What would it take for LR and/or LM to win your money back?

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

34 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

Fantasy worlds vs. a recreation of the true globe. That is a huge difference.

There is no better datasource, to recreate the whole globe procedurally, than aerial images. In MSFS aerial images are not primarily used to show them. They are hardly visible. But they are used as datasource for vegetation, buildings and a ton of other things.

Well, that is a separate issue from graphics quality, but there are ways to recreate the buildings and stuff beyond having commercial rights to the aerial imagery, as they can still run some of the free imagery through an autogen system. I am not as impressed by Blackshark.AI as some, I mean yes they did a decent job, but the bar was really LOW from the start. NAIP imagery and similar resources can be used for the autogen, and some of it would be better than Bing.

I'm well aware of the difficulty of the project and past failures of people attempting this, that's why I said it's unlikely, but not impossible. The advances in image recognition are gaining steam because of the necessity of better image recognition, tomorrow's autogen does not have to be like yesterdays, that is for sure, regardless who makes it.

Again, the technology is all there and possible, but it's not easy. It's just like saying can Volkswagen make a more reliable car, yes it's possible, but a mere possibility existing does not mean someone will do it. On the contrary, just because someone doesn't do something, or even just because no-one else has, does not make something impossible.

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[akita 429]

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

Different requirements. What you call "industry standart" is for creating fantasy worlds. In fligth simulation a fantasy world is useless.

No, they are steps in a rendering pipeline to enahnce terrain with more geometry on a layered manner.

I also tried MSFS for ground level altitudes and it aims to do just that, I don't get too hang on the blades of grass planted on top of a full bushy location, the whole immersion will be ruined once you get close to the house and you can actually see the flat shaded triangles of the photogrammtry trees, the house look melted as well as all the other clutter around it leaving 2d traces baked on the ground, "blades of grass" in complex situations, won't help.

The great thing about a procedural approach is that you can take completely matching full materials, created from the ground up and blend them to create varied landscapes on a data and climate driven manner. The higher the mesh resolution, the more photorealistic terrain will look (i.e. baking meshes, but not really, as you are running it to be enhanced through the pipeline). They also can be used to match seasons and weatherFX, creating dynamic puddles and floods in valleys, changing terrain collor and all built to match and make sense, "you get what you see", perfectly scaled and be dynamic from the ground up.

My complaint is not about using imagery as a data source, it's the choice to keep them there for the final visual outcome.

Dor flightsimulation procedural approach, IMO is much better to replicate a dynamic changing world.

One can argue that orthos help with VFR which is somewhat right but in reality you should never navigate based on the terrain colors. Other terrain features needed i.e. mesh  water sources, roads, infrastructure, towns, cities are already widely available in many data forms reagrdless of orthos. Those are the features needed for VFR, and a clock of course. If somebody is making VFR flights using a "this is a green field and I think i'm familair with this location since I saw it on bing maps", then he is flying VFR totaly wrong. True basic VFR is when you are not familiar with the location, couldn't care less about the roof colors or the alledgedly "ever green fields" (seasons someone?), and you only have a map with the features and route needed for you + a clock. 

And if we revert back to Xplane, then all the needed real world VFR features are there, looking like early 2000s graphics, kick a** artists (many are available) and new rendering pipleines, that's all they mostly need to compete and to keep me there. it appears that is the plan indeed.

Edited September 16, 2021 by akita

[mrueedi 702]

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Again, the technology is all there and possible, but it's not easy.

It is a matter of spending man hours. At a dimension unreachable for any of the small shops.

MSFS team: 965 people

X-Plane team: 19 people

You guys are seriously underestimating the capabilities required to create something like MSFS. And you are overestimating the "flightlevel" reachable by a small software shop. The same goes for Akita. Even for the mentioned Death Stranded-game, 1491 people have contributed. X-Plane will never be in that league. Not even close. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

26 minutes ago, akita said:

One can argue that orthos help with VFR which is somewhat right but in reality you should never navigate based on the terrain colors.

It is not about terrain colors. Please review these instructions, how to fly a particluar circuit:

0bd77e_39f530baaef9449aa35b6fd4c429e2a2.pdf (filesusr.com)

To realistily fly this circuit, your fantasy world will be of no help at all. None of the landmarks will match reality. In MSFS all are there.

[Noel 4,501]

My sense is that w/ the architecture involved in the core scenery engine as Bing data improves in scope and resolution not a whole lot of changes will need to happen to accommodate that.  So this is a flight simulator that will, rhetorically speaking, update itself and that if true is spectacular.  I continue to be absolutely blown away by the entire experience, and yet we hear a major update to the weather engine is coming.  

I just got on to the Heavy Division mod for the 787-10 and it's fabulous!  Looking foward big time for PMDG 737 NG, which apparently is not far around the corner.

[akita 429]

34 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

It is a matter of spending man hours. At a dimension unreachable for any of the small shops.

MSFS team: 965 people

X-Plane team: 19 people

You guys are seriously underestimating the capabilities required to create something like MSFS. And you are overestimating the "flightlevel" reachable by a small software shop. The same goes for Akita. Even for the mentioned Death Stranded-game, 1491 people have contributed. X-Plane will never be in that league. Not even close. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

Remains to be seen.

As for the route, checked it and all available at the free OSM data and non need orthos to reproduce. So yeah we are mostly just sacrificing the roof colors here. Also orthos are not very good as a global solution, for germany it's great, for the middel east it's painful to my eyes.

On the other hand, my "fanatasy world" will still have all the roads, mointatins, towns, chrches, cathedrals etc..where they should be, it might be less accurate for what ground textures it chooses due to lacking data at several regions  but will remain consistent with the rest in terms of quality. Consistent quality for your world scenes (no matter how big or small as long as the user can go there) is the base for quality management in games, or even any sole artist.

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by akita

[mrueedi 702]

41 minutes ago, akita said:

Also orthos are not very good as a global solution, for germany it's great, for the middel east it's painful to my eyes.

The opposite is true.

OSM for the overwhelming majority of the globe looks like this (sample from middle east):
OpenStreetMap

On aerial images, you still have:
BingMaps

Btw. an area where Bing maps are sharper than Google's...

And in MSFS, the color of the aerial images are normalized so the no sharp boundaries appear anymore. That way the same type of ground has the same basic color everywhere.

 

 

[mrueedi 702]

58 minutes ago, akita said:

So yeah we are mostly just sacrificing the roof colors here.

Also object height, which is critical. OSM does not know, that the three trees on image 5 are much taller so they actually form the landmark.

[akita 429]

39 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

Also object height, which is critical. OSM does not know, that the three trees on image 5 are much taller so they actually form the landmark.

Nope..OSM has height data! Even 3d shape data.

It is mostly sparse, but even Xplane uses it + where it lacks they use other landclass data to know what art assets to place, crucial obstacles around airport are manually done with the community gateway. MSFS is a 10 year project. In 10 years OSM will grow also...and many other sources.

And let's not discuss this as if MSFS AI is capable of doing perfectly (I know what they promoted) when we see building too tall due to bad OSM data, 2x bigger than reality trees and hangars and more of what the AI should be doing in a "perfect" manner.

42 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

The opposite is true.

OSM for the overwhelming majority of the globe looks like this (sample from middle east):
OpenStreetMap

On aerial images, you still have:
BingMaps

Btw. an area where Bing maps are sharper than Google's...

And in MSFS, the color of the aerial images are normalized so the no sharp boundaries appear anymore. That way the same type of ground has the same basic color everywhere.

 

 

We both have different standards in terms of what looks good, if you think the middle east is. And that's ok.

Edited September 16, 2021 by akita

[Clutch Cargo 384]

I think the writing is on the wall.  Both LM and LR could start with a full court press at the FSExpo.  But now we read today that LR has pretty much bailed on the event.  Both still have the advantage with the amount of good flying aircraft but how much longer will that last?

I used to develop for P3D but I haven't even open P3Dv5 in 6 months let alone made a flight.  The only way I could see going back would be if MS literally shut down MSFS.

[pmb 5,137]

15 minutes ago, Clutch Cargo said:

But now we read today that LR has pretty much bailed on the event. 

Can you give a reference? Given MS will not be present and I can't imagine LM being more than a one-man show from previous years, if any, there only remain addons. Still interesting but well....

Thank you and kind regards, Michael

[birdguy 3,943]

17 minutes ago, Clutch Cargo said:

Both still have the advantage with the amount of good flying aircraft but how much longer will that last?

All the aircraft are still there.  You'd be surprised at how many FSX aircraft fly well in P3D.  You could collect over 100 FSX aircrat to work in P3Dv5. 

But I have my personal favorite I fly 90% of the time; my customized Lionheart Quest Kodiak.  And I would never give it up.  I adjusted the contact points on the float version so it looks better on the water.  Someone gave me Turbine Engine Data so it doesn't runaway at startup.  I have placed 'hot spots' on the panel to bring up a radar altimeter, a taxi speed panel, and my three enlarged gauges on the left side of the windshield for landing.

I've been flying the Kodiak since FS2004 and it's worked in FSX and all the P3D versions.

If I can't take my airplane with me I'm not going.  And I don't see Lionheart working it for MSFS.

Noel

[BobFS88 635]

28 minutes ago, Clutch Cargo said:

I think the writing is on the wall.  Both LM and LR could start with a full court press at the FSExpo.  But now we read today that LR has pretty much bailed on the event.  Both still have the advantage with the amount of good flying aircraft but how much longer will that last?

Why should some of LR team absence be a game changer sign of their prospect of X Plane development when Microsoft won't be there at all, as far as I know.

Two of the members of LR team will be at the event, with some of the planned boths will be scale back while the rest will make there presence online which as far as I concern is just as good has them being there. They still will be doing the presentation to unveil the new X-Plane next gen which many of us are mostly interested in anyway, whether online or in person.

[David Mills 4,763]

I wish you X-Plane guys realized that the term "orthos" is cult-specific nomenclature. MSFS users don't understand what you're talking about when you try to superimpose the term on MSFS.

[David Mills 4,763]

2 hours ago, BobFS88 said:

Why should some of LR team absence be a game changer sign of their prospect of X Plane development when Microsoft won't be there at all, as far as I know.

Because LR needs to demonstrate it has a future. Microsoft/Asobo has no such urgency.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

7 hours ago, mrueedi said:

It is a matter of spending man hours. At a dimension unreachable for any of the small shops.

MSFS team: 965 people

X-Plane team: 19 people

You guys are seriously underestimating the capabilities required to create something like MSFS. And you are overestimating the "flightlevel" reachable by a small software shop. The same goes for Akita. Even for the mentioned Death Stranded-game, 1491 people have contributed. X-Plane will never be in that league. Not even close. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

Xplane does not have to re-create MSFS, Xplane is already done. They just have to change the terrain and the underlying rendering, that is a monumental difference in scope compared to writing a flight sim from scratch. I'm aware of the scope, but adding more people to a project does not always equal increased output. As an extreme example on the other side of the coin, Osiris New Dawn was written by 2 people and that was 10 years ago, the tech has come a long ways. It can be done, it's not out of LR's scope, but it's not easy.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Alpine Scenery