Here is a pic with full rendering options (note the 80+ fps shown in the corner)

Edited March 31, 20215 yr by Janov

I still doesn't look that great to be honest.

Finally got that screenshot to work...(above).

3 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

XP11 Chilliwack 

MSFS Chilliwack

 

I pick an airport that wasn't even really good in MSFS.  It's an airport close to where I I live, I have Ortho L17 everywhere in XP11, Airport HD addons , HD tree addons  etc....

 

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

Pure default CYCW

That 747 clearly looks out of place.

Looks like a low "number of world objects" setting (and not ortho).

LVL16 Ortho

I think you'll find the missing buildings to the right of the trees are caused by the airport exclusion zone extending out there but not actually adding the buildings back in.

EDIT:Yes

the green outline (airport boundary) in this should be much smaller

Edited March 31, 20215 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, Janov said:

instead of the intricacies of correct quoting

Sorry for this, it wasn't the intention at all. I've edited the post to make the point standing out (the question about collapsing quotes by default).

I just feel so terrible when I fire up XP11 and this is what I see.....

 

 

 

And.... Then.... there... is..... this.... @Janov, aren't you our resident EGLL wizard? You must be feeling pretty smug right now?

6 hours ago, mSparks said:

If this is what you are seeing, there is something wrong with your scenery_packs.ini order.

We already demonstrated XP community scenery is generally better than MSFS scenery in another thread.

vs

Trying to

Ref

I draw you attention to the distant object in the MSFS shot - and how the bridge looks more like a dam than a bridge

 

 

Back to this again?  MSFS NYC shot looks 100x better than the XP one... It actually looks like the photograph... XP11 looks like a generic approximation with 'similaresque' buildings.

Not the best example to hang your hat on.

XP has a ton of strengths over MSFS.  Your argument starts to look desperate, however if you make claims like this.

 

7 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

XP11 Chilliwack 

MSFS Chilliwack

 

I pick an airport that wasn't even really good in MSFS.  It's an airport close to where I I live, I have Ortho L17 everywhere in XP11, Airport HD addons , HD tree addons  etc....

Your screenshot of XP11 of Chiliwack did not look like it has Ortho L17 at all and looks like XP11 default to me, are you sure?

You can make XP11 look pretty good imo.  Currently MSFS is a stutter fest for me with anything but small GA and I think it will be at least a year before you can get this type of quality/immersion/smoothness.  When that happens no doubt I will be there because it's a beautiful sim.  Asobo have done an amazing job so far. 

I'm not sure how this will come across after YouTube compression but I didn't experience a single stutter or frame drop.  This is with a complex airliner, volumetric overcast, and ortho scenery (which you can't really see here but it's there) in a densely populated area.  

 

 

Just a lot of angry people, who havnt got the toys they wanted, wont matter how good it looks people will always complain because they can. You cannot please them and never will, It called Pride,

10 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

MSFS NYC shot looks 100x better than the XP one...

If it was anything other than flightsim I would agree, however in flight sim this difference matters - even more than how far the clouds extend

So if you want to make XP11 look as bad as MSFS, turn up reno/LOD_bias_rat from 1 to about 10 or 15. This is probably why ppl think MSFS has better frame rates, MSFS looks like its running at 1/10th of the quality compared to XP11 for anything far away (which is where you should be looking while flying an aircraft)

Edited April 1, 20215 yr by mSparks

I've been thinking a bit about what xplane might do with trees since they'll probably go for full meshes.

IMO it can happen even without deprecating the current .for; it already creates billboards, hence can be the furthest LOD. The issue of lighting can be fixed if the billboard can be subdivided a bit using a tessellation shader to break the flat surface, the near LOD will be a carefully good looking but also low poly trunk and branches. leaves will be individual *instanced* billboards that'll grow based on a mesh normals controlled by heigh and some Z axis randomness to avoid the trunk. This sounds scalable since it targets hardware instancing.

MSFS trees look nice in a picture but in motion they are much less impressive than what can already be done in modern hardware.

 

Edited April 1, 20215 yr by akita

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

If it was anything other than flightsim I would agree, however in flight sim this difference matters - even more than how far the clouds extend

So if you want to make XP11 look as bad as MSFS, turn up reno/LOD_bias_rat from 1 to about 10 or 15. This is probably why ppl think MSFS has better frame rates, MSFS looks like its running at 1/10th of the quality compared to XP11 for anything far away (which is where you should be looking while flying an aircraft)

Interesting debating technique.  I'll give you that.

First, crop out the part of the image that contested your first claim, then zoom into the rest to make a new claim that is in fact contrary to whats shown in the actual image.  You do realize that you can actually see farther in the top screen shot right?  The xp11 scenery stops well short of the northern tip of Manhattan, while the msfs one is showing buildings as far as Yonkers and well up into the Palisades on the left side of the frame.

Perhaps your XP dataref term works the opposite way - you meant you had to increase xp11's LOD falloff distance?

 

..

Regardless, as I keep saying I think xp is a great simulator, just want to be intellectually honest about the areas where it could still improve.  Since this forum is frequented by people who talk with LR on a regular basis, I still pop on this forum a keep up with the discussions.  Im hoping this all can eventually be seen as constructive criticism and not an aileron measuring contest.

31 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

First, crop out the part of the image that contested your first claim

Crop out what you cannot see from a cockpit, that place with the seat you sit in when you are flying an aircraft, I suppose though you might not be familiar with that concept, since no MSFS planes have working cockpits yet, and from those shots the scenery will look pretty terrible if you use it.

31 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

to make a new claim

Nope, you just chose to ignore it in the post you quoted

23 hours ago, mSparks said:

I draw you attention to the distant object in the MSFS shot - and how the bridge looks more like a dam than a bridge

And the EGLL shots shortly after and directly above your post.

31 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

you meant you had to increase xp11's LOD falloff distance?

LOD bias controls how quickly quality falls off with distance, 1 means no quality loss the further you get into the distance (vis falls with pixel density), 10 means falls off at 10 times the rate, I actually use 5 in VR because of the lower resolution in the headset, the performance gain and Ortho providing (just enough) detail to fly against a hand map in places you are unfamiliar with.

If you increased the XP LOD falloff to 10, those two would look rougly the same at a distance, - no buildings on the horizon, missing bridge, no discernible markers to determine location and direction, borken water that should be invisible/occluded. 

Edited April 1, 20215 yr by mSparks