Well, it is a classic "When did your stop beating your wife?" question, disclaimer notwithstanding. I think it's fair comment to turn the question around to, "What would MSFS have to do to convince me to use it (which is already installed) instead of P3Dv5?" But 'll leave it at that.

57 minutes ago, Tim_Capps said:

Well, it is a classic "When did your stop beating your wife?" question, disclaimer notwithstanding. I think it's fair comment to turn the question around to, "What would MSFS have to do to convince me to use it (which is already installed) instead of P3Dv5?" But 'll leave it at that.

I imagine the upcoming PMDG or Fenix 737 will get your attention. As you said, you already have MSFS installed. 

Edited September 16, 20214 yr by RobJC

And just to be clear I am not rooting for either LM or LR to decide to pull the plug on their products. That is not good at all for us enthusiasts. But unless they can do something to change the narrative I believe the writing is on the wall. Some very smart people on both those projects, so I guess we will see how they react. 

5 hours ago, birdguy said:

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.

Bill Ortis is working on the Kodiak from what I've read at FS Developer.

1 hour ago, RobJC said:

something to change the narrative

Indeed. The narrative is what it is and I agree that it cuts entirely against P3D and in favor of MSFS. You're absolutely right. The handwriting is on the wall. but It didn't just appear like "mene, mene tekel upharsin." Let's revisit this conversation in three years. I doubt a 96 billion dollar aersopace / defense contractor is very much concerned about a game narrative. However, I do think the narrative is very important for others.

2 hours ago, Tim_Capps said:

Indeed. The narrative is what it is and I agree that it cuts entirely against P3D and in favor of MSFS. You're absolutely right. The handwriting is on the wall. but It didn't just appear like "mene, mene tekel upharsin." Let's revisit this conversation in three years. I doubt a 96 billion dollar aersopace / defense contractor is very much concerned about a game narrative. However, I do think the narrative is very important for others.

The narrative is important for many.  And I cannot fathom why.  You can tell it digs deep, for some odd reason, by the number of people who didn't answer Rob's question, and instead went off into this never-never-land of why x is greater than y.  Well, everyone gets that.  It's been said 1,996 times.  We're goin for 2,000 now.

5 minutes ago, Mace said:

by the number of people who didn't answer Rob's question

In case i did not answer the (loaded) question, here it is, although "when did  you stop beating your wife" questions are notoriously difficult to answer (which is why you can't even ask them in court). LM and the devs who support it already have (lots and lots of) my money and don't have to do anything to "win it back." Plenty more where that came from, friends. I don't have a single add-on for MSFS (although I sometimes wonder why any are needed) and I cannot imagine why I would switch from P3D to a sim I haven't fired up in months. (Well, I can, but no one needs to read about that.) And I'm not comparing merits here. Play either game you like, or both, or something else. For P3D I have more airplanes I like than I can reasonably fly, and enough (yes, really nice looking) scenery to keep things fresh until I die according to the most generous actuarial tables. I can easily see why the narrative is very important to some. What I can't fathom is why it's important to anyone not posting from a commercial account. I think it was about nine months ago I gave up on all "narratives" anyway. The fact is developers are making it clear that P3D is "as dead as a dodo" as I recall one saying about FSX. That's a business decision that's absolutely none of my business. I'm sure they have looked not only at market share but demographics (and probably actuarial tables) and concluded the future is MSFS. Great! Peace. Love. Airplanes. In whatever sim you like. Query: does this thread itself push a narrative?

1 hour ago, Tim_Capps said:

In case i did not answer the (loaded) question, here it is

You don't have to answer it, I was just making a broader point.  People who live less than 100 miles from me (KCGI) are so sensible, right?

Probably nothing,

Microsoft will be the cause,with their server outages,update hassle,lack of ai ,real time weather iffy at best. All in all if you just want to start a sim and fly and are not bothered about fancy scenery then then just sit back and watch.

I should add I do have msfs but will not buy anything for it until it's a much more stable and bug free program alas i think i may be waiting for years

1 minute ago, mazelda said:

Probably nothing,

Microsoft will be the cause,with their server outages,update hassle,lack of ai ,real time weather iffy at best. All in all if you just want to start a sim and fly and are not bothered about fancy scenery then then just sit back and watch.

I should add I do have msfs but will not buy anything for it until it's a much more stable and bug free program alas i think i may be waiting for years

👍

19 hours ago, akita said:

19 hours 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.

Nope ... OSM has a mostly empty datafield for height. But, as I said, it does not know the height for the three trees.

 

19 hours ago, akita said:

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.

The airports were not done by AI. I could assume, the hangars are like that to increase the window of oportunity for the scenery builders. If the default airports are too good, scenery builders would see less downloads/sales.

And, MSFS AI is indeed not perfect. It has its limitations. It is only say a 95%-solution. So if a scientist team three times as large as the whole X-Plane team, is able to bring procedural scenery generation that far, how on earth can you the expect X-Plane team to deliver something similar?

 

19 hours ago, akita said:

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

Whats wrong with the screenshot below?

Good look with recreating anything on this screenhot with your imageless scenery generator. You will get pure, 100% fictional, fantasy scenery. The airport btw. is a fake airport layout probably used by the IAF. After that there is a screenhot at 0ft altitude. I can spot none of issues "below 3000 ft" you mention.

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

Nope ... OSM has a mostly empty datafield for height. But, as I said, it does not know the height for the three trees.

he airports were not done by AI. I could assume, the hangars are like that to increase the window of oportunity for the scenery builders. If the default airports are too good, scenery builders would see less downloads/sales.

 

 

 

So exactly as I said, OSM has height data, mostly sparse and will be improved. Does the MSFS AI know heights? please...this is where, despite all promotions, MSFS takes it's height data from: https://www.gamesradar.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-has-a-ridiculously-tall-skyscraper-caused-by-a-single-typo/

"The tree shadow to height" magic trick that MSFS allegedly does results in: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/trees-are-still-hilariously-large/433239.

Those trees are also considered as obstacles due to how close they are to the airfield.

Q.E.D

Quote

Whats wrong with the screenshot below?

Good look with recreating anything on this screenhot with your imageless scenery generator. You will get pure, 100% fictional, fantasy scenery. The airport btw. is a fake airport layout probably used by the IAF. After that there is a screenhot at 0ft altitude. I can spot none of issues "below 3000 ft" you mention.

First, if you are trying to disprove my point through pictures, you could at least post the actual scenario I mentioned (i.e. a random photogrammetry location, the clutter, cars, mail boxes, street poles and more... how they look from ground/street level), I also specifically mentioned that I'm not hanging on bushes and you still show me bare desert with bushes.

Secondly, just as I said, the second one shows exactly how awful it looks compared to a procedural approach. If you think the colors on the ground in the middle of this pic is "you get what you see" and not as I mentioned a mushy albedo with a carpet decal above it, as I said we both have very different standards, this looks at best like PUBG mobile.

I really am trying to figure out what the baked green/yellow/brown colors baked on ground should really be? 

This look a bit better to my eyes, everything just makes sense, no weird shading or colors, 3d generated rocks and little crater patterns as well so it reacts with lighting, shadows and weather:

 

Notice how the ground look much sharper and better for anything further than 1 meter from you. Oh and this was released wayyyyy before MSFS, today a procedural approach can do much better than this in an even more scalable manner (no pops, blurries and morphing or so...)

Lastly, a bit funny and counter productive for you, that you chose Israel as a "PROCEDURAL can't replicate this for VFR operations" example; Israel has predefined CVFR routes unlike normal VFR, it even makes my claim stronger that orthos* are not really needed for VFR for operations. BTW just looked at Israel and compared what kind of OSM it has there, way more data than I thought! 

*(for those struggling like the gentleman @David Mills, orthos=ortho-imagery, I will also give you a like in a moment so you get the eagerly wanted attention as well)

Quote

how on earth can you the expect X-Plane team to deliver something similar?

That is my point though, I don't expect nor want. I prefer Xplane do something really good like outterra instead of wasting it's time on sub-par quality art asset generated from an even more sub-par quality ground textures. 

Quote

Good look with recreating anything on this screenhot with your imageless scenery generator

Still missing the point, As I said before, my complaint is not using them to generate more complete data, it's the choice to keep them there on the final visual outcome.

Edited September 17, 20214 yr by akita

The question is only loaded if you ignore my qualifier regarding who the question is directed towards. 

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

LM already has my money.  The fact that I am still with them means I am satisfied with them.  MY Traffic gives me all the ai traffic I could hope for at 50%.  At 75% for GA traffic my small airports are filled.  Orbx has most of my scenery desires satisfied (still have waited years for Southern Rockies though) and what airports they have not covered are covered by others both freeware and payware.  Pilot's mesh fills in the peaks and valleys to my satisfaction.  I am surprised at how many FSX aircraft run smoothly in P3D and I have not tapped out the lode in that mine yet.

My wife of 58 years has some faults that will never be corrected and I have learned to live with.  But swapping her out for a newer model would just bring new faults.

Viva LM!

Noel

PS...What the heck is an 'ortho'?  Is it something I need to know about to enjoy my sim?

Edited September 17, 20214 yr by birdguy

14 hours ago, n4gix said:

Bill Ortis is working on the Kodiak from what I've read at FS Developer.

I hope he solves the turbine engine start surge.  Although I already have fix for that.

Noel