@Noel at least a gesture of good faith would be to quote my phrase entirely... you've missed the end "but, only to certain aspects of the graphics."

Otherwise as long as we're engaged in a debate I'm fine because it helps growing a better understanding.

Ooohhh ... Noel is increasing pressure on X-Planer's 🤣. He learned, screenshots won't convince us, now he even posts videos. However, even videos can't prove that MSFS is a better simulator than X-Plane. I have written down some facts about XP's capabilities and asked whether MSFS can do that as well. No one replied until now - I'm still waiting. But I assume ... no ... wrong ... I know MSFS isn't capable of doing such things. And that's the reason, why it isn't required to try MSFS, to judge about it.

Now, as even videos obviously won't seem to help, I'm curious whether Noel will try to post 3D videos (stereoscopic or whatever). Bring it on! If you bug these stubborn X-Planer's enough with videos, at some time they simply must get convinced ...

8 hours ago, mSparks said:

Off topic: The West is almost certainly absolutely lost. Known that for a long while. That's why I am expat, and have been now for nearly a decade.

The west is not lost. It's just gone mad for a while but will recover when real adversity comes its way. I am old and grumpy but have no doubt that my grandchildren will not tolerate decline. So chin up Sparks! Freedom is not a gift it's a right!

Ok well I'll cease and desist, right after these two short videos showing current clouds which have taken a serious turn for the worse since a recent sim update. My sense however is that clouds are created and rendered dynamically which is very new in this environment, so hopefully it is a case of fine-tuning variables that control their formation in runtime--there is massive potential, but right now it really needs fine-tuning or greater.   I promised Sparks this since he obviously thinks he knows everything well in advance of mere average mortals, and yet talks about baked in ortho clouds, which only tells me he's really enjoying the dialogue.  And I understand there is no winning 'arguments with Sparks because he simply changes the question whenever he can't respond or admit to truth, this is his MO along with pushing buttons to keep the exchange alive.  But to respect others here I will cease and desist postings after the two videos I just uploaded finish processing.

To be frank I thought people might enjoy the comparisons especially for those that really haven't used MSFS, and apparently some here haven't. I'd love to see videos of XP-12 when it arrives and could care less if it was in an MSFS forum or a PM I enjoy seeing what people are doing and we're all here enjoying it while we can.  It's a little telling that while most here say they would like me to go away, they continue to provide prompts to keep the discussion alive--the best way to get someone to stop responding, is to ignore them, yet every time I posted anything multiple responses follow. 

Cheers

5 minutes ago, Noel said:

To be frank I thought people might enjoy the comparisons especially for those that really haven't used MSFS, and apparently some here haven't.

I, for one, did like your screenshots and videos, although I still do consider them a bit out of place in this subforum.

10 minutes ago, Noel said:

Ok well I'll cease and desist, right after these two short videos showing current clouds which have taken a serious turn for the worse since a recent sim update. My sense however is that clouds are created and rendered dynamically which is very new in this environment, so hopefully it is a case of fine-tuning variables that control their formation in runtime--there is massive potential, but right now it really needs fine-tuning or greater.   I promised Sparks this since he obviously thinks he knows everything well in advance of mere average mortals, and yet talks about baked in ortho clouds, which only tells me he's really enjoying the dialogue.  And I understand there is no winning 'arguments with Sparks because he simply changes the question whenever he can't respond or admit to truth, this is his MO along with pushing buttons to keep the exchange alive.  But to respect others here I will cease and desist postings after the two videos I just uploaded finish processing.

To be frank I thought people might enjoy the comparisons especially for those that really haven't used MSFS, and apparently some here haven't. I'd love to see videos of XP-12 when it arrives and could care less if it was in an MSFS forum or a PM I enjoy seeing what people are doing and we're all here enjoying it while we can.  It's a little telling that while most here say they would like me to go away, they continue to provide prompts to keep the discussion alive--the best way to get someone to stop responding, is to ignore them, yet every time I posted anything multiple responses follow. 

Cheers

I agree with you, and I do watch MSFS screenshots and vids from time to time, but not in a topic called xp 12 sneak peek clouds please 😉 . That's why I suggested to make a different topic out of it, so you can have your way with mSparks 😉 ...

 

29 minutes ago, soaring_penguin said:

I agree with you, and I do watch MSFS screenshots and vids from time to time, but not in a topic called xp 12 sneak peek clouds please 😉 . That's why I suggested to make a different topic out of it, so you can have your way with mSparks 😉 ...

Thank you kindly and as mentioned Sparks changes the argument whenever he can't respond with a meaningful rebuttal, so there is no way to have a meaningful exchange with him.  

Thank you for the tacit reminder to relook at clouds for XP12 in the initial video.  They look quite a bit like MSFS' clouds, and they are kind of overly soft and not defined enough just like MSFS clouds currently display--but they look like they derive from a very similar organic process so I look forward to where they take it by XP12 launch.   My sense is the method is so different from prior methods and remains be seen which one really mimics the real world the best.  Right now MSFS clouds look woefully less real in some ways than prior methods using 2D sprites with processing, fixed images as it were, but the potential for something really exquisite in the new process remains, we all hope.

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by Noel

@Noel Both FS2020 and XP12 are rendering clouds using the same technique: ray marching. This consists basically in dividing the sky in more or less large boxes, then compute the intersection of a ray from the camera, through each pixel on the screen, toward these boxes, and whenever it hits, compute an adequate color. This is the underlying mechanism and with more or less refinements, you can optimize this to a certain degree to make it suitable for interactive frame rates.

So in turn, they both schematically look like a fluffy blob of cotton like cloud in the sky. But in my opinion, simulating clouds is not about just this and this is where I believe XP12 and FS2020 differ. It doesn't seem, both from the available material Asobo is giving, and what they tell about the weather API, that they are doing much "interpretation" inside the FS2020 code.

In other words, MeteoBlue is already providing a voxel-like data stream, where each voxel cube encompasses a chunk of sky with some metadata, and FS2020 renderer then just draw a direct interpretation of the voxel data. If I was trying to illustrate what I think about how it goes in very numb terms: MeteoBlue sends voxels: [1/8 cover, wind 2][2/8 cover, wind 10][...] -> FS2020 renders: 1/8 cover = preset params to the shader -> draw, 2/8 cover = other preset params to the shader. In other words, the veracity of portraying weather clouds in FS2020 is basically highly dependent on the granularity of the MeteoBlue data and the presets per data type.

What I understand from the public XP12 announcements, is they are doing basically the same as MeteoBlue and source weather data which divides the sky in voxels. They'll also locally "modulate" the grid data in using local METAR information (NB: Asobo is trying to do the same too). So far it doesn't look much different but I believe the differentiation factor will be relying on the capacity of LR to interpret meteorological data and on the capacity to relate this data to actual cloud look and behavior. And here, I believe no one will argue that most of the LR team, or at least the ones in charge of this aspect of the simulator, not only have various degrees in the field, but also long and practical experience to encountering many different weather conditions IRL.

So from a computer rendering standpoint, the underlying method is the same, but how to effectively turn this rendering technique into something which not only looks plausible for the weather conditions (temp, press, moist, wind) but also is meaningful and impactful when flying, is what will set the two offerings apart in my opinion.

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by RXP

2 hours ago, Noel said:

right after these two short videos showing current clouds which have taken a serious turn for the worse since a recent sim update. 

This is what MROC should look like from the cockpit

 

19 hours ago, RXP said:

Just to illustrate a few, which are not flight model related and where I know for example XP12 is targeting accuracy (and XP11 is already delivering a lot of it): wrong taxiway labels, wrong taxiway posts sizes (this is regulated, not just enlarged so that people can better read them on their 1K monitor), wrong runway and taxiway lighting (lacking directional and relative strength between each other - there is a reason this is regulated). I won't try to make an exhaustive list but these alone are indicating the level of "care to authenticity" and why some are considering FS2020 a game (albeit which can be used seriously and pretend representing reality) vs a simulator (which tries to recreate reality).

I appreciate exactly what you're saying here.  There is a ginormous wish for MS/A to morph more towards aeronautical fidelity--this is absolutely why I visited here in the first place!  Plus, I'm really loathe to ever go back to P3D so XP-12 will be considered seriously if MS/A decides to not evolve in the direction experienced simmers are supportive of.  This is why in this thread I've really only focused on scenery/atmosphere/lighting because all of the other deficiencies are there for all veterans to see.  I do agree, it seemingly doesn't bode well that there has been a carelessness in some of these authenticity attributes you mention--I remain hopeful still because I've always thought deployment to XBox was necessary for sustainability, and they wanted to get it out the door in a timely way, with veteran simmers dragged along kicking and screaming.  IOW, I think there's still very strong hope for maturation because they've put so much in it so far, it clearly has many makings of long term winner...but that of course remains to be proven.  The next 4-6 months hopefully will give us more clues where it's ultimately headed.  For new users in the Xbox domain many will not appreciate authenticity to the same degree, so making very attractive scenery/atmosphere/lighting will draw far more in than simply making another version of P3D/XP/FSX w/ more adherance to authenticity, and not a lot in the way of innovation in that other half of 'flight simulation'.

@Noel I see the Xbox version entirely differently. FS2020 was probably only meant for Xbox first and foremost. It is only because MSFT new thing is "code once, game everywhere", that it happens the same code base using the same Xbox Live APIs is also running on PC. But the "DNA" is highly rooted into a game masquerading as a simulator built around a market place nonetheless, because pretty much all MSFT "simulation" type of games are all built around the same approach, and they do so for a reason: this is a business model which is working for them.

I believe the main reason it was released too early on PC is for something else than we think usually: like any product, early adopters don't need to be convinced and will purchase anyway. Tapping into the pool of simmers "pretending" it is a simulator for them was the best way to get immediate funding form license sales, knowledgeable people giving their time for free, large enough user base running various hardware to beta test and iron out all the bugs, so that when the Xbox version hits the market, it will run as intended and expected (imagine the first Xbox release in the same state as the first PC release... I don't believe it would have been good to launch an Xbox title in this state).

Honestly I'm not judging the approach in itself: simmers did get an early access to the final bits intended for the Xbox version, and they did get a chance to maybe be somewhat influential in the process. And Let's not forget the past announcements either (and video):

“We got to get this right with you guys first, and by you guys I mean the people that really have been propping up this thing for the past 35 years”

But the reality doesn't seem to match the promise, and for good reasons too (here is a short extract from the link above):

Quote

In retrospect “get this right with you guys first” can have a different meaning: “When enough licenses are sold to simmers in order to sustain financing the additional year of development needed for Xbox, then Market Place sales will be 20x more on Xbox than PC and we’re good for 10 years.”

Nothing really wrong with this, but to stay on the topic, and on focus, this raises the question of what direction the game will take if 20x more Xbox users concerns are different than 20x less PC users. I’m not saying here something about gamers vs simmers, but to illustrate:

- How many Xbox users are concerned with multi-screen so that it finally gets supported?
- How many Xbox users are caring about slandering a “vendor propping this things for the past 20 years” ?
- How many Xbox users are caring about more serious VR support?

Nothing wrong with the Xbox in itself, but if this is so huge a success, and given the limited resources available, the game can only be focusing for the largest population using the game, an in this case, it is not a question of gamers and simmers (although it could), but I have a strong feeling from the initial Xbox feedback it will be a question of how you use the game and for what reasons

 

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by RXP

1 hour ago, Noel said:

IOW, I think there's still very strong hope for maturation because they've put so much in it so far

Heres the thing. There was a lot of migrants to MSFS from FSX and "didnt spend $1000s on addons for P3D" who are quite rightly very pleased with the (mostly) significant upgrade from what they were using.

Its just that Laminar had been almost silently working consistently away on regular updgrades for years, a lot of what Asobo seemed to assume would be easy we all knew to be excruciatingly difficult and time consuming, because "been there done that, got the tshirt".

There was a big influx to XP11 in the run up to MSFS's release as lots of people realised there was already an alternative out there.

TBH, a choice between broken physics and broken lighting is no choice at all. 

But, when you put the rough edges aside, spoon on the wealth of high quality freeware and payware already available for XP11, XP12 will be starting from the front.

I can also say with very high confidence, when it comes to the clouds you definitely haven't seen a sneak peek of what they have in store yet. They continue to blow me away and I'm very very difficult to please at the best of times.

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by mSparks

This shortish video will give you a taste of the good to not bad, and on to the downright gauche in the current iteration of MFSF cloud implentation.  The originally released version was far better, and while people would generally be happy to revert back, there is zero reason to believe they're done w/ developing it as with the rest of the sim.   This is the thing about how clouds are done now versus in prior versions XP or FSX/P3D--they appear to be controlled by a table of variables w/ infinite possibilities, or so is plausible.  There is a short segment at the end where we dimmed the sun down to get one small taste of night lighting during final to LEMD.

I look forward to seeing XP's version.  Will it also incorporate METAR data do we know?  This is an area that started in MSFS a very short time ago then the crew went on holiday, so we'll see a little more where it goes sometime by February it appears when Sim Update 8 arrives, which may or may not involve more work on weather in general.

This is one I did at departure at LPPT, it's short, but the one described below I will post when it's done cooking.

 

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by Noel

FS2020 visuals might revolutionary from FSX, but not revolutionary visually, because there exists other engines equally or superior visually already before it.

Here are a few examples to better understand what I mean (I'd suggest you see them through, they are showcasing a lot of features in a short time):

 

 

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by RXP

Just a genuine question - I see this on a lot of videos from MSFS - the camera angle seems to be really wide? Almost like a fish-eye lense, is that something that you can set up or is that field of view fixed?