cities.

 

Since it seems you are looking for perfection however, I don't think you would be satisfied with that, either.

The question then becomes: what sim out there do you believe does better, and thus meets your needs. I would like to take a look at it.

Edited October 9, 2020 by HiFlyer

[Virtual-Chris 682]

51 minutes ago, ShawnG said:

@Virtual-Chris:

The default airport night lighting is horrendous, full stop.  fully agree.

as for Vancouver, here are the current best versions available in other sims, and keep in mind, these are not the default, which are much worse:

X-Plane 11

p3d

It might be helpful to know what your previous sims have been, and what your expectations are.  MSFS's depiction of the earth is a frigging miracle compared to what has come before, even through extensive payware, but that's not to say it's perfect.

also, a 75" 4k tv is part of your issue, if it's nearer your face than across the room.

I’m not surprised that MSFS looks better than previous generation simulators. 

What I am disappointed with is that mods and add-ons are required for nearly every aspect. The volume of scenery and airport add ons, plane and avionics mods, and 3rd party apps for flight planning, weather mods, ATC apps, etc suggest that no part of the simulator is done to a very high standard. If it was, none of these add ons or mods would be necessary.  I even see recent complaints the flight log is broken. 

I realize it’s early days, and stuff will get better over time, but mostly at the hands of third parties. 

So my original question is still a worthy topic for discussion... What does MSFS do really well?

I gather that from everyone here, it does everything much better than its predecessors... but sadly nothing is above being modded to make it better. 

I think the person that suggested that MS/Asobo are really building a platform nailed what they should be doing well. But instead of a laser focus on that, they’re investing resources in regional scenery updates and now likely duplicating efforts on the avionics, and all the while, 3rd parties who are really making this sim something special are struggling with an incomplete API, poor documentation and a competing head developer. 

I think the weather and lighting are almost above modding, but even that has been shown to have options like tropical rainfall that are not accessible in-game, thus creating a mod opportunity there as well.

Microsoft and Osobo are doing lots of things well... Better than any previous sim. But doing nothing that is really to a high standard. They are the jack of all trades, master of none. I’d like to see them pick a couple of facets of the sim to really build to a level where mods are unnecessary or meaningless. I don’t care what those are, but pick something and stop trying to do everything to a mediocre level. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Virtual-Chris

[Noel 4,496]

I think the real problem must Vancouver-the rest of the world looks pretty good.  Maybe consider relocating here, to Rotenburg ob der Tauber near Munchen.  Here you can really feel like you're home when you fly around:

then head south to Fussen it's so lovely down there:

 

[Ricardo41 5,949]

1 hour ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Here's what I'm seeing... 

 

All Marinas and even some land features I've seen look underwater.  Someone on the official forums suggested that they got sea level a bit too high. I would tend to agree. This is Tofino which has a very prominent pier several meter above sea level that vehicles can drive out onto.  It's completely submerged in the sim...

Underwater Pier by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

 

Does it look anything like the real thing?

 

 

IMHO, most of these shots make the point exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say. Now make this last shot in P3D WITHOUT any addons. Photogrammetry has a long way to go, but it's THE FUTURE. Your screenshots more than demonstrate that. 

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

1 hour ago, dbw1 said:

Interesting talking about the new found almost total reliance on gps. A few years ago i retired from 40 years of a flying career that was more blue collar than white collar. Back in the 1970s potential forerunner to gps was called navstar and everyone thought it was just a wet dream. In the late 1990s I flew a beech 200 medivac machine based in the eastern Canadian arctic  and as backup to both traditional navigation and a "direct to" gps we had an astro compass on board and as captain I was trained on using it and looking back I was not too bad with the thing...fascinating way to navigate. The odd time a flight leg was 4+ hours so we'd get it up and kill time using it. A few years ago I found one for sale at a gun show so for $100 I bought it to sit in y den. Cool piece of history. When everything fails there's something to be said for being able to map read well...I was one of the few guys that had a paper set of WAC charts for my area.

A lot of aircraft in the 30s and 40s came with with a sextant 😄

 https://www.celestaire.com/product/a-12-sextant/

Some WWII bombers even had a dome in the roof for taking sextant readings.

If we ever lose our satellites we may be back to that as more and more VOR and DME beacons are being decommissioned as time goes on.

[ShawnG 1,823]

23 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

 

I gather that from everyone here, it does everything much better than its predecessors... but sadly nothing is above being modded to make it better. 

 

The world record for the 100 meter dash is 9.58 seconds, set by Usain Bolt.

people are still training and working towards beating that.  I'm sure that someone has identified flaws in Mr. Bolt's technique, physique and/or training regimen and will beat that time at some point.  However, until that day arrives, you wouldn't say that Usain bolt is a horrible runner that should've been working harder.

Nothing is EVER above being modded.  it is the nature of humanity, we want better, faster, stronger all the time.  at the same time, Usain Bolt doesn't and didn't spend his time going to high school track meets so that he can obliterate teenagers at their first meet.  And the teenagers don't all have aspirations to make it to the Olympics or to chase world records.  so Coach isn't going to go ballistic on little Johnny if he can't match the 9.58.  where am I going with this?  I kinda forgot, but I think here it is:  This needs to be a platform for the casual user as well as the hardcore aviation nerd.  If Asobo gives Jimmy Avsim what he wants, Freddy XBox is going to not try it. and since Asobo knows that Jimmy Avsim is used to being catered to by others, they will do the wide view basics, and not the gritty details.  Wide, because the 3PD's just can't do wide, and not Deep, because the 3PD's do Deep better.

The mods and add-ons exist to fulfil esoteric needs.  not everyone is offended by an imperfect version of Vancouver,  I, for example, don't care.  I've never been there, and I wouldn't know any of it is wrong to begin with.  You probably wouldn't notice little details that I do in Pennsylvania.   Likewise, not everybody needs or wants a perfectly simulated 737 where the cabin air conditioning settings have a measurable impact on the bleed air and electrical systems.  Not everybody needs or wants a 737 at all, or a GTN750, or realistic phraseology on the ATC.  Asobo cannot do all that, and be all things to all people.

[Virtual-Chris 682]

44 minutes ago, ShawnG said:

Asobo cannot do all that, and be all things to all people.

But I believe they are trying to be all things to all people.

It's a bit baffling to me that they are working on scenery upgrades a country at a time or now shifting focus to Avionics (which are already being modded by community developers).  Their release of Japan scenery upgrades, and now the USA, indicates they are not happy with the scenery rendering.  So why not work with the AI company or Bing to improve the engine or the data rather than hand-crafting a country at a time.  How old will we all be before they are done your fav country? That just won't scale.

Why not work on the engine? The flight models? The weather? The ATC? Something that everyone cares about, no matter what they fly or where they fly?  And make it the best it can be?

I think we're actually saying the same things, except you seem to be perfectly happy with the status quo and I'm not. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Virtual-Chris

[abrams_tank 7,397]

3 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Here's what I'm seeing... 

CYVR at night... There main North-South taxi way is completely unlit on the right (there are two vehicles on it in this shot).  There's a plane at the gate mid picture but you can't see it.  This is not realistic at all.

CYVR at night by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Here's another shot of the same area looking east.  Again, there's a plane at the gate mid-photo but good luck seeing it.

CYVR at night 2 by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Now Downtown Vancouver looks ok at altitude, but if you dare to look too close, you start to see to melted buildings, this is not uncommon with photogrammetry but unfortunately on my 75" 4K screen its more obvious than it might be for some others.

Downtown Vancouver by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Crop of mid-right of above photo...

Close up of mid-right by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

This is Long Beach on Vancouver Island, a National Park and one of the longest beaches in Canada ... covered in a 2d bush texture...

Long Beach by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Here's Chesterman Beach another beautiful beach on Vancouver Island that is covered in the same 2d texture... it should be sand

Chesterman Beach by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

All Marinas and even some land features I've seen look underwater.  Someone on the official forums suggested that they got sea level a bit too high. I would tend to agree. This is Tofino which has a very prominent pier several meter above sea level that vehicles can drive out onto.  It's completely submerged in the sim...

Underwater Pier by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Here's another Marina in Vancouver... (they all look similar)...

Sunken Ships by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Now here's what I tend to see on a lot of mountains... a giant smeared texture...

Smear Texture by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Other Mountains look OK, but hardly realistic.  These are the iconic Three Sisters in Canmore...  

Three Sisters by Virtual-Chris (Junk Photos), on Flickr

Does it look anything like the real thing?

 

 

I don't get the the severe melted buildings that you get for downtown Vancouver up close.  And I have flown through downtown Vancouver multiple times up close, even closer than the picture you posted, and the buildings for me in downtown Vancouver look way, way better than your picture.

My guess is there is something with your internet connection that is preventing MSFS from downloading the data quickly enough so that's why you get the melted building look.  You may consider using manual cache, and saving downtown Vancouver in high detail as manual cache.

If your internet connection is causing you to get the melted building looks for downtown Vancouver, I wouldn't be surprised that's also why you get bad textures for the mountains.

Edited October 9, 2020 by abrams_tank