6 minutes ago, Greazer said:

X Plane will never have graphics like that out of the box, not in 5 years, not in 10 years. Never.  LR developers can only dream it.

And you know what. some of us dont care, I dont even  have ortho, if i wanted scenery like that ill go buy a real plane and fly in the real world, I could say I have never met such an unhappy man but I have, you dont have shares in MS do you.

23 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make? 

you said it couldnt do more than 18fps

while in fact that shot you posted is half the framerate of XP1150

51 fps in 2D means it is incapable of VR

I can never go back to 2D no matter how lovely a 2D slideshow it is.

Oh, and those stutters in the msfs video will give you a smashing headache if you tried after just a few minutes. (already documented)

 

Edited January 25, 20215 yr by mSparks

20 minutes ago, Greazer said:

X Plane will never have graphics like that out of the box, not in 5 years, not in 10 years. Never.  LR developers can only dream it.

And VOILA...Congratulations Greazer for perpetuating the MSFS vs X-Plane debate (a pointless one at that)...yet AGAIN.  

26 minutes ago, Greazer said:

X Plane will never have graphics like that out of the box, not in 5 years, not in 10 years. Never.  LR developers can only dream it.

As explained above, since LR is not Google or Microsoft, having that kind of streamed photogrammetry scenery is not, and will probably not be in reach of their resources.

So, once that has been established, what are you doing here, again? Blathering: "You can't have what I have!" shows the emotional maturity of a 5 year old person.

It's like me going in the MFS forums and saying: "Your flight model sucks! It's 10 years behind compared to XP". It would be true, but what would be the point of doing that?

 

27 minutes ago, mSparks said:

you said it couldnt do more than 18fps

while in fact that shot you posted is half the framerate of XP1150

51 fps in 2D means it is incapable of VR

I can never go back to 2D no matter how lovely a 2D slideshow it is.

Oh, and those stutters in the msfs video will give you a smashing headache if you tried after just a few minutes. (already documented)

 

It couldnt do more than 18fps in VR when I turned on shadows. reflections, used more sophisticated scenery.. basically the things that your xplane images would need to do to even come 'close' to the image from MSFS I showed you.

The image I'm showing is full Ultra with everything.  I can drop it all to low and get above 100fps, but whats the point of that?

 

As for VR, thats a personal preference.  I'm using (and Loving MSFS VR) with WMS with motion reprojection and getting between 30-40fps with all settings at high (and a few at ultra).  For a flightsim 30fps is plenty for vr for me.  Liquid smooth and visually stunning.  Totally different need than a first person shooter.

You might have a lower tolerance and need 60-90fps for vr, which is fine.  That's not my issue.  I do take issue, however, when you put forth those xplane screenshots and imply that "nothing needs to be done" .. that somehow those are good enough and no one should aspire to more.  If my only goal was fps then, sure I can lower all the MSFS setting to the bare minimum (it would STILL look better than the xplane example you're giving, btw).. and I'd have an fps match.  But to me thats a total waste.  I would rather push the rig to give me everything it can at 30fps and enjoy a better representation of the world.

As I said.. to each their own.   Just trying to keep it intellectually honest.

In wars men drop mines and wait for people to tread on them. .i see that going on here

22 minutes ago, Murmur said:

It's like me going in the MFS forums and saying: "Your flight model sucks! It's 10 years behind compared to XP". It would be true, but what would be the point of doing that?

There's a death wish, if I ever saw one!  😄

Edited January 25, 20215 yr by GoranM

15 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

 

Just trying to keep it intellectually honest.

OK, so NYC was your call, XP (no payware) achieves

Trying to do

At around 60-120fps (depending if view distance is limited for VR)

Perhaps you could do the MSFS version of the same thing so I can understand why everyone is so excited. Because to me XP11 is fine and any further detail isn't worth losing VR.

 

Edited January 25, 20215 yr by mSparks

57 minutes ago, mSparks said:

OK, so NYC was your call, XP achieves

Trying to do

At around 60-120fps (depending if view distance is limited for VR)

Perhaps you could do the MSFS version of the same thing so I can understand why everyone is so excited. Because to me XP11 is fine and any further detail isn't worth losing VR.

 

Here you are:

 

And here is my monitor with VR running.  You'll notice that the frame rate does NOT cut in half.  I'm still getting 30fps with Motion Re-projection with is super smooth in VR... and looks amazing to me..  When I tilt down from this view I can see the Macy's sign on the flagship Macy's on 35th street that I used to live next to .. which for trivia buffs was the building used for the fictional "Gimbles" department store in the movie "Elf"... sorry but I digress 😉

 

 

 

Ultimately.. if the image of NYC from X-plane works for you then great!  And you can probably get good fps from a more modest machine in that case.  But I really think I'm getting a heck of a lot more out of the same hardware with MSFS.

My opinion of course, but shared by at least a few of us, and the reason we're willing to work around the odd page or two that's missing from the Garmin 1000

We're going around in circles here.  The fact is, for every positive someone can point out in MSFS, I (and I assume many others) can point out 5 negatives.  

And maybe for every positive I can point out in X-Plane, many people can point out several negatives.  

But this is where those positives and negatives are....MSFS has the scenery and lighting engine.  Outstanding graphics.  Some of the AI generated scenery is questionable, but overall, it looks great.  And that's where the positives end.  The flight model and several systems are completely off (Since when does a turboprop INCREASE torque as it gains altitude like it does in MSFS???)

This same debate can rage on in the Windows vs Mac vs Linux camps.  Ford vs Chevy.  Ferrari vs Lambourghini.

Why are there always a select few people who feel the need to keep coming in here and talk about how bad X-Plane is...FOR THEM?  I wish I knew.  Why does it bother them that X-Plane has an audience that actually prefers X-Plane over MSFS??  I wish I knew.  All I know is, personally, because of all this X-Plane bashing/MSFS praising, is I am so completely and utterly turned off MSFS, that I wouldn't even shell out the dollar/mth to even try it.  And only because it's now psychologically linked to the people who keep bashing X-Plane.

Edited January 26, 20215 yr by GoranM

35 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Here you are:

 

 

Looks nice

doesnt look any more realistic tbh, in fact probably less like the photo than XP wouldnt you agree? - I can also see now what they've done, there is basically no definition to any buildings more than about 2 miles away, really aggressive LOD, if I go that low setting I get high triple digit fps, although I wouldnt be surprised if the next version of XP uses similar tech to make it similarly less obvious.

35 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

You'll notice that the frame rate does NOT cut in half.  I'm still getting 30fps

And I'm getting 60fps (when not screen recording), 30fps motion smoothed is not recommended.

One way or another there simply isn't a huge gap in the graphics and this shows its wrong to say there is, XP still needs some perf issues sorted here and there (even LR have acknowledged they expect to get more out of it -  https://developer.x-plane.com/2020/11/stuff-we-are-working-on/ )(FAA regulations require it to not drop below 60fps aiui - I do at least and there is still places they do when it shouldnt)

 

Edited January 26, 20215 yr by mSparks

35 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Looks nice

doesnt look any more realistic tbh, in fact probably less like the photo than XP wouldnt you agree? - I can also see now what they've done, there is basically no definition to any buildings more than about 2 miles away, really aggressive LOD, if I go that low setting I get high triple digit fps, although I wouldnt be surprised if the next version of XP uses similar tech to make it similarly less obvious.

And I'm getting 60fps (when not screen recording), 30fps motion smoothed is not recommended.

Really?  If the xplane image looks more like a photo to you, then theres not much more to say 😉

... interesting...

Quote

One way or another there simply isn't a huge gap in the graphics and this shows its wrong to say there is, XP still needs some perf issues sorted here and there (even LR have acknowledged they expect to get more out of it -  https://developer.x-plane.com/2020/11/stuff-we-are-working-on/ )(FAA regulations require it to not drop below 60fps aiui - I do at least and there is still places they do when it shouldnt)

 

 

 

And I also disagree that 30fps is insufficient for VR.   Even though I could only muster about 20-29fps in a lot of places in xplane, with AWS in Occulus Tray tool and 3jfps (I think thats what it was called), I was able to get a smooth enough experience that was great until a better alternative came along.  And nothing beats flying helicopters that way!  

Again, always a matter of opinion.  Contrary to GoranM's post, I'm not here to disparage x-plane.. its a great piece of software and I really enjoyed it for several years.  I was merely commenting on a claim that xplane's performance was better.  Havent seen an apples to apples comparison that shows that yet.  Disparagement goes both way of course... hyperbolic criticism of the comparison between flight models and avionics arent exactly hard to find in these forums.  I was reading a post on another website where someone actually complained about having the option for tooltips in the cockpit as a negative.  At that stage you're just fishing for things to complain about...

Anyway, said what I wanted to say.  Both sims are awesome!  I think back to what I dreamed about with FSII on a Commodore 64 and these all look like "first world" problems to me 😉

 

2 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

If the xplane image looks more like a photo to you, then theres not much more to say

Have you done any actual VFR navigation in MSFS yet? - no moving map, no GPS, no pulling over to ask for directions, only headings, air speed and time to judge where you are (I've probably spent more time in XP practising this than anything else).

Because if you had you might have noticed how bad the MSFS view at a distance is.

Yes I do think xp11 looks more like the one in the middle.

This, btw, is the other reason the missing VORs and NDBs are such a big deal, because they are typically the visual reference points used in cross country navigation and VFR airport approaches and departures.

Edited January 26, 20215 yr by mSparks

5 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

Contrary to GoranM's post, I'm not here to disparage x-plane

Text can be interpreted differently by various party's...most of the time.  However, my main point here is this...and I've said it before...there are always some people who continue to come in here to bash X-Plane.  They constantly need reminding that this is an X-Plane forum for X-Plane enthusiasts.  Criticisms are fine.  Progress can't be made without them.  But when SOME people (names withheld) come in here, bashing X-Plane, WITHOUT providing evidence of the problems they are experiencing, or without providing LOG FILES, which contains a plethora of information, then the "troll" flag rises high and mighty.  

Edited January 26, 20215 yr by GoranM

6 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

Here you are:

 

 

visually, the only difference between your shots is lighting.

msfs suffers from obvious mesh artifacts due to photogrammetry, look at the roofs, bridges and anything which a non "normal" building,  if you go down to street level it'll look horrible compared to xplane scenery system.