1 minute ago, Humpty said:

It's def a good choice to have when it can create real world data I agree. 

I do remember it not being good  , maybe thats changed ?

The places where I can tell have definitely improved over the last year, but they were great initially as well. They're just even better now. Higher resolution and stuff like that.

It is invaluable when e.g. your local stadium has the shape and colour it has in reality instead of looking like the Rome Colosseum, even if you possibly couldn't read the text on the wall last year (and now you can).

29 minutes ago, Humpty said:

Yeah don't mind PG stuff but i don't think it would be a good choice for a low flying aircraft especially helis.

It can look nice even from 800 feet VFR flight but once you try land at, an example, LAPD helipad it looks an absolute horror and should never pass any graphics quality management imo.

Photogrammetry fails pretty much in anything that is not a simple shaped building and "deep metadata" and this is where Xplane's autogen scenes can look 10x better. Landmark packs are still needed and rather popular in MSFS as well.

Edited December 13, 20214 yr by akita

Oh, the horrors of photogrammetry...

5 hours ago, Noel said:

What does XP12 have over MSFS currently?

Procedural seasons (i.e. trees and ground changing gradually);

dynamic environment (puddles, snow etc. forming gradually; realistic tree swaying in the wind);

a weather system that is likely more accurate for setting things like precise visibility, etc.;

likely, a better flight model;

also, a more comprehensive flight model (e.g. a true flight model for helicopters, canards, variable sweep wing, other unconventional configurations, etc.);

more realistic default avionics and systems;

a lot more open to 3rd parties in most of its features (see the difficulties some 3rd developers are having in developing study level aircraft for the other sim).

 

22 minutes ago, rka said:

Oh, the horrors of photogrammetry...

Anything at an altitude would look good , what I am saying is what @akita mentioned when trying to land. 

As said I don't own mfs anymore so can't judge how it is now at an altitude lower than what is in the shot.

can you get lower and click ?

Edited December 13, 20214 yr by Humpty

30 minutes ago, rka said:

Oh, the horrors of photogrammetry...

Rather than take the "normal" approach of arguing.

And doing my best to make no reference to any other simulator.

Ill point out that photogrammetry is already possible even in XP11, but no one offers it at scale because the benefits it has (looking great from 800 feet) dont add enough value over the disadvantages (massive storage/bandwidth issues, looking awful from 100 feet, being often very glitchy from 4000 feet, invisible at 10,000 feet) to make it a profitable endeavour.

This is in stark contrast to volumetric cloud systems (the topic) which everyone wants and wanted, but have not been possible prior due to the technological and scientific barriers being unsolved until very recently (in software development timescales), and needing the changes being made for XP12 to do "well" rather than "barely usable"

I like landing my helicopter at random clearings or other open spots in big cities - avoiding parked cars, trashcans, trees and lampposts. I wonder how that would look in photogrammetry? I saw a youtube video of someone buzzing the street-canyons of Manhattan in MSFS and it errm, didn´t look that good. That was a while ago, though.

I do agree that PG looks really good from a few hundred feet up, though!

Yet again, topics are becoming hostile and going over the same arguments again and again. Certain users have now been given some time off.. Please put a stop to this and remove the toxic attitude on this forum.

1 hour ago, Humpty said:

can you get lower and click ?

Here is one from Oct. 2020. So more than a year old which saw improvements.

1 minute ago, rka said:

Here is one from Oct. 2020. So more than a year old which saw improvements.

Yeah looks good. Thanks.

If we are taking "choice shots" and critiquing them

The lighting in this picture isn't realistic. see that described in detail at:

https://developer.x-plane.com/2021/11/photometric-lighting-what-is-it-and-why-do-we-need-it/

There should be small cumulus clouds in view, aka the not allowed words developers use to describe the topic.

Anything else* or we all sweet once that work is done?

*Doesnt work on Greazers hardware implied but not included.

 

 

Edited December 13, 20214 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, rka said:

Here is one from Oct. 2020. So more than a year old which saw improvements.

I would actually say those PG shots look good enough to land a helicopter in it.

Just now, Janov said:

I would actually say those PG shots look good enough to land a helicopter in it.

Now all we need is the Helicopter.

and we can both

 

But I thought

Was more your thing.

7 hours ago, rka said:

From what we know now, XP12 will be mostly a graphical update, but will not have ortho and will not have photogrammetry.

I trialed XP several times over the years but never felt the need to leave P3D for it, especially having spent the requisite $$ to make P3D plausible visually.  In the end w/ P3D because of poor performance flying the PMDG NGXu and 777 into complex airports I ironically ended up disabling most ORBX scenery so I could land at ultra smooth 30 FPS via vsync, and that is despite the decent hardware in my signature specs.  And then because P3D looked so pathetic I ended up for the first six months post MSFS release flying only from dusk to dawn when visuals are limited to night lighting and 3rd party airports, and even dialed back settings to very low levels of autogen to be assured of liquid smooth flight anywhere. 

XP12 has its work cut out for itself to approach the completeness of the MSFS atmosphere, scenery, lighting and weather components that continue to improve.  I continue to be awestruck by what value all of that reality provides to the entire experience.  I cringe a bit when someone tries to reduce that to the rather dismissive phrase, 'eye candy'.  It is part and parcel of what makes MSFS so immersive and compelling, and why multidecade simmers remain enamored with it and stay with it despite its growing pains.  But it appears XP 12 is making some nice advances so good for them they deserve some success with it considering how long it's been in existence.  It's a bit hard to see how it can compete w/ MSFS w/o ortho and photogrammetry.  Default airports all over the world in MSFS are often incredibly well done as well.  Competition is good I hope Asobo takes notice and continue their stated thrust towards stability in 2022.

Some sweet shots from MSFS:

Rain squalls near my home town of Arvada CO, from early MSFS:

Fussen, Bavaria, also from early on:

WDC, also from early on:

Coming in to KLAX--as I say the value of being this aligned to reality is IMO not well described as, 'eye candy':

The quality of default airports is very often stunning to say the least, and they're all over the world, and even pedestrian rural airports are quite remarkable quite often:

If it's true to say XP 12 is mostly a graphical upgrade, but w/o PG and Ortho, I'm not see the lure quite yet.

Hi Noel,

those are stunning screenshots! It is obvious that MSFS is capable of producing unrivaled visuals.

It will probably be forever a mystery to someone focused on visuals like you - but just like there are some people that still enjoy Minecraft over Battlefield 2042, there are quite a few that enjoy flying X-Plane 11 instead of MSFS.

There is no doubt that MSFS will in general look a ton better than X-Plane 11 (despite mSparks now posting some screenshots to prove the opposite in a minute or two 😉 ).

X-Plane 12 will close the gap, but I believe that MSFS will still come out ahead in the visual department when comparing it to XP12. So for everyone with a focus on the visual aspect of flying - MSFS will be the simulator of choice. If I read your interests and focus right - there is nothing to gain for you by browsing for XP12 news or screenshots. Fly MSFS and be a happy camper!