They are in different locations, obviously, sadly I wasn´t expecting Asobo to did that to us before SU5, so didn´t have prepatch pics ready XD. Anyway, if you like the second pic better, you are a happy simmer now, since that´s what SU5 is. But second pic is Tirana, Albania (LATI). More or less : 41° 23' 17.31" N 19° 45' 16.74" E

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by Aristoteles

6 minutes ago, Janov said:

Sure!

Here is a shot over KLAX - everything default XP11.55, no add-ons.

That unmistakably looks like a video game, unlike what MSFS usually looks like. The lighting, color palette, haze in the distance are all off IMO. It looks like a more busy DCS, and DCS is known for a lot of things (I'm a huge fan), but terrain is not one of those things.

Just now, Slides said:

That unmistakably looks like a video game, unlike what MSFS usually looks like.

I am totally not contending that MSFS looks better than XP11 - never have, never will. Someone requested a shot from current X-Plane, I posted it. Nothing more.

I really won´t get into a XP11 vs MSFS argument again, so do your worst! 😉

23 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Strange, could you show me, and let me know what area it's in. So I can compare with mine as well.

It might be more useful if you provide the screenshots, coordinates, weather, graphics settings and I replicate that for a better comparison? Since I don't see the issues, I will just provide random screenshots with zero issues.

Most of the color issues in Xplane had workarounds, but it was a lot of work. I think people got tired of chasing settings is part of it, but the biggest thing was of course having to manage the aerial imagery and the scenery.cfg...

Xplane had ok direction in their development, but they failed to see two key crippling issues:

1) Ease of Configuration
2) Continually try to improve visuals

Those were their main mistakes from a business standpoint.

Sorry, those pics were not meant to be for a test so no info was recorded at the time of taking them. I simply took them from my screenshot folder. 

3 minutes ago, Janov said:

I am totally not contending that MSFS looks better than XP11 - never have, never will. Someone requested a shot from current X-Plane, I posted it. Nothing more.

I really won´t get into a XP11 vs MSFS argument again, so do your worst! 😉

You can though, because in general MSFS does look better than XP 11. Unless you are using high-quality ortho and special trees (and even then the trees cannot match MSFS), plus the water in XP 11 was pretty bad. The Haze was difficult to reduce, you could reduce it with a special setting and with shader tweaks, but it was absolutely still there and no fun overall.

That said, a fully and proper modded XP 11 with high-quality ortho can look really good in many cases, but it just didn't have the dynamic lighting that MSFS has, so even if you got XP 11 to a visually optimized state, the visuals were good but in more of a STATIC way.

 

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by Alpine Scenery

The thing with me, is I play in HDR. So taking screenshots won't convey what I'm seeing. I'll try and see if I can show you in SDR mode.

1 minute ago, Janov said:

I am totally not contending that MSFS looks better than XP11 - never have, never will. Someone requested a shot from current X-Plane, I posted it. Nothing more.

I really won´t get into a XP11 vs MSFS argument again, so do your worst! 😉

You're right. Someone else claimed that parts of MSFS look like X-plane now and I just don't see it. 

As an aside, what would be fun is a blind survey test between SU4 and SU5 if that was possible. I suspect the results would not go the way some feel like they should.

Here, the overall image is pretty washed out, lacks contrast. Especially the cockpit panel. I don't know how anyone can say that looks good or realistic. It doesn't at all.

It is hard to understand because; most of these problems were addressed after SU5 and dev team released a hotfix for these. Now again, they are saying that they are on progress. What was that hotfix, then ? Is there a deviation between codes of devs and us (clients) which  shows different results ?

Anyway, nothing to do other than waiting.

Slides, if you feel that SU5 illumination on buildings, autogen and overall everywhere is not VERY different to SU4. Well, it´s your opinion and I respect it. Obviously, Su5 is not XPlane, but SU5 it suspicioosly brought me a deja vu feeling...

2 minutes ago, captain420 said:

The thing with me, is I play in HDR. So taking screenshots won't convey what I'm seeing. I'll try and see if I can show you in SDR mode.

Hmm, that's true. Are videos better in HDR at all? I could also go up to HDR as I do have an HDR compatible monitor but it's really not the best for HDR as it's an LG IPS panel without local area dimming needed for true HDR.

Some are saying that in HDR it'll look less washed out. But even in HDR they still look washed out to me, although not as bad as in SDR mode.

2 minutes ago, kt069 said:

It is hard to understand because; most of these problems were addressed after SU5 and dev team released a hotfix for these.

I think the additional post-SU 5 patch mainly addressed CTD issues, and maybe a few other minor things. The patch was really small and appeared to just be some code.