1 hour ago, akita said:

this is where, despite all promotions, MSFS takes it's height data from

You are aware, that OSM contributes only a small percentage of the height data needed for replica of the whole earth? The percentage is so small, that it is nearly useless for a global flight simulator. For the rest AI magic is required.

1 hour ago, akita said:

"The tree shadow to height" magic trick that MSFS allegedly does results in

You talk about the limitations of a technology, which at least can cover the globe entirely, while promoting a technology which for 80% of the earth surface would just produce a fantasy world. You disqualify the solution for something important, for which "procedural scenery generation" has no solution at all (unless you consider a utter fantasy world a solution for a flight simulator).

Also if you have an issue with photogrammetry you actually have an issue with "procedural scenery generation".

2 hours ago, akita said:

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.

For a flight simulator it is perfect to recreate the variety of nature. In a meadow, you tend to have darker green colors, where water rins and the ground is wetter. This and hundreds of other physical processes, that impact the appearance of terrain, you get replicated for free using the aerial images. The screenshot from the desert nicely demonstrates, how the aerial pictures recreate the vast amount of colors and shades, which are "real world" for whatever reason, and be it different geological stratums popping up on the surface here and there. You dont need to show the pixels, which might be too coarse when zoomed in (and MSFS does not). But you can recreate the correct appearance when looking at it from an airplane. Perfect for a flight simulator. Btw. on the ground in the desert, you see from 1cm altitude still pefectly sharp PBR stones and the sand.
 

Seems like a lot of posters missed this part of my post, which was at the very top...

This post assumes that MSFS has won your money and you are not considering either P3D or XP. So if you do not fall into this category this post is really not directed at you.

2 hours ago, RobJC said:

Seems like a lot of posters missed this part of my post, which was at the very top...

This post assumes that MSFS has won your money and you are not considering either P3D or XP. So if you do not fall into this category this post is really not directed at you.

I disagree, some people may have bought msfs and also have the others, but are not prepared to commit to msfs fully and will happily return to one of the other platforms should the nonsence that continues to beset msfs

14 minutes ago, mazelda said:

I disagree, some people may have bought msfs and also have the others, but are not prepared to commit to msfs fully and will happily return to one of the other platforms should the nonsence that continues to beset msfs

Which nonsense is that?

2 hours ago, RobJC said:

Seems like a lot of posters missed this part of my post, which was at the very top

Probably because what was really at the top was a headline that was a -- loaded question. Hey, Rob, It's not that big of a deal and if you're happy with your post, that's fine, and this isn't personal. When "a lot of posters miss something," maybe things could have been framed differently. And it's hard to limit readers and responses to only MSFS die-hards no matter what qualifiers you might put in. Maybe this could have been in the MSFS forum? I take it as a sort of thought experiment that yielded a response you might not have expected. Fair enough. Good flights!

44 minutes ago, Noel said:

Which nonsense is that?

I can only speak for myself, I overall see it the best simulator I've ever had by a wide margin (and I bought and flew them all during the last 30 years, including XP11 and P3D5, the latter for the price applying to me as a non-student).

Yes, I see a few niggles, but no showstoppers and certainly no nonsense.

Kind regards, Michael

1 hour ago, Tim_Capps said:

Probably because what was really at the top was a headline that was a -- loaded question. Hey, Rob, It's not that big of a deal and if you're happy with your post, that's fine, and this isn't personal. When "a lot of posters miss something," maybe things could have been framed differently. And it's hard to limit readers and responses to only MSFS die-hards no matter what qualifiers you might put in. Maybe this could have been in the MSFS forum? I take it as a sort of thought experiment that yielded a response you might not have expected. Fair enough. Good flights!

No worries Tim. All good. 

 

1 hour ago, Tim_Capps said:

Probably because what was really at the top was a headline that was a -- loaded question. Hey, Rob, It's not that big of a deal and if you're happy with your post, that's fine, and this isn't personal. When "a lot of posters miss something," maybe things could have been framed differently. And it's hard to limit readers and responses to only MSFS die-hards no matter what qualifiers you might put in. Maybe this could have been in the MSFS forum? I take it as a sort of thought experiment that yielded a response you might not have expected. Fair enough. Good flights!

It started there! 

42 minutes ago, pmb said:

I can only speak for myself, I overall see it the best simulator I've ever had by a wide margin (and I bought and flew them all during the last 30 years, including XP11 and P3D5, the latter for the price applying to me as a non-student).

Yes, I see a few niggles, but no showstoppers and certainly no nonsense.

Kind regards, Michael

Yup, the gap between MSFS and X-Plane/P3D is so large now.  It will be a tough uphill battle for X-Plane/P3D.

9 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Yup, the gap between MSFS and X-Plane/P3D is so large now.  It will be a tough uphill battle for X-Plane/P3D.

I think there is a good chance that will be the case, but maybe there is a strategy that we hadn't considered? Something like LR and Eagle Dynamics partnering up? No idea if that is even feasible, but MSFS could be a threat to DCS at some point too. What if MS has combat servers, providing the entire planet to wage air war? Would that not start to encroach on DCS territory?  

Edited September 17, 20214 yr by RobJC

6 hours ago, mrueedi said:

For the rest AI magic is required.

And does not really work as I proved with the links.

Quote

You talk about the limitations of a technology, which at least can cover the globe entirely, while promoting a technology which for 80% of the earth surface would just produce a fantasy world. You disqualify the solution for something important, for which "procedural scenery generation" has no solution at all (unless you consider a utter fantasy world a solution for a flight simulator).

Procedural scenery is a general name for layered texturing according to some laws, MSFS does that.

That means that both topics are not limiting each other, a scenery can be procedural but driven by real data, wether this data is OSM, orthos or aby other source does not change the fact that a scenery is generated using procedural methods.

My complaint, again, is the choice to stick with orthos as final textures and let the AI generate sub par quality rather than working with actual artists that can use all the wonderful data that MS owns. But then Azure won't be promoted...

Quote

Also if you have an issue with photogrammetry you actually have an issue with "procedural scenery generation".

Both have no relation to each other, I explained above.

If you like your building plagued with artifacts, low res and no PBR/normal map/emissive, then good for you. I prefer my buildings actually look like buildings and not french toast. This is why when I use MSFS I stick with autogen only, but comparing black sharks art assets to what can be done in 2021 is not even fair...

Quote

For a flight simulator it is perfect to recreate the variety of nature. In a meadow, you tend to have darker green colors, where water rins and the ground is wetter. This and hundreds of other physical processes, that impact the appearance of terrain, you get replicated for free using the aerial images.

But they still look very bad and nothing like wet or any other explanation. Also this is a desert you gave no wet meadow there.

Compared to art assets thay were designed to be seamless and work with dynamic content.

Quote

Btw. on the ground in the desert, you see from 1cm altitude still pefectly sharp PBR stones and the sand.

 

They are called decals and are standard for many years, even Xplane  the one who didn't update their art for about a decade, has them. This is part of "procedural texturing". But the the albedos are just too out of their scale that it's very noticed. And even if, still no dynamic seasons...

I think this is enough fo me...we can agree to disagree.

Edited September 17, 20214 yr by akita

The nonsense i was refering to is every time there's an update it breaks something,or when they put an update out you have to jump through hoops before you can access it.Or the general hassle involved with bugs. I'm also guessing that server crashing issues will become more of an issue over time. 

Now i know these will not be deal breakers for most but at what point will it become deal breakers?

At the moment there is possibly only 1 study level ish product available which had problems after a recent sim update, so when there are a few more available and they get broken by an update,how long before the whingers start.

Again it all depends on what and how you fly. If your a low and slowish vfr simmer then yes msfs is fantastic, if your an ifr tubeliner simmer then many things are to varying degrees lacking still.

I'm not trying to bash msfs,but in answer to the title of the post, the things i've mentioned will if not fixed in a reasonable time frame it will have people looking at other flight sims again.

If it was not for the fantastic mod community, would people be so forgiving about the basic sim, pretty scenery is not everything

Tell me what I'm missing.  I have Orbx Northern California loaded.  I fly the 20 minute flight from Gnoss Field to KSFO at 2500 feet and things look pretty much as I expected them to.  It's the area I grew up in and learned to fly in.  No, I can't see my house in Mill Valley but the renditions and shapes satisfy me.

I can fly the highway from San Rafael to Fairfax and then over to to Point Reyes and things look like would expect them to.  The lakes and streams look accurate.

Flying back to Gnoss Field from KSFO I see the Sleeping Maiden outlined on Mt. Tamalpais.

Tell me what additional stuff I would see with MSFS.  Or at least what I am missing using P3D/Orbx.

Noel

Edited September 17, 20214 yr by birdguy

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

Tell me what I'm missing.  I have Orbx Northern California loaded.  I fly the 20 minute flight from Gnoss Field to KSFO at 2500 feet and things look pretty much as I expected them to.  It's the area I grew up in and learned to fly in.  No, I can't see my house in Mill Valley but the renditions and shapes satisfy me.

I can fly the highway from San Rafael to Fairfax and then over to to Point Reyes and things look like would expect them to.  The lakes and streams look accurate.

Flying back to Gnoss Field from KSFO I see the Sleeping Maiden outlined on Mt. Tamalpais.

Tell me what additional stuff I would see with MSFS.  Or at least what I am missing using P3D/Orbx.

Noel

I think being able to see real scenery and not approximate scenery is a big plus for many. This is 2021 and i guess people expect these products to be more realistic. Not needing to pay for, install and update scenery, weather and ai traffic are three major bonuses. Those items combined cost hundreds, even thousands. The workload related to MSFS is just a lot lower too. It is just less hassle because you aren’t dealing with all this stuff. 

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

Tell me what additional stuff I would see with MSFS.  Or at least what I am missing using P3D/Orbx.

Noel

Do you just by chance intend to fly in other regions like, say, Morocco, Japan or the Middle East  now and then? I do often. I want to see more of the world than just my home region.

If you don't then Prepar3d with ORBX TrueEarth is indeed all you need.

Kind regards, Michael

Edited September 17, 20214 yr by pmb