34 minutes ago, GoranM said:

But it is superior.  Sorry to tell you.

Seems like that's pretty much the only thing XP has going for it. Besides that it has nothing else to offer, and no it's not superior. Maybe when comparing it to FSX, then perhaps.

29 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Seems like that's pretty much the only thing XP has going for it. Besides that it has nothing else to offer, and no it's not superior. Maybe when comparing it to FSX, then perhaps.

And it's maintained and grown its user base for nearly 30 years, and never closed its doors.  

The best 747 flight sim, that is DOS based, has no scenery at all, and is still on the market.  Demographics is a fascinating subject.

 

Edited September 27, 20214 yr by GoranM

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

And it's maintained and grown its user base for nearly 30 years, and never closed its doors.  

The best 747 flight sim, that is DOS based, has no scenery at all, and is still on the market.  Demographics is a fascinating subject.

 

It's JAVA based Goran 🙂

It runs beautifully in MacOS and also in Linux, assuming you're referring to Aerowinx PSX, but, I am with you, although there's an exception where I could prefer an MFS approach - VFR over areas I fly IRL, and as a trainning tool for emergencies...

At our airclub where soaring machines rule 🙂 a highly customized scenery area for the region around the aerodrome has been used with Condorsoaring for trainning scenarios. From a flight and soaring weather POV Condorsoaring excels against the other mass flightsim platforms, but graphically it leaves a LOT to be desired.

The first time I loaded MFS, long ago, still on early Beta, it was jaw dropping to see each and every detail was there, and yes I had used orthos, with the help of Humpty and Tony to enhance that area in XP11, but heck, nothing could actually compare to the feel of being there that MFS renders. This is unique for trainning "desorientation" scenarios, and can really put those enthusiastic students that think it's a day for the 50km go & return away from a day spent picking a glider ( or it's remnants ) from the corn fields...

For the rest, the kind of detail X-Plane 11 already provides, less the visuals for the skies, is more than I could ask for. What I saw in XP12's presentation is WOW !

One thing that X-Plane has been doing way way way way better than MS FS, and descendants, is runway lighting and the way it merges with surrounding scenery. MFS still has that arcade feel of "hey the airfield is HERE !!!!" where you can't really miss it in the middle if the city lights, when it's an airfield near or inside a town area. This is such an interesting / important feature, more than cars on roads and traffic signs would ever mean to me, and MFS still does this so wrong ...

Edited September 27, 20214 yr by jcomm

10 hours ago, mSparks said:

well, we have pure like for like shots of MSFS vs XP11

e.g

vs

The lighting in that top photo looks identical to the screenshots you posted, If you think any of those MSFS shots look realistic I really think you need to get out more....

I also really dont understand why you are setting the bar so low. XP12 is competing with:

 

The MSFS one looks much better.  Multiple people have also responded already saying the MSFS one looks better too. 

There really isn't a comparison in graphics between XP11 and MSFS.  It's like comparing an F1 Formula Car to a Honda Civic.  The gap is too large.

Now comparing XP12 and MSFS in graphics, I think the gap is closer so you can make some comparisons between XP12 and MSFS (but IMO, MSFS is still better than XP12 in almost all areas except for close up trees). Just so people don't get the wrong idea from me again like Goran did, if I give MSFS 100% for graphics, I gave the XP12 demo 80% for graphics (excluding the comparison of FPS because we don't have performance benchmarks for XP12's FPS yet). So IMO, XP12 graphics are quite good to me, at least what I saw in the demo (80% would make you an honor student in most schools).

Edited September 27, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

4 minutes ago, jcomm said:

It's JAVA based Goran

I meant the original version when it came out in the 90’s and was made for DOS. (Corrected)

6 hours ago, PaulBB said:

I was there and talked to them, don't expect anything major on scenery from above 5000 to 35000+ they are all generic texture and building, repeat will be there from object, texture and so on. They did not want to show these, are not related to unfinished, you will see some detailed scenery the rest of the world all generic,The 3d trees are rendered in very very low altitude and in short range, a line appears when this is draw. From above it look like XP11 a bit enhanced but nothing major improvement on this area, but this is Austin philosophy, he clearly stated tons of time, not a surprise.

Another thing Austin talked, the performance won't be anything near XP11, expect significant drop.

Well, that's interesting.  I mentioned already that with all the graphics improvements coming to XP12, that even if XP12 matched the FPS of XP11, that would be a huge win in itself, because of all the graphics enhancements for XP12. This would be consistent with what we see in the videos.

It's really tough to improve both the graphics and FPS at the same time for most video games.  It can be done by LR but they have to spend even more time on development and the XP12 release may be delayed further.  My guess us that in the best case scenario, LR figures out how to match the FPS of XP11 when they release XP12.  Of course LR could surprise us all by not only giving better graphics in XP12, but also increasing the FPS as well.  I guess we will see when XP12 is released.

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

First of all, Paul claimed to have spoken to Austin.  But let's say he did.  And performance won't be as good (just to humor you, David.)

If I'm getting 120fps in XP11, and I end up getting 100fps in XP12, I'm pretty sure I'll be happy with that.  

To fairly compare XP to MSFS, you need to include the add-ons that enhance XP scenery and graphics to MSFS.  This was the case with XP11, where even if you include all the add-ons (including orthos too), to enhance the graphics and scenery of XP11, after all those add-ons, XP11 generally did not look as good as MSFS in most cases, but the FPS of XP11 is reduced with all those add-ons.

My sub par computer (as you can see in my signature) can run vanilla FSX at over 200 FPS (actually, I think I hit 250 FPS with vanilla FSX).  But again, to compare FSX to MSFS, you need to add all the best add-ons to enhance the graphics and scenery of FSX, in which the FPS will be reduced as well.  And even then, FSX still doesn't look as good as MSFS.

To be fair though, XP12 already has some graphics enhancements where you won't rely on 3rd party add-ons.  The trees, lighting, water, clouds, etc, have been enhanced in XP12 so if those enhancements become the base of XP12, you will need less add-ons in XP12 (but you may still require some add-ons like ortho to produce scenery comparable to MSFS).  So it will be more easier to compare XP12 to MSFS, but I think the average XP12 user who wants a more closer experience to MSFS, may still need a few add-ons to XP12, and then the comparison can be made to MSFS.

Edited September 27, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

But it is superior.  Sorry to tell you.

Too debateable to say with any meaningful confidence. A paper done comparing BET under XP9 with FSX seemed to find no convincing superiority, and there's plenty of voices on both sides of the fence now.

Flight Testing in a Simulation Based Environment (core.ac.uk)

Edited September 27, 20214 yr by scotchegg

26 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

To fairly compare XP to MSFS, you need to include the add-ons that enhance XP scenery and graphics to MSFS.  This was the case with XP11, where even if you include all the add-ons (including orthos too), to enhance the graphics and scenery of XP11, after all those add-ons, XP11 generally did not look as good as MSFS in most cases, but the FPS of XP11 is reduced with all those add-ons.

My sub par computer (as you can see in my signature) can run vanilla FSX at over 200 FPS (actually, I think I hit 250 FPS with vanilla FSX).  But again, to compare FSX to MSFS, you need to add all the best add-ons to enhance the graphics and scenery of FSX, in which the FPS will be reduced as well.  And even then, FSX still doesn't look as good as MSFS.

To be fair though, XP12 already has some graphics enhancements where you won't rely on 3rd party add-ons.  The trees, lighting, water, clouds, etc, have been enhanced in XP12 so if those enhancements become the base of XP12, you will need less add-ons in XP12 (but you may still require some add-ons like ortho to produce scenery comparable to MSFS).  So it will be more easier to compare XP12 to MSFS, but I think the average XP12 user who wants a more closer experience to MSFS, may still need a few add-ons to XP12, and then the comparison can be made to MSFS.

Ok, I'll get serious without the sarcasm for a little bit.  Maybe there are some of us who simply don't care about the comparisons.  Maybe some of us are perfectly happy in our choices.  Personally, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why people from the MSFS forums, who keep preaching how bad X-Plane is and how great MSFS is, HAVE TO come here and scream even more, about how bad X-Plane is.  The only reason I can think of is they hate X-Plane so much, they want it to disappear so everyone flocks to MSFS.  This isn't going to happen.  If there is another reason, please, spill the beans.  Because I doubt I'm alone in wanting to know why there are 23 pages of debates in 2 days.

23 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Too debateable to say with any meaningful confidence.

There's going to be opinions on this everywhere.  And it's going to be mostly subjective.  The problem with an independent study (admittedly, I haven't read the whole thing, but I probably will), is that you would need someone to dissect Planemaker and the MSFS SDK, and then come to a conclusion on what can be achieved.  

Personally, based on what I've seen, studied and then experimented with, X-Plane has a better flight model.  Does MSFS have anything like Airfoil Maker?  I haven't seen it, so please feel free to let me know if it does.  I can even make airfoils in Java Foil and have them work, with all the specs, in X-Plane.  Taking into account all elements of an airfoil.

To me, this screams of a better flight model.

Obviously there are going to be glaring differences between someone who knows how to use the tools as opposed to someone who doesn't, and that's where I think any independent study falls short.

But hey, I've been wrong before, and if I'm wrong now, so be it.

Edited September 27, 20214 yr by GoranM

10 hours ago, mSparks said:

well, we have pure like for like shots of MSFS vs XP11

e.g

vs

The lighting in that top photo looks identical to the screenshots you posted, If you think any of those MSFS shots look realistic I really think you need to get out more....

I also really dont understand why you are setting the bar so low. XP12 is competing with

I really like the grass on the bottom pic. It adds so much immersion. 😂

6 hours ago, PaulBB said:

I was there and talked to them,

...and I was at the Asobo office last night and talked to the guys, the next world update will remove all scenery so MSFS will run on smartwatches to get more users, they will also import the aerodynamics model from GTA 5, because that was obviously more popular than MSFS, and they will also require a subscription of roughly 59.95$ per month.

Its true, they told me! 🤪

Come on, PaulBB, this is a new low. We can argue about all these things, fine, but just spreading lies and fake news?

4 minutes ago, GoranM said:

 Personally, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why people from the MSFS forums, who keep preaching how bad X-Plane is and how great MSFS is, HAVE TO come here and scream even more, about how bad X-Plane is.

LOL, I just said I gave XP12's demo an 80% for graphics.  And I also said in this thread that if MSFS never existed, XP12 would have possibly brought me back to flight simulation, something that XP 11 and P3D 5 didn't do. 

Not sure why you keep thinking I am saying XP is bad.  Because XP12 looks decent to me from what I see (hence I gave it an 80% score for graphics).

3 hours ago, Greazer said:

That is Not going to be acceptable.

, It was so nice and quiet. than a storm blew up

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

LOL, I just said I gave XP12's demo an 80% for graphics.  And I also said in this thread that if MSFS never existed, XP12 would have possibly brought me back to flight simulation, something that XP 11 and P3D 5 didn't do. 

Not sure why you keep thinking I am saying XP is bad.  Because XP12 looks decent to me from what I see (hence I gave it an 80% score for graphics).

How noble of you to think I was talking about you.

🤦‍♂️

Please re-read my post.

time to close this thread ? hope not