16 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

Doering,

I have to say I love this sim, but I only fly in OZ and the accuracy is far from reality.  I have tried (as everyone has) to find three houses I lived in in Queensland and they do not exist.  YBBN has gate 80 (international - close to the threshold RW01) at the opposite end of the airport and MSFS has it at the opposite end - close to the threshold of RW19 where the GA parking is normally located. FS2004 FSX P3D and XPlane all have Gate 80 near RW01. Having said that, YBBN is the airport I am most familiar with due to use with the other sims.  YBCS contains many generic buildings and so does YBTL. I am hoping to still be alive when they do a world update for Australia and hopefully that will improve the accuracy.

Small price to pay considering what we have had in the past as default.  For now and for me, scenery is very very pretty but not accurate where I am flying.

Regards

Tony

Hi Tony aka himmelhorse,

Let me qualify the accuracy in relation to VFR flying. In terms of ground elevation, position of lakes and rivers, small towns, major buildings etc I consider the sim to be pretty darn accurate. Agree that some smaller buildings and houses are not present or quite right. Understand that yes, the gates may be wrong and this would be frustrating for setting up a flight or wanting to finish a flight at a particular gate. However, for a VFR flight, the RWYs and taxiways have been all spot on in location for me (have noticed some taxiways are incorrectly marked when compared to ForeFlight). But to get from one airport to another by VFR, there is certainly enough detail in the landscape to accomplish this and ForeFlight backs the accuracy up. Just uploaded a new vid (landing at Courchevel) where I set up a flight path in ForeFlight and flew the course (after the RNAV portion) in the sim following ForeFlight on my iPad. The exactness of the ground elevation and details of the mountains between the sim and ForeFlight is incredible! If you care to have a look at the VFR portion in this 50 minute complete flight video, jump ahead to about the 41 minute mark. Compare the ForeFlight synthetic vision with the G3000 display in the TBM.

Blue skies!

 

Edited October 21, 20205 yr by Doering

2 hours ago, Doering said:

Compare the ForeFlight synthetic vision with the G3000 display in the TBM.

Love the Tangerine Dream soundtrack.   Why do I now want to make love on a "real train"?   😜

Edited October 21, 20205 yr by wthomas33065

19 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

I have to say I love this sim, but I only fly in OZ and the accuracy is far from reality.  I have tried (as everyone has) to find three houses I lived in in Queensland and they do not exist.  YBBN has gate 80 (international - close to the threshold RW01) at the opposite end of the airport and MSFS has it at the opposite end - close to the threshold of RW19 where the GA parking is normally located.

There are definitely several parts of the world that could do with some extra attention, but after the Japan update I'm confident that either Asobo or 3PDs will get to them eventually.

But just to add a bit of perspective about scenery accuracy, it wasn't too long ago that XPlane was missing whole lakes from its Australia scenery.

3 hours ago, Doering said:

Let me qualify the accuracy in relation to VFR flying. In terms of ground elevation, position of lakes and rivers, small towns, major buildings etc I consider the sim to be pretty darn accurate. Agree that some smaller buildings and houses are not present or quite right. Understand that yes, the gates may be wrong and this would be frustrating for setting up a flight or wanting to finish a flight at a particular gate. However, for a VFR flight, the RWYs and taxiways have been all spot on in location for me (have noticed some taxiways are incorrectly marked when compared to ForeFlight).

Doering,

In  essence mate, I may have phrased my response somewhat badly.  By saying that these are areas I am familiar with, I am stating this in very broard terms.  All my flights out of YBBN for instance, were done as a passenger in an airliner, so the VFR aspects are well beyond me in terms of reality.  I am really basing my statements on the flight sim platforms before MSFS.  They actually, and collectively agreed pretty much with each other, and then along comes MSFS with different gates etc.  I also lived on Magnetic Island and returned there a few times in the last couple of years. I can tell you that basic shapes of the Island are similar but the rest is almost totally inaccurate to the point where I could not find any homes that I recognised and I do know that the house I grew up in still exists. 

There is no way I can compare the rest of the country with the real and actual scenery, but it is different in comparison to the older platforms, ie vastly prettier. Also, getting back to YBBN, there is now a second parallel runway which does not show in the sim.  I only mention this, because as a new simulator, I would have thought that, at the very least, if not up to the minute accurate, the construction work has been in progress for about three-four years and there is no sign of that either.  P3Dv5 with AUv2 is even worse so, I have no real basis for complaint.

As I said earlier, these are not deal breakers for me in any way. It would be nice to recognise something in MSFS but it is certainly a long way better than any of the other platforms in terms of default scenery, so I am not complaining,  I am simply making a statement with no malice  LOL

Loved your video, and looked at Foreflight, but it is way, way, too expensive for me unfortunately, particularly when I do not really have a problem with the G3000 anyway and, it is being upgraded (a work in progress, but looking seriously good) by  the WorkingTitle Team.    

Thanks for your input matey, 

Regards

Tony

 

Scotchegg,

Yes mate I agree totally with you.

As I said, and will keep saying, there is no default scenery that compares even remotely with MSFS. Like you I have high hopes for the world updates and, in addition, the prolific 3PDs for this platform.

With Sydney and Melbourne getting some love already, I can only hope that Australia will not suffer the lack of developers love demonstrated in all the other platforms. Please exclude Aussiex, OZx Orbx and lately, another developer who did YPPH for us.

Cheers mate

Tony  

Here over PA, USA I can fly I.F.R. I Follow Roads in FSX with UT NA. I am looking forward to the same only better with MSFS.

3 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

I can only hope that Australia will not suffer the lack of developers love demonstrated in all the other platforms. Please exclude Aussiex, OZx Orbx and lately, another developer who did YPPH for us.

Definitely. I guess in some ways the drive for realistic scenery started with OZx and then Orbx in the FSX days and although I've never been there in real life, Orbx regional scenery for Australia showed me what a fascinating and diverse country it must be to fly over. I'm really hoping Asobo can make a similar level of improvement to it that they have with Japan.

Scotchegg,

Yep that has always been my pet gripe.  Sitting back and watching almost every other country getting new sceneries on a daily basis whilst we have been basically restricted to ORBX for anything over P3Dv4. Even Xplane has only 1 scenery for AUS and that is Broome ... why Broome? It cannot be considered as anything but a regional airport for a tourist playground.  Go figure.

OZ indeed is an incredibly diverse country (scenery included) and whilst it may not be the prettiest place in the world, it does have some great scenery (generally not depicted) to fly over. 

Even though, I am just a visitor these days as I now live in Indonesia (another neglected scenery area) I certainly visit at least once a year and generally go to Western Australia or to North Queensland. At the very least, it is a refreshing change.

Thanks for your comments mate

Tony

 

On 10/20/2020 at 10:35 PM, himmelhorse said:

I have to say I love this sim, but I only fly in OZ and the accuracy is far from reality.

I guess the operative term here is accuracy, and how do you define it.

I live in a Photogrammetric area, so excluding known issues with Photogrammetry (melted trees, malformed bushes) The area where I live is eerily accurate.  To the point that I can identify Walmart's and Home Depots and other major shopping stores based on signage on the building.

I have several family members that don't live in such areas and still I can make out their house because there is a house where there house is.  It's autogen.  so the color is wrong, and in the case of my daughter, it is only a one story house when her's is a two.  But from 1000 feet up, there is a house exactly where I expect her house to be.  And more importantly, I can navigate to the houses because the bowling alley building is there (at least it's shape), And the building groupings on Main Street are accurate.  As well as the building we ate breakfast in, although it's a house in MSFS (in real life it's an extension of a house, so I can't blame them for that).   The point is, the buidlings, streets and rivers all seem to be where they should be.  

I don't know the level of detail of satellite coverage in OZ, nor do I know how much of the continent has it, but I have found that where there is adequate satellite imagry, the autogen is extremely spot on.  The buildings are roughly the size and shape of their real life counterpart, only with different textures.   Sure, autogen can get fooled by Stadiums, or will sometime turn oil tanks into round buildings and Washington monuments into narrow skyscrapers.  But other than that, I find it very accurate as far as object placement, size and shape.  

Now Gate Placement and runway placement for airports is another matter, and I get your criticism there.  But as far as I've found, if there is satellite imagery for an area, is available, MSFS does a pretty good job at placing appropriate autogen of shape and size so that you can easily distinguish, industrial, commercial and residential area.  Something that FSX autogen could never dream of doing

wthomas33065,

Mate, I just want to make one thing specifically clear.  I cannot vouch for the locations of Walmart or Home Depots in Australia, because they are simply not here.  I was referring very specifically to OZ scenery.  It is also not about how I define accuracy either.

I suspect that if satellite imagery does not show construction of the new Brisbane runway, and that MSFS is showing the latest data, then it has been at least three to four years since we were blessed with a visit from any satellite other than surveillance ones (LOL) THAT is the point I am trying to make here.  I am NOT whinging about MSFS in any way .... I am very happy with it even in its current form and limitations.

Someone else has mentioned that coverage of Australian scenery by satellite is light by any standards and non-existent in others. I cannot argue for or against that because I simply do not have that knowledge.

I also would like to point out that I am not being critical of your response either.  It makes a lot of sense ie if recent satellite coverage is available, I believe that the level of accuracy and quality of scenery is very good. Most of OZ does not appear to fall into that happy category, and, until it does, OZ scenery is very pretty but not really accurate as I have said before. It may well come in a future "world update" and I remain hopeful.   

I appreciate your response though.

Tony

 

50 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

wthomas33065,

Mate, I just want to make one thing specifically clear.  I cannot vouch for the locations of Walmart or Home Depots in Australia, because they are simply not here.  I was referring very specifically to OZ scenery.  It is also not about how I define accuracy either.

 

In the very few 3D cities like Newcastle in NSW you can actually see specific stores like Bunnngs.

But as you say that is not the point.  Most of NSW is in severe drought in game even though that drought finished several years ago,

14 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

Love the Tangerine Dream soundtrack.   Why do I now want to make love on a "real train"?   😜

Yes, that was a no-brainer theme song when choosing music for the video! Flashbacks of that scene in Risky Business too! 😊

MSFS is still very clearly a work-in-progress in some ways, and it can be frustrating to not have access to things like a tubeliner that doesn't have some...uh... "personality quirks", like an AP that tries to murder you sometimes.

With that said, I've still spent 90% of my time in this sim, enjoying flying in a way I haven't really experienced in other sims, and am gladly going along for the ride to "software maturity".  It's fun to be on the ground floor of something big and new, and seeing how it develops.

Everyone wants Asobo to step on the gas and fix/improve everything, which is understandable as we paid for a product not a project - but I also think this impatience is at least in part fueled by the fact that we can all see the incredible promise here, and we want to clear away the debris obscuring it from view sometimes.

I totally understand anyone who wants to wait awhile for the kinks to get worked out, and for their add-ons of choice to arrive.  The only thing that wearies me are the closed-minded people who are more desperate to write the entire thing off because they need to re-assure themselves that it's no threat to their platform of choice.

Edited October 22, 20205 yr by Scottoest

37 minutes ago, Doering said:

Yes, that was a no-brainer theme song when choosing music for the video! Flashbacks of that scene in Risky Business too! 😊

The Train scene

I should probably have waited for “maturity” but I couldn’t force myself to do it. I love the VFR scenery but it makes me miss my helicopters bad. I fly the smaller planes but not for long. Just can’t get beyond my rotor-head roots.

that being said. It’s on me. I knew they weren’t there when I purchased. I really like the scenery but wonder if it wouldn’t be a little better to back off the auto gen stuff a little and let the satellite rendering do more of the work. It was actually a little easier for me to fly VFR in fsx with  Mega scenery earth. Even though I know that some of the auto generated scenery is incorrect, it looks so real that it makes up for it.

At the end of the day, I’m glad I got it when I did. It’s flaming awesome. Looks like I may get my heli next summer.