12 minutes ago, rka said:

Sorry pal. You keep moving the goal posts too quickly to allow for a serious discussion. 

Fair enough 🙃. So ... I'll give you more time to prove me wrong about FLIGHT simulation. OTOH - the original post is already 14 hours old. Actually more than enough time ... And no one of the other haters proved me wrong until now. I did a similar post in a German forum already 11 months ago, after that ... there was silence. So ... wish you good luck.

Edited December 15, 20214 yr by uwespeed

12 minutes ago, rka said:

You need to brush up on your logic. But I think I told you that before.

More insults...happens every time the fictional facts machine gets confused 😆

Still waiting for:

1) Where Laminar Research and their friends claimed no LR will not make any performance optimizations for x-plane 12.

2) Answer to janov's post and compare to MSFS.

3) Answer to uwespeed and compare to MSFS

But But But orthos!!! Photogrammetry!! 

This is an x-plane forum, again, the bar is set accordingly and if you want to prove someone wrong you better get ready.

Edited December 15, 20214 yr by mtaxp

2 hours ago, rka said:

Sorry pal. You keep moving the goal posts too quickly to allow for a serious discussion. 

Ok ... enough time passed to respond to this post, namely 2 hours - not even one of my items was proven wrong, let alone all of them. It took me only 1 hour for my original post (30 mins to write down all of the items and another 30 mins of searching for some videos confirming that). And that one is already 16 hours old. You couldn't prove me wrong - thus, discussion is closed. Thanks for agreeing 🤝.

Edited December 15, 20214 yr by uwespeed

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

Anyone who has flown and/or [tried to] develop for fsx has experience of the simulation aspect of MSFS. It was Asobos starting point, about 9 years ago.

I won't try to derail this any further, but if you have used the new SDK you will know that the aerodynamic calculations are not simply ported over from prior versions.  That's how you end up with complex discussions like this ...

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/flight-model-physics-sdk.451996/

"and the MSFS flight model is unquestionably a significant advance on FSX" ... from people actually working with the new SDK.

Edited December 15, 20214 yr by Gulfstream

1 hour ago, Gulfstream said:

not simply ported over from prior versions

I didnt say it was. We know how its being developed. It was xplaned here.

https://austinmeyer.com/ok-this-is-just-plain-funny/

we know how much better the ms approach is than xplane because they xplaned it to everyone here:

No one cares.

But LR does a small sneak peak of their new clouds and its like spring break in Hades.

Most of us find that quite amusing as well.

Meanwhile.

Edited December 15, 20214 yr by mSparks

On 12/12/2021 at 11:08 PM, Noel said:

What does XP12 have over MSFS currently?  And vice versa?

To the first part of your question, I'd say a friendly place where 3rd party vendor can directly discuss with LR developers and where our input is listened to and very often valued. And to the 2nd part of your question: this and that.

There is no doubt FS2020 rendering engine is producing very nice visuals, and these are very pleasant in VR to me. But the best way I'd describe the difference in terms of flight simulation, is just try flying the JF PA28 in both FS2020 and XP11, both in VR, and just feel how it behaves differently.

PS: I'm using the PA28 as an example because it is the only one I know of which is made by the same company and which I've had the chance to compare in VR in both programs.

Edited December 15, 20214 yr by RXP

1 hour ago, RXP said:

And to the 2nd part of your question: this and that.

You should probably just write your own narrative.

Heres some suggestions from briefly reading the history

MSFS cannot legally be used for commercial or educational purposes and therefore is unsuitable for use with current RXP products.

MSFS developers are technologically and legally inhibited from providing the necessary tools required to integrate RXP products with their software.

RXP have reached out on mulitple occasions to discuss resolving the legal, ethical and technological challenges faced by the MSFS developers, but following the childish unprofessional behaviour from their staff and the disastrous launch and development experience of highly respected developers like PMDG, RXP have decided not to pursue that market segment at this time.

RXP are dedicated to providing the highest quality and safest aviation experience attainable, MSFS is currently unable to offer such an experience, unless and until this changes you may find a list of our products, requirements and compatibility (here)[link]

Edited December 16, 20214 yr by mSparks

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

RXP have reached out on mulitple occasions to discuss resolving the legal, ethical and technological challenges faced by the MSFS developers, but following the childish unprofessional behaviour from their staff and the disastrous launch and development experience of highly respected developers like PMDG, RXP have decided not to pursue that market segment at this time.

RXP are dedicated to providing the highest quality and safest aviation experience attainable, MSFS is currently unable to offer such an experience, unless and until this changes you may find a list of our products, requirements and compatibility (here)[link]

This mostly comes down to the fact that the weather isn't extensible, no?  So despite trying to resolve the "legal, ethical and technological challenges" it basically came down to "can you get the weather system into an extensible SDK so that my company remains viable?" and the answer was "no".

Well, that's the answer.  May not need it.

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with that stance, but that's where it stands.

Edited December 16, 20214 yr by Gulfstream

32 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

weather system into an extensible SDK so that my company remains viable?" and the answer was "no".

RXP make Garmin avionics trainers. MSFS dev issues are much more than just weather.

But also, yes, these 300 or so lines of code

https://github.com/mSparks43/Enhanced-Cloudscapes-Engine/blob/master/Enhanced_Cloudscapes_Engine/scripts/smooth_weather/smooth_weather.lua

Which do this in xplane 11

Are out still of MSFS's league aiui.

And LR have put years into upgrading the weather for XP12 compared to XP11, not a couple of evenings because there was nothing on TV.

Edited December 16, 20214 yr by mSparks

Due to the discussion about photogrammetry vs artist driven:

 

 

Explains pretty much a lot about why photogrammetry/orthos can be nice out of the box, but plagued and plagued with immersion killers hence really still far from the holy grail.

So if we revert back to the autogen discussion, to me rendering that makes sense to the eye (proper lighting, FX, materials etc...)  > accurate roof colors, by miles. And this is without mentioning all the other possibilities (weather masks, micro-designed scenes, much higher texel density and an overall much more plausible and alive look, "you get what you see").

If I have to pay for 3rd party landmarks for a random city that I fly to that is perfectly fine, just like one has to pay to get seasons in MSFS for the foreseeable future and just like many others are seeking better airports and skylines as well, otherwise no one will work hard for them to sell...

 

Edited December 18, 20214 yr by akita

2 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Blah, blah blah. The fact is that Meyer sat back fat coining it in and didn't expect FS2020 and failed to invest sufficiently in XP. Three men in a shed won't cut it anymore . Now with the competition there is some hope that my sim of choice will meet my expectations. And I am very grateful to Asobo for kicking some rear ends. XP 11 is shockingly out of date.

Nah, meet your expectations, ive being happy with xp11 since i jumped from Fsx but than im easily pleased. Vulcan just made it better,

4 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Blah, blah blah. ....[snip] .... XP 11 is shockingly out of date.

Blah, blah, blah 😅. Au contraire, mon ami - it's still shockingly ahead of the competitor, as the facts show us. And with XP12 it will get even better. However, no one hinders you from using MSFS 2020, we are living in a free world.

 

Edited December 18, 20214 yr by uwespeed

On 12/18/2021 at 4:57 AM, akita said:

Explains pretty much a lot about why photogrammetry/orthos can be nice out of the box, but plagued and plagued with immersion killers hence really still far from the holy gra

You've cherry picked the right example to make the point--FlyTampa KLAS is very nicely done and reasonably priced as well.  Of course if we cherry pick custom-enhanced scenery over an entire world of ortho/photo you're comparing apples and oranges.  Sparks said the world was 'pretty much' like the other image you posted earlier in this thread of detailed closeups in a town, and also tried to make the point the spaces in between finely detailed cities don't matter much once in the air--this is a spurious rationalization to me because absolutely the space in between airports and cities indeed contribute greatly to the entire sense of flying thru the real world and that is really why many to most are very happy with scenery/lighting/atmosphere in MSFS.  Not talking here about the rest of flight simulation which all MSFS' users who have been at flight simulation understand are still a ways off now 1y/4m post release.  

Here's a chance for anyone here to post any random location on the planet earth as a comparator, to see and comment on.   I'll go first as I just flew out of Caracas Venezuela to MROC just to see what out of the box imagery looks like there.  South America has not been part of a World Update so is OEM.  I'm guessing Caracas was not custom developed for XP11 but I might be very wrong.  These blurrified compressed images are default MSFS-if you post this same location in XP11 please comment if this was enhanced in any way by a 3rd party.  After that, pick any other city in a less than frequently traveled part of the planet and I'll post its counterpart from MSFS.  

And coming into MROC, San Juan, Costa Rica--never been here in-sim, nor in RL. I get the distinct sense this is what this area looks like IRL.  I think it helps to capture all of the subtle coloration that comes w/ satellite imagery over trying to get that 'real' thru completely artificial 'artwork'.  What MSFS ortho/PG scenery offers is that distinct sense you're flying thru the real world--a sense I never had once in P3D w/ Orbx regional sceneries, and therein is it's compelling value.  And, it will likely get better as Bing data improves, which it very likely will over time, and will move towards Holy Grail status over time, though it's very good even today, all over the planet.

Remember, I'm not inquiring into which sim is better, which sim is more complete as a flight sim, just scenery/atmosphere/lighting.  

BTW, if you haven't seen this, enjoy: 

 

 

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, Noel said:

MROC just to see what out of the box imagery looks like there.  South America has not been part of a World Update so is OEM.  I'm guessing Caracas was not custom developed for XP11

The airport has, 100% default:

https://gateway.x-plane.com/airports/MROC/show

 

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by mSparks

47 minutes ago, Noel said:

You've cherry picked the right example to make the point--FlyTampa KLAS is very nicely done and reasonably priced as well.  Of course if we cherry pick custom-enhanced scenery over an entire world of ortho/photo you're comparing apples and oranges. 

I've been trying to demonstrate (and successfully) that artists do a much better job in producing better looking art than what can be done with photogrammetry. Not Xplane11 vs MSFS.

When I use MSFS, photogrammetry is off and the art work already looks ( & reacts) better for a real time renderer even if the roof colors are not accurate, I prefer a "you get what you see" approach.

As for orthos, they can be a great source for data to make your scenery more accurate, but imo by no means look as good compared to *what can be done* (not what Xplane has now) with better terrain texturing schemes and high quality materials, even after the MSFS AI try to decal it and add procedural grass. 

 

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by akita