I hear that you can make XP11 looks as good as MSFS

[omarsmak30 4,068]

45 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

The only sim I’ve ever felt like I was actually flying a real plane was in XP11. Couple that with the vulkan release and that thing defines smooth, stutter free flight simming.

The thing is, the moment I use xE, my XP vulkan turns into stutter fest or even worse than MSFS with its current patch. If I switch off xE, I can no longer tolerate these ugly 2D clouds, especially after getting spoiled by MSFS. At least xE, makes it easier for me to switch between the two sims lol 😆.

I really hope Austin will give us some volumetric clouds in XP12. Maybe Jan can tease us here if there are plans to build that, although I recall Ben in the X-Plane dev blog mentioned that there will be heavy work on the clouds in the future 😅

[F737MAX 5,579]

4 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I really have no problem with folks sticking to XP11 or P3D. They are happy there, I’m happy here. I really don’t get point of this thread ? So XP can look as great as MSFS. Good ! Share it in XP forum !  Breaking news - we don’t care about it here!

The OP started a thread here about how XP doesn't / can't look as good as MSFS.
If people don't want threads like this, don't throw shade at the other platforms. And certainly they shouldn't make stuff up to try and justify why MSFS is the 'better sim'.

None of the flight sims are perfect - they all have their positives and negatives.
When MSFS matures, I reckon there will be a lot fewer of these types of threads. It just feels like MSFS is a long way from it needs to be for a lot of other platform flight simmers.


F737NG
(P3D fan and hopefully, one day, MSFS fan too)

[RXP 2,338]

31 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

Did Vulkan really improve VR performance?

I remember having to sacrafice tons of Antialiasing in XP11 for it to run smooth in VR.

Yes it does, but like you I couldn't really enter the HDR rendering territory because of fps.

2 Days ago though, I've revisited XP11 VR with the latest SteamVR which supports 6:1 motion smoothing, and I can tell you it was stellar:

• XP11 HDR
• Index + 2070S
• Index brightness 160%
• SteamVR SS150 (instead of 124 with FS2020)
• Enable Motion Smoothing, fixed rate 22.5fps / 90Hz, prediction 22.2ms (if not good enough try 18fps + 33ms)

Smooth as silk and much sharper than FS2020 actually. Night flying where you don't have a soup of oversized light bulbs making you think you've forgoten wearing your glasses, and cars on roads with lights moving, more fluid airport vehicles than FS2020 on same hardware, and with TG accurate airlines and aircraft parked and flying around. This was really refreshing in VR (but it was with OrbX TE UK as well).

 

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by RXP

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

MSFS just needs more frame to be VR good.  Maybe with DX12 in the pipe than can implement DLSS and make VR worth doing in MSFS. So far, I don't even bother connecting my HMD.

[sd_flyer 6,037]

22 minutes ago, F737NG said:

The OP started a thread here about how XP doesn't / can't look as good as MSFS.
If people don't want threads like this, don't throw shade at the other platforms. And certainly they shouldn't make stuff up to try and justify why MSFS is the 'better sim'.

None of the flight sims are perfect - they all have their positives and negatives.
When MSFS matures, I reckon there will be a lot fewer of these types of threads. It just feels like MSFS is a long way from it needs to be for a lot of other platform flight simmers.


F737NG
(P3D fan and hopefully, one day, MSFS fan too)

I actually jumped from P3D to  XP11, and then from XP11 to MSFS. So I'm well aware what can be done with XP11. In fact, I invested  in order to make XP11 looks great. But here I'm in MSFS world now! LOL

My point is whichever sim people want to stick they have their own reasons. I personally  don't want to be judge of somebody' else's choice. Really we here in MSFS world. So lets focus what is going on with MSFS.

I'm mean if someone comes form other sim platform and curios about MSFS we are happy to help. But really comparison  only tend to anger one camp or another! Whatever! 🙂 Like this saying says "stay in your lane bro!" LOL

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

Sorry for the double post

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by MrFuzzy

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

14 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

So I tried. I modded the word not allowed out of XP11. I got CYVR payware, tons of orthos, mesh UltraHD,  tree hd, hd runway, skymaxx cloud,  you named It I tried. this is the result. You guys be the judge. 

Still no ambient occlusion, what about the clouds and the hideous look of the water?

XP11 belongs to the past, at least graphically speaking.

Every time I watch this videos I LMAO:

 

[akita 429]

4 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

MSFS just needs more frame to be VR good.  Maybe with DX12 in the pipe than can implement DLSS and make VR worth doing in MSFS. So far, I don't even bother connecting my HMD.

This "just" may sound promising but hear this it's a much harder challenge to complete than adding better lighting to a simulator., more if speaking future performance and optimization capabilities on non cpu-bound engine.

Someone, a few weeks ago showed me a pic of MSFS, out of it's lighting content, and everything looks just flat as Xplane, and your first post helps that case even more since. 

while I agree MSFS is a leap ahead for visuals most posts and analysis are absolutely ridiculous, many are talking it out of "my sim is better" rather than understanding what they are actually looking at in terms of tech and the ACTUAL difference and I'll mention 1 example; Xplane water is already FFT and moving with the wind, with 3d waves and can also have effects if the modern particle system (which MSFS just recently got) would be exposed to scenery rather than just aircrafts. so the difference? for displacements you need more vertices which Xplane can generate on the pipeline (tessellation), but this step is missing in Xplane's one, this is why the water is "flat", no enough geometry to reveal 3d displacements.

Implementing tessellation<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<OpenGL To Vulkan, a valid texture streaming mechanism, good LOD etc... (really cant put enough <). 

I hear Xplane 12 will introduce a native new Vulkan pipeline, this does not sound promising for MSFS, Xplane already has "access" to a newer generation tech.

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by akita

[blueshark747 1,843]

5 hours ago, RXP said:

Yes it does, but like you I couldn't really enter the HDR rendering territory because of fps.

2 Days ago though, I've revisited XP11 VR with the latest SteamVR which supports 6:1 motion smoothing, and I can tell you it was stellar:

• XP11 HDR
• Index + 2070S
• Index brightness 160%
• SteamVR SS150 (instead of 124 with FS2020)
• Enable Motion Smoothing, fixed rate 22.5fps / 90Hz, prediction 22.2ms (if not good enough try 18fps + 33ms)

Smooth as silk and much sharper than FS2020 actually. Night flying where you don't have a soup of oversized light bulbs making you think you've forgoten wearing your glasses, and cars on roads with lights moving, more fluid airport vehicles than FS2020 on same hardware, and with TG accurate airlines and aircraft parked and flying around. This was really refreshing in VR (but it was with OrbX TE UK as well).

 

 

Thanks I'm tempted to give it another try today, as I never bothered with it again even after the Vulkan update.

[Dominique_K 10,137]

What does this thread do here ? It is about the strengths and deficiencies of XP11. It should have been opened or moved to the XP forum ! Another location could have been the « beat the dead horse » sub but there is none.

 

[filou 2,741]

9 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

Looking good, do you use xE with xVision? I think they are both incompatible, isn't? I love xE but it is just pefromacne killer plugin 😅

I can use xVision with what I want,Like xEnviro and whatever the version.You just need to know the software perfectly and use the appropriate options.

[Isaiah53six 134]

Simply pick the sim that suits your fancy. And you can even use both! Options are good to have. It's not that difficult to decide.  

[Biology 1,347]

1 hour ago, filou said:

I can use xVision with what I want,Like xEnviro and whatever the version.You just need to know the software perfectly and use the appropriate options.

Now this might bring me back to X-Plane from P3D. I left X-Plane for its bad visuals compared to P3D v5's EA and lack of airliner add-ons but this seems to change at least the bad visuals part. I already have xVision and xEnviro, what xVision settings do you use? Do I need any other thing to reproduce your results?

Edited March 21, 2021 by BiologicalNanobot

[nachezdc9 25]

I,m using both, the visuals of msfs are amazing but with X-plane I can fly planes that msfs doesn,t have, steam gauges cockpits like the Navajo or the do228, I,m bored of flying G1000 or G3000 cockpits, and the steam gauges planes in msfs are pretty small like pa28,s. In terms of visuals msfs is the best but the plane  offer still being too poor. 

[honanhal 1,420]

14 hours 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.

Speaking for myself, I've never been opposed to photoscenery per se. But for a very long time, the tradeoff was that it looked simply awful (blurry and/or blocky) at low level and completely lacked structures, vegetation, etc. Then over time you saw some solutions that included trees, and some that included some autogen, and so on. By the time you got to the "ortho era" the tradeoffs were genuinely much less unappetizing, except that then you needed seemingly endless amounts of time and hard drive space if you wanted to cover any significant part of the planet.

MSFS is great precisely because you get the best of all worlds. Mostly very good photoscenery, with extremely clever autogen/vegetation, and it's all stored server-side, so no insane space constraints and you can fly anywhere you like without having to prepare in advance.

James