10 minutes ago, akita said:

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

I would hope so lest there would be no role for artists any longer.  There will be a day when that very likely happens, but not today quite yet.  But already, it's really, really good.  Others here have commented on posted images that they were 'stunning', and well they should because they really are.

11 minutes ago, akita said:

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)

I agree it's very doable to make things look 'prettier' per se, which to me really captures what is meant by the phrase, 'eye candy'.  It's the 'more accurate' piece that comes into play for the sense of immersion into a real world that I have in using MSFS over P3D w/ Orbx.   Your, 'not what Xplane has now' piece is the part that evades me now because Sparks likes to portray the topic very differently, as exemplied in his comment that what you posted as custom detailed local scenery was mirrored all over the world, 'pretty much'.  

10 minutes ago, Noel said:

custom detailed local scenery was mirrored all over the world, 'pretty much'.  

default xp11 will be as detailed as the "pretty much" comment.

with sfd global installed it will look the same. (sfd changes the art assets globally)

what i posted above for MROC is default xplane.

10 minutes ago, Noel said:

not what Xplane has now

because even better is coming

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by mSparks

45 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The airport has, 100% default:

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

 

Those images of MROC the airport and area have the same signature of P3D w/ landclass, especially in looking at things like cars parked about the airport. 

Bring up similar images from Caracas as I posted from so we can compare default.  I never posted images of MROC, just posted screenshots out the window over San Jose, Costa Rica.

14 minutes ago, Noel said:

Those images of MROC the airport and area have the same signature of P3D w/ landclass, especially in looking at things like cars parked about the airport. 

Bring up similar images from Caracas as I posted from so we can compare default.  I never posted images of MROC, just posted screenshots out the window over San Jose, Costa Rica.

As I have just spent the last few weeks screenshots dont portray anything important for me.

show stoppers for me in order of importance are:

Cant use VR

Bad/broken flight model (that is aircraft specific)

Hard to customise when things are wrong.

missing or wrong object placement and visibility (Roads, bridges, powerlines, VORs and other navaids, signage, lighting etc)

Screenshots dont tell us anything about any of that.

XP area around will look pretty much the same as the other shots you have seen map of the area used to generate the scenery here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/9.9686/-84.1520

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by mSparks

As you ignore the prior image of flying towards MROC over San Jose, just tell me what you really see here posted again here.   What I see is something so profoundly more accurate and real in an overall sense than anything ever witnessed in P3D w/ Orbx.  I'm waiting, and hoping, someone can post something that can compete with this aspect of ortho/PG in MSFS.  And this was flat out default San Jose, and this is the way it is everywhere on the entire planet, even spots like CR that have not yet been enhanced thru their World Update.  Believe me, I'm rooting for XP12 and XP13 after, but right now I've yet to see anything that doesn't give me the impression I'm looking at a flight sim version of Toy Story.   I know that sounds worse that it is--but I've become spoiled, and therein is why we all hope MSFS matures the rest of the sim beyond it's current state.  XP screenshots so far are definite pretty for sure in spots just as P3D w/ Orbx was, but has an artificiality about it.  OTOH, stock airports in MSFS can look too pretty and therefore a little more artificial as well.

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

Screenshots dont tell us anything about any of that.

Yes I've framed my comments here around scenery/atmosphere/lighting only, and of course acknowledge MSFS falls short of the complete simulator now at 1y4m post release--all veteran users coming over from FSX/XP/P3D understand this to a greater or lesser degree, of course, and I made that distinction early on which is why I've never said one is 'better' than the other.  Some will frustrate and return to FSX/XP/P3D for now until the dust clears, but exactly zero will leave MSFS due to....scenery/atmosphere/lighting.

5 minutes ago, Noel said:

scenery/atmosphere/lighting 

Do you understand that these are three independent things that can be independently good and bad and that a "nice screenshot" is 99% about lighting only. 

1 hour ago, Noel said:

It's the 'more accurate' piece that comes into play for the sense of immersion into a real world that I have in using MSFS over P3D w/ Orbx.

It is funny that you speak about "more accurate".

If I compare the picture of the airport you posted with the picture of the airport mSparks posted... there is no doubt in my mind which one is way more accurate, especially with ground markings, numberings, aircraft parked correctly...

As a pilot I could never bring myself to use a bland and inaccurate rendition of Caracas like the one you posted.

I don´t care if some slum is in the correct spot on that mountain - I want to fly airplanes and they need accurate airports more than they need accurate soccer fields in some suburb 😄

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by Janov

15 minutes ago, Janov said:

It is funny that you speak about "more accurate".

If I compare the picture of the airport you posted with the picture of the airport mSparks posted... there is no doubt in my mind which one is way more accurate, especially with ground markings, numberings, aircraft parked correctly...

As a pilot I could never bring myself to use a bland and inaccurate rendition of Caracas like the one you posted.

I don´t care if some slum is in the correct spot on that mountain - I want to fly airplanes and they need accurate airports more than they need accurate soccer fields in some suburb 😄

It's the big picture Janov, the giant world picture, not just an airport.  MSFS stock airports err on the side of less accurate in terms of markings, numberings.  Dunno if that will ever improve, but I suppose ever is a long time and it could,10yr project and all.  This is why there is a market to for airports for MSFS users that they're very familiar with because quite frankly if you don't know a particular airport then it is easy to find default very good to excellent, and often prettier than their actual counterparts, even if components are not accurate in terms of markings, numbers, etc.  I would guess most MSFS users, veterans from FSX/XP/P3D, aren't familiar with most world airports, so are willing to trade in excellent looking and in some cases less accurate airports for a full world of these.  Joke all you wish about not caring about accurate position of slums, etc but all of that goes into what makes ortho/PG so compelling, and so very different than accurate airports alone.  I had ample accurate 3rd party airports I bought for P3D and have a few in MSFS now that I know intimately enough to matter to me.

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

Do you understand that these are three independent things that can be independently good and bad and that a "nice screenshot" is 99% about lighting only. 

Sure on #1 statement, but this one, "nice screenshot" is 99% about lighting only is, well, ludicrous for lack of a better word.  

26 minutes ago, Noel said:

"nice screenshot" is 99% about lighting only is, well, ludicrous for lack of a better word.  

So you fully understand that these two screenshots are identical in every meaningful way?

36 minutes ago, Noel said:

Joke all you wish about not caring about accurate position of slums, etc but all of that goes into what makes ortho/PG so compelling

I suppose that depends on wheter you flight sim because you love flying or merely sight seeing. It seems we have gone from a discussion about clouds and flight simming to "wheres Wally".

No one can tell, it wasn't predicted 😅.

Begging 😂: "But look ... "

1 hour ago, uwespeed said:

No one can tell, it wasn't predicted 😅.

Begging 😂: "But look ... "

Like I said (and you can see in Noel´s reply): It is something they can not understand. I just hope he will quit posting "beautiful" screenshots to convince us at some point in time 😅.

It is just a different way to use a simulator. Some use it to view the world, some use it to emulate operating a plane in that world. And no, I can not download an airport that I will have to land at because I have a mechanical malfunction from flightsim.to - because I don´t know yet which airport it will be! 😁🙄

Noel, your simulator looks better (except for the airports)! The world´s scenery in it is more realistic (except for the airports)! The lighting (except at the airports) and the clouds are better! ... but it still is not the simulator I prefer, even if you post a million "postcard pictures" 🤪.

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by Janov

Oh Lord, people are still at it with XP vs MSFS, 23 pages of worthless content. Beating the dead horse again and again, I find it hard to believe mods haven't put and end to this meaningless discussions.

HUMANITY!!!

2 hours ago, Noel said:

It's the big picture Janov, the giant world picture, not just an airport. 

Good, you're asking for it:
As my example with the Potemnkin Village obviously wasn't understood completely: imagine, you bought a new car, and now are proudly presenting it to the audience. "Look, it has a very nice paint, and spoilers in the front and rear. Additionally wide base tires, and a leather steering wheel. And leather seats." Etc. Some people are very impressed, but someone asks you: "Ok, admittedly, it looks nice. But ... aren't you aware, that behind the leather steering wheel there is no power steering? And the leather seats aren't adjustable. Apart from that, it hasn't a fuel tank and the engine is a 2 stroke engine, which you have to start with the crank handle. You can't see this from the outside, however, it's a huge limitation."
You get the point? Until the basics aren't good, or even not existing - what does it help to have such a nice looking car?

 

2 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

I suppose that depends on wheter you flight sim because you love flying or merely sight seeing.

THIS!
There are lots of videos like this (Landing in XYZ. Ultra Realism! 4K! Wing View!) polluting 😆 the internet. And yet the comments 🤦‍♂️: "Super!" "Great!" "Astounding!" "Fantastic!" I wonder what those people bought their sim for (purposely not written FLIGHT sim 😅). This nuisance came up with FSX, as far as I remember. But ... isn't a flight sim for pilots? And usually these are sitting in the cockpit. Only passengers are sitting in the cabin near the wings 🙃. Sure, I understand MS wanted to get higher sales, and for that they had to attract ... "passengers flying to their vacation", who aren't interested in the operation of flight. However, FSX died after some time, as we all know. And can we be sure, MSFS 202x will live "forever"?

 

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by uwespeed