Just phenomenal......

[buzzbee 53]

30 minutes ago, Gary1124 said:

Is Rob Youngs turbo normalized Bonanza available in FSX? I have Carenados F33.

I don't believe it is.  It is a project he has worked on for FS 2020 as I understand.  

[CFIJose 5,485]

35 minutes ago, Gary1124 said:

Is Rob Youngs turbo normalized Bonanza available in FSX? I have Carenados F33.

Negative.

[cobalt 798]

On 11/21/2020 at 2:51 AM, mtaxp said:

Dont want to escalate this thread as some gentle hearted might escalate that.

But there is a little fictional in x-plane 11 world which uses real data with mixed sources.

I navigate in vfr in x-plane, even without orthos, recreating real flights in a region that never gets much love out of the box (middle east); all the streets and network are there, including obstacles, water bodies, mountatins forests etc... Also checked shapes of cities and villages, x-plane does that in a good manner, even building heights data. This is what i care for in vfr and it's mostly not "this is my house and it should have a red roof not black"

Is it perfect? Hell no, data can be inconsistent, the fact the x-plane art assests are very old doea not help, but i can give you many areas where msfs so called 100% real scenery fall apart completely (starting with my home region). As for orthos im not gonna comment as my views might be already known.

 

If you are seeing accurate real-life placement of buildings in X-plane, it must be in a hand-crafted region. In general, for most of the globe, the only way to have that kind of accuracy is via satellite imagery, which X-plane and FSX do not have. I have read in this and other forums, posts from X-planers who have switched to MSFS, but if you are happy with X-plane that's all that matters.

[mtaxp 666]

4 hours ago, cobalt said:

If you are seeing accurate real-life placement of buildings in X-plane, it must be in a hand-crafted region. In general, for most of the globe, the only way to have that kind of accuracy is via satellite imagery, which X-plane and FSX do not have. I have read in this and other forums, posts from X-planers who have switched to MSFS, but if you are happy with X-plane that's all that matters.

Im talking about default scenery. I fly the same routes in x-plane as real life, obstacles are placed accuratly, just as forests, faemlands, lakes etc.. so what matters for vfr is there and accurate, it's a merge from osm and other sources. 

Buildings are autogen but also use various datas including height.

Terrain graphics looked like *rap, but literaly anything i needed to create my real vfr flight was there.

The problem is outdated art assets and terrain texturing so it lacks a "wow" effect out of the box.

I do agree though msfs can seem more real life due to imagery and photogrametry though it takes out any kind of dynamic materialized world, it makes a good picture but does not make sense to me in real time simulations. Actually, I love msfs more when it falls back to autogen, the models look much better even when close, but those nasty orthos i just can't stand. 

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by mtaxp

[767lover 285]

What I love most aside the beautiful scenery and lighting,is the sense of depth and height! 

[cobalt 798]

4 hours ago, mtaxp said:

Im talking about default scenery. I fly the same routes in x-plane as real life, obstacles are placed accuratly, just as forests, faemlands, lakes etc.. so what matters for vfr is there and accurate, it's a merge from osm and other sources. 

Buildings are autogen but also use various datas including height.

Terrain graphics looked like *rap, but literaly anything i needed to create my real vfr flight was there.

 

Sorry, but if by "accurate placing" you mean that individual streets and buildings in X-plane are located exactly where they are in the real world, with the same footprints, that is just not the case in general. Even in Ultimate Terrain and ORBX landclass, the differentiation between urban, suburban, and rural areas is only approximate. In FSX and X-plane, which lack satellite data, the placement of 3D objects -- buildings and other structures -- in their precise real-world locations must be done "by hand", and to do this for the entire globe is impossible. From what I have read, even main-frame computers could not accommodate the massive data base that would result; in MSFS this problem is overcome by satellite streaming of data as needed for particular areas. Even if you are under the impression that your X-plane scenery is accurate for some locations (you don't specify where), this cannot be extrapolated to the world as a whole. 

[Ricardo41 5,955]

The term "eye candy" is misleading and inaccurate. In MSFS you can fly through a living and breathing world that gives you a sense of "being there".

And you can do all this without having to pay an addon developer $50 for a few "landmarks"

MSFS is the most immersive flight simulation platform ever built.

[tweekz 2,165]

I know right. I don't have lot of time for simming right now and thus I appreciate it even more to have a sim I can hop into, without configuring and spending hours to improve. Yeah, there could be more accurate planes, but that'll come.

[mtaxp 666]

9 hours ago, cobalt said:

Sorry, but if by "accurate placing" you mean that individual streets and buildings in X-plane are located exactly where they are in the real world, with the same footprints, that is just not the case in general. Even in Ultimate Terrain and ORBX landclass, the differentiation between urban, suburban, and rural areas is only approximate. In FSX and X-plane, which lack satellite data, the placement of 3D objects -- buildings and other structures -- in their precise real-world locations must be done "by hand", and to do this for the entire globe is impossible. From what I have read, even main-frame computers could not accommodate the massive data base that would result; in MSFS this problem is overcome by satellite streaming of data as needed for particular areas. Even if you are under the impression that your X-plane scenery is accurate for some locations (you don't specify where), this cannot be extrapolated to the world as a whole. 

LLHA->LLIB. Take off rw16, had to dodge the #22 bridge and it's light poles just after, then 2 chimneys (in real life today its 1 as the other collapsed), then had to find "afek" which was placed where it should be, from there pass between 2 arab towns to find a junction, which was there too, then to sea of galile, even the default runway slope looked like in real life in LLIB.

Did it in msfs and x-plane, both were wrong at placing 2 high rise buildings instead of the chimneys.

Eye candy in msfs was much better obviously, and imagery ground textures although very low res but they did give a realistic feeling.

Streets are accurate in x-plane including footprints but not smooth due to limited mesh triangle in default, with higher res mesh/tessellation it'll look better.

So as i said, both are not 100% accurate, but they do the job out of the box when it comes to vfr navigation. 

Buildings dont use real footprints but if you get other data right lije infrastructure of a town/city, buildings height maps, then you can fill the gaps according to it. so it is mostly accurate, but can fail in placing stuff like barns, this should and can be improved. If you take a shapefile of a location and then compare you'll find the "plausible" scenery mostly accurate, but lacks the art assets to depict them (aka regional autogen and textures)

Also one need to note when comparing when was the scenery cut, unfortunatly x-plane default re-cuts did not happen for a while, msfs has the advantage of fast world updates.

Edited November 23, 2020 by mtaxp

[leprechaunlive 1,859]

10 hours ago, cobalt said:

Sorry, but if by "accurate placing" you mean that individual streets and buildings in X-plane are located exactly where they are in the real world, with the same footprints, that is just not the case in general. Even in Ultimate Terrain and ORBX landclass, the differentiation between urban, suburban, and rural areas is only approximate. In FSX and X-plane, which lack satellite data, the placement of 3D objects -- buildings and other structures -- in their precise real-world locations must be done "by hand", and to do this for the entire globe is impossible. From what I have read, even main-frame computers could not accommodate the massive data base that would result; in MSFS this problem is overcome by satellite streaming of data as needed for particular areas. Even if you are under the impression that your X-plane scenery is accurate for some locations (you don't specify where), this cannot be extrapolated to the world as a whole. 

To be honest XP11 with Ortho4Xp and the layers of OSM data for the autogen looked pretty amazing. 

[Gary1124 181]

On 11/21/2020 at 3:41 AM, buzzbee said:

I am enjoying the sim as well.  Long time Flight Sim enthusiast.  If you enjoy the TBM, try Rob Young's turbo normalized Bonanza mod.  Rob Young made some adjustments to the flight model and I find it fly's a lot more like a real aircraft.  Not as twitchy and with better response to control inputs. 

The product does have bugs and requires further development, but it is still early days.  I am hopeful that we will get those accusim models and impressive system simulations from the heavy developers. 

 

Is Rob Youngs turbo normalized Bonanza available in FSX? I have Carenados F33.

[Gary1124 181]

I had been out of simming for nearly 15 years. From early 2006, just before FSX launched until late June 2020. X-plane needed more PC out of the box than my budget and P3D had me concerned by the licensing regime. Everything I had seen of FSX looked to me like it was better than 2004 but at the same time familiar. I also read the projected requirements for MSFS 2020 and as with X-plane left me a couple hundred short in my PC budget. So I got a Ryzin 5 with 8 gigs at 3000 mhz, RX 580 with 8 gigs, and a 250 gig SSD and 2TB SATA. Made my choice because more ram and a better GPU later would but me up to grade and in the short term I'm flying for less $$$ with a system that kills FSX maxed.

[cobalt 798]

8 hours ago, leprechaunlive said:

To be honest XP11 with Ortho4Xp and the layers of OSM data for the autogen looked pretty amazing. 

For years I felt exactly the same way about FSX augmented with Ultimate Terrain, until MSFS came along and I was blown away by the realism. In FSX my home city looks nice from a distance, but the buildings do not resemble the real ones, either in appearance or location; nor are the streets correctly located. MSFS fixes that, for my home area and for most of the world. But in the end we do what suits us best individually, of course. So if you are content with XP-11, I say happy simming!

[DAD 2,653]

11 hours ago, tweekz said:

I know right. I don't have lot of time for simming right now and thus I appreciate it even more to have a sim I can hop into, without configuring and spending hours to improve. Yeah, there could be more accurate planes, but that'll come.

Pretty much same here though nowadays home office allows me to do calls, work on emails and even run a webex meeting while flying msfs alongside (try to avoid loud engine sounds then though once ATC chimed in causing some irritation to some on my call). Compared to the last years when I basically quit fsx due to too much time in the office, traveling during the week and spending time with family and kids on the weekends I now have ample time to fly during office hours. Much appreciated and a positive note during crazy Covid times. The TBM works like a charme, on a flight today from EDXW to EKCH after sunset I even realized that the MFD showed the actual map from *outside* the aircraft when I coincidentally zoomed in to look at the instruments from outside view. Amazing!!

[leprechaunlive 1,859]

42 minutes ago, cobalt said:

For years I felt exactly the same way about FSX augmented with Ultimate Terrain, until MSFS came along and I was blown away by the realism. In FSX my home city looks nice from a distance, but the buildings do not resemble the real ones, either in appearance or location; nor are the streets correctly located. MSFS fixes that, for my home area and for most of the world. But in the end we do what suits us best individually, of course. So if you are content with XP-11, I say happy simming!

Oh dont worry, i have MSFS since day one and will never EVER go back to anything else now 😄 but a good moded XP11 with Ortho sceneries was my forst taste at true VFR frying. But now msfs does it out of the box so its the obvious choice for me.