1 minute ago, fogboundturtle said:

sure you can do some photoshop afterward and make it look better but it's not how it looks when I fly. I was not trying to make one look worse than the other. I hope this is clear

You are aware that this is just like a "my sim is better looking than yours" thread? 😀

If it is not, it turned into that because that's usually what happens with these types of threads.

18 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Do you honestly think that the 172 in XP flies like a real 172???

I'm not a pilot, however I'm a biology major who loves aviation, so I am taking aerodynamics courses as well. I will also start doing double major with aerodynamics next semester. Mathematically speaking, X-Plane's approach to flight modelling is more "physical", so in theory it should be more accurate, at least below Mach 0.7 where compressible flow effects can be accurately approximated. MSFS tries to estimate something which is already experimentally known in the form of airfoils, reducing accuracy - I believe this is done for backwards compatibility purposes. I can't comment on X-Plane's implementation as I don't have access to its source code. However if it's implemented correctly it should be really close to real life.

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

7 minutes ago, DJJose said:

You are aware that this is just like a "my sim is better looking than yours" thread? 😀

If it is not, it turned into that because that's usually what happens with these types of threads.

I dont know chief. He simply heard some folks state that xplane can be made to look like msfs with addons. He tested that theory and shared results. His original post states nothing about either being inferior or superior in any regards.. seems you came to that conclusion by your own vice.

Go to the Org xp forums and you'll find this thread except with opposite opinions haha.  This forum is predominantly FSX/ESP.  Anyway this type of post is nothing new here at avsim.  

I will address one thing.  The RNAV(GPS) navigational capabilities in MSFS are still below par compared to XP11 (even with Navigraph).  I expect it to change eventually, especially with WT at the helm now.

21 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Are those P3D screenshots? Enhanced Atmospherics mode indeed looks beautiful, which is one of the main reasons I (mostly) switched to P3D from X-Plane. Obviously the other one is airliners.

Yes, it's P3D.
It isn't nearly as bad as some people like to pretend.
 

6 minutes ago, Tom_L said:

It depends: If the resolution is high enough to show roads/rivers/railways/buildings even from 1.000 ft. and these are accurate to the real world, then yes. I don't know about X-plane, but I tried to navigate VFR through the german/austrian Alps between LOWS and LOWI in both P3D (full Orbx galore) and MSFS (stock). And while in P3D the sim remotely resembled the environment I know pretty well, MSFS made me believe I was there. However, real life still is different - because if you can't spot the road that's on your chart in the narrow valley you have just flown into at low altitude, you simply go "ooops" and reset the sim. Try that irl. "True" VFR-flying is "IFR (I follow railways)", just using your chart and compass (and knowing its flaws while turning/climbing/descending) or Gyro (if you're lucky and your FI permits its use) and your outside vision. And the latter is where MSFS exceeds its competitors by far.

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

I flew VFR in MSFS following roads I new well in both upper New York State and Long Island, and had no trouble at all figuring out where I was. With P3D that wouldn't be possible. 

  I use the freeware program Ortho4XP_FSX_P3D to download scenery as high as ZL18 / LOD16 / 60cm resolution and generate autogen to get lots of detail, but for areas where I just overfly with airliners, I choose a lower resolution.

Lots of commercial payware uses ZL17 / LOD15 / 1.2m or lower to keep the disk space footprint and licence purchase price down, using only a very small area (usually the airfield and immediate surroundings) at a higher resolution. That's why you won't be able to navigate at 1,000ft as easily using payware.

  

2 minutes ago, DJJose said:

You are aware that this is just like a "my sim is better looking than yours" thread? 😀

If it is not, it turned into that because that's usually what happens with these types of threads.

Agreed.
I really dislike the 'must-bash-every-element-of-a-competitor-flight-sim' .

My point here was merely to show how P3D isn't just the FSX-like landclass simulator it is portrayed as.
 

3 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Yes, it's P3D.
It isn't nearly as bad as some people like to pretend.

I'm going to add that it looks better than X-Plane for me - and I have been using X-Plane 11 since 2018. I've never actually gotten into P3D until a few months ago, because people were talking about how much better X-Plane looks compared to P3D even with lots of payware.

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

5 hours ago, fakeflyer737 said:

Ive been a long time user of P3D Xplane and now MSFS. You can make them all look pretty good and with a little bit of money but you'll never get them to look like MSFS, plain and simple. 

you mean "with a lot of money" and then only to a small area

5 minutes ago, kapitan said:

you mean "with a lot of money" and then only to a small area

And a ton of hard drive space. 

X-plane  is great,I have used it since the 90's as well as several others.

And can be made to look pretty good with Orbx or ORTH4XP.

And third party airports.

However none of the cloud addons look realistic like FS2020. And they really impact frame rate in XP.

The planes in XP are much more mature and choices are almost unlimited, like great helis.

However since I got FS2020 I can't stand XP, it just looks dated in comparison.

So my choice is to play FS2020, and I enjoy watching it mature. It is only getting better and fast. XP seems stuck.

Just my nickel...

XP11 suffers from that horrible algae green tint atmosphere everywhere,

Its a complete turn off with that issue because it makes everywhere look and feel the same mood wise. 

 

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by blueshark747

29 minutes ago, DJJose said:

@filou those are excellent pics. You have always found a way to make XP11 look amazing. It doesn't look like that on my monitor. 😀

 

27 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Or any Monitor i have seen either. 

It is essential for me to use xVision (Must Have) with specific settings for the weather engine or plugin you are using in addition to the ORBX TrueEarth but with Ortho it also works very well.

I spent a lot of time finding the right xVision settings . On facebook I received 10 messages a day from people who wanted my settings. I shared a lot.

XP only needs a good weather engine with beautiful clouds and an upgrade on the renderer. That's all.

Every time I see a thread like this, I wonder how many of the MSFS users who now rave over the "real world visuals" in the new simulator used to bash the "unrealistically flat" photoscenery available for P3D/XPlane, and drooled at the "scattershot autogen boxes/totally unrealistic cardboard cutout urban landclass textures/Minecraft quality coastlines" stuff that was widely seen as a masterpiece of flight simulation visual fidelity.

25 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Every time I see a thread like this, I wonder how many of the MSFS users who now rave over the "real world visuals" in the new simulator used to bash the "unrealistically flat" photoscenery available for P3D/XPlane, and drooled at the "scattershot autogen boxes/totally unrealistic cardboard cutout urban landclass textures/Minecraft quality coastlines" stuff that was widely seen as a masterpiece of flight simulation visual fidelity.

The AVSIM population aren't as turncoat as the new MSFS forum population when it comes to a shiny new toy.

Tons of folks here still appreciate their older sims and could really care less about eye candy modern visuals.

P3D/XP11 are still greatly loved here and primary go to sims over MSFS.

That says alot....

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by blueshark747

9 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

The AVSIM population aren't as turncoat as the new MSFS forum population when it comes to a shiny new toy.

Tons of folks here still appreciate their older sims and could really care less about eye candy modern visuals.

P3D/XP11 are still greatly loved here and primary go to sims over MSFS.

That says alot....

I know a guy who still loves his flip phone. 😉

Im sticking with msfs2020 . Yes they messed up the last update badly but hopefully will learn from it . I fly mostly GA and virtually every time I use external camera I say 'wow that is stunning' . At the moment I have those stutters but this sim has reignited my enthusiasm for the hobby . I used xp11 for 3 months prior to the launch of msfs2020 for the purpose of getting back into the hobby ready for 2020 launch . I wont be going back to xp11 .

Working title joining the team is a sign asobo want to make significant improvements particularly to aircraft systems ,  and the fact they have recognised and rewarded someone from the mod community to do it is hugely encouraging . Lets see where we are in 12 months . If they are still breaking update after update or dumbing down the sim for xbox purposes I may consider something else, but will patiently wait and see .