Just now, jarmstro said:

But no FPS counter.😂

about 200fps, because there is less to draw.

 

Nice!😂

Just now, mSparks said:

about 200fps, because there is less to draw.

 

Hahahahahahaa

28 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

Hahahahahahaa

All the way up to 500fps in the space shuttle in LEO

(hopefully that gets some loving now they have the headroom - but not really a must)

Edited July 1, 20214 yr by mSparks

Just now, mSparks said:

All the way up to 500fps in the space shuttle in LEO

(hopefully that gets some loving now they have the headroom - but not really a must)

LOL

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

about 200fps, because there is less to draw.

 

Let me get this straight because I don't understand. With regards to MSFS in terms of visuals Janov  thinks that XP12 won't match it but you think XP11 is already superior?

46 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Let me get this straight because I don't understand. With regards to MSFS in terms of visuals Janov  thinks that XP12 won't match it but you think XP11 is already superior?

Its more complicated than that, I'll use enhanced cloudscapes as a "not MSFS comparison" way to explain it.

EC looks better, performs better and my fork has a ton of extra features that make it "better" than default clouds in every way... Except.

I'm back on default clouds.

Because the gitches and issues in EC and ECE spoil my experience more than default does - whose only real issue you notice while flying is that occasional flickering.

XP11 for me is practically perfect - except for the lighting bugs at very low altitude, more than good enough performance, decent aircraft, a ton of fun working on the 744 and my local scenery (mostly finished now I have google cloudless), near perfect "realism" practising R44 VFR routes over and over again in VR before I do the real ones (Its bloody expensive getting lost in an R44).

In terms of MSFS, I mostly don't actually like the visuals - it can take some absolutely breathtaking screenshots, but they are never why I ever start up my flight sim. 

For me, flight sim is 90% how it recreates the flight, practising memory items so when I get in the real one I dont forget "minor" things like constantly planning "how do I stay alive if my engine fails" , and only 10% what it looks like.

For that 10%, XP11 - apart from the lighting - is perfectly believable - to the point I nailed the MVFR route during my exam having never flown in it in real life before.

Can it be better - in a few ways - yes - but not at the expense of the reasons I start it and keep it running - do I want it to look like MSFS - definitely not a must, in fact for a lot of the ways MSFS looks - when it matters to real life flight - are so far from what things look like from the cockpit they could be potentially lethal, but I also dont judge anyone who likes London on a rainy day looking nicer than an afternoon in Dubrovnik.

Edited July 1, 20214 yr by mSparks

14 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Its more complicated than that, I'll use enhanced cloudscapes as a "not MSFS comparison" way to explain it.

EC looks better, performs better and my fork has a ton of extra features that make it "better" than default clouds in every way... Except.

I'm back on default clouds.

Because the gitches and issues in EC and ECE spoil my experience more than default does - whose only real issue you notice while flying is that occasional flickering.

XP11 for me is practically perfect - except for the lighting bugs at very low altitude, more than good enough performance, decent aircraft, a ton of fun working on the 744 and my local scenery (mostly finished now I have google cloudless), near perfect "realism" practising R44 VFR routes over and over again in VR before I do the real ones (Its bloody expensive getting lost in an R44).

In terms of MSFS, I mostly don't actually like the visuals - it can take some absolutely breathtaking screenshots, but they are never why I ever start up my flight sim. 

For me, flight sim is 90% how it recreates the flight, practising memory items so when I get in the real one I dont forget "minor" things like constantly planning "how do I stay alive if my engine fails" , and only 10% what it looks like.

For that 10%, XP11 - apart from the lighting - is perfectly believable - to the point I nailed the MVFR route during my exam having never flown in it in real life before.

Can it be better - in a few ways - yes - but not at the expense of the reasons I start it and keep it running - do I want it to look like MSFS - definitely not a must, in fact for a lot of the ways MSFS looks - when it matters to real life flight - are so far from what things look like from the cockpit they could be potentially lethal, but I also dont judge anyone who likes London on a rainy day looking nicer than an afternoon in Dubrovnik.

Lets be real, like I said every sim on the market has issues and xp has a lot of work to do no matter how much you delude yourself

18 minutes ago, devgrp said:

every sim on the market has issues and xp has a lot of work to do

Well, considering XP runs on virtually every piece of computing hardware I own, (4 or 5 android phones, ipad, my desktop with its AMD5900X, RTX3070 and FC33, a Mac Mini, with only the PS4 unsupported) and MSFS can't be installed on any of them, I'll just have to take your word for it....

 

 

Edited July 1, 20214 yr by mSparks

56 minutes ago, mSparks said:

In terms of MSFS, I mostly don't actually like the visuals - it can take some absolutely breathtaking screenshots, but they are never why I ever start up my flight sim. 

 

What don't you like about the MSFS visuals? Maybe it's because you haven't tried it? Videos are all very well but can't ever recreate what you see on your own screen. I just can't understand what's not to like? Every time I load it up it blows me away.

Edited July 1, 20214 yr by jarmstro

31 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Well, considering XP runs on virtually every piece of computing hardware I own, (4 or 5 android phones, ipad, my desktop with its AMD5900X, RTX3070 and FC33, a Mac Mini, with only the PS4 unsupported) and MSFS can't be installed on any of them, I'll just have to take your word for it....

 

 

for someone who's some technically adept, I find it hard to believe you cant install a piece of software lmao. Here are some screens from some early testing, enjoy lol

4 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Maybe it's because you haven't tried it? 

I have youtube

4 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

What don't you like about the MSFS visuals?

For example

broken hill profile/ridiculous mountains

excessive SSAO shadows under the aircraft

game style reflections on the engines

fugly trees

absolutely garbage clouds that look more like smoke from a coal fired powerstation

idiotic lights on the taxiways

___

cockpits that look like they were 3D printed

the screenshots I posted earlier

The ridiculous people that irl would die every time you try to take off

the entire user interface

.....

That's not to say it doesn't look nice. but in no way shape or form does it leave me feeling I am looking at a real DC6 on a real airport in preparation for a real flight - and its those moments in which I like the visuals, and they do happen in XP as well.

3 minutes ago, devgrp said:

I find it hard to believe you cant install a piece of software lmao.

I got rid of windows last year, I have NO intention of going near that steaming pile of garbage ever again.

Why does the scenery stop after 2 nautical miles?

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

I have youtube

For example

broken hill profile/ridiculous mountains

excessive SSAO shadows under the aircraft

game style reflections on the engines

fugly trees

absolutely garbage clouds that look more like smoke from a coal fired powerstation

idiotic lights on the taxiways

___

cockpits that look like they were 3D printed

the screenshots I posted earlier

The ridiculous people that irl would die every time you try to take off

the entire user interface

.....

That's not to say it doesn't look nice. but in no way shape or form does it leave me feeling I am looking at a real DC6 on a real airport in preparation for a real flight - and its those moments in which I like the visuals, and they do happen in XP as well.

I got rid of windows last year, I have NO intention of going near that steaming pile of garbage ever again.

Why does the scenery stop after 2 nautical miles?

Each to their own, 

3 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I have youtube

For example

broken hill profile/ridiculous mountains

excessive SSAO shadows under the aircraft

game style reflections on the engines

fugly trees

absolutely garbage clouds that look more like smoke from a coal fired powerstation

idiotic lights on the taxiways

___

cockpits that look like they were 3D printed

the screenshots I posted earlier

The ridiculous people that irl would die every time you try to take off

the entire user interface

.....

That's not to say it doesn't look nice. but in no way shape or form does it leave me feeling I am looking at a real DC6 on a real airport in preparation for a real flight - and its those moments in which I like the visuals, and they do happen in XP as well.

I got rid of windows last year, I have NO intention of going near that steaming pile of garbage ever again.

Why does the scenery stop after 2 nautical miles?

hahahahaha grade school t-ball vs the ny yankees

9 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Each to their own, 

very much. devgrp's screenshot actually reminded me of the thing that most puts me off even trying

not being able to see exactly where you want to be in 5 minutes time flying at 90kts (permanently less than 7.5nm view distance)

Brings back horrid memories of the brown mud xp days a year or two back - but at least that only started 15 to 20nm away.