18 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

If you don't understand then no need to debate what other's find better in XP11.

Your "storm is coming" BS doesn't have anything to do with the main topic either, so take your own advice there Nostradamus! 🙃

 

I think you should take your advices to X-plane forum possibly? Here is MSFS forum if you didnt understand Mr  X-Planecius !!

 

3 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Tiny number? I'm yet to see a chimney, an antenna, a street light, a powerline using default MSFS AI system. Where I live, it is CRUCIAL for VFR. 

The scope of objects which could be extracted are also not 100%. But it is by far the best existing approach to get global coverage. Powerlines are fine where I live (I think based on OSM, not sure though). Street lights are probaly not generated based on aerial imagery but some AI logic (considering street type, street width, settlement size, and so on). Chimneys I an not imagine that they are extractable from aerial images. There are limits.

Just now, mrueedi said:

My statement is true, because as you say in other sims assets "can" take the properties. It is of no use, if an asset can take height & color information, if that data is not fed automatically from real world into the sim's database (why automatically? Because all manual approaches alway create only small nice island, global coverage is out of reach for non automatic approaches).

In MSFS, it is not "they can" but "they do". Globally. Even where OSM data coverage is not  given.

That's what MSFS promote, in reality it takes more from OSM than you think. You still didn't answer why the trees are too large and tall and why a simple tag in OSM affects MSFS just like any other autogen solution, if it's all magic AI driven.

6 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

You immediate urge to jump with the x-plane comparison is a result of your own twisted thinking. 

More a result of our previous conversations IMO, but everyone is entitled to an opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just now, mrueedi said:

The scope of objects which could be extracted are also not 100%. But it is by far the best existing approach to get global coverage. Powerlines are fine where I live (I think based on OSM, not sure though). Street lights are probaly not generated based on aerial imagery but some AI logic (considering street type, street width, settlement size, and so on). Chimneys I an not imagine that they are extractable from aerial images. There are limits.

So, in your eyes what is more important for VFR, all the aspects you mentioned, or the roof color of a building?

Just now, mtaxp said:

That's what MSFS promote, in reality it takes more from OSM than you think. You still didn't answer why the trees are too large and tall and why a simple tag in OSM affects MSFS just like any other autogen solution, if it's all magic AI driven.

I think a lot is taken from OSM, AI maybe is able to detect inplausible data to some degree, but OSM surely is an important data provider. Good for maybe 10% of the earths surface.

Trees are too large because someone at Asobo has not fine tuned the vegetation generation good enough. There might be even good reasons for that, like hiding the baked in shadows on the ground texture as good as possible. Removing the shadows from the ground textures entirely might be the long term solution for that.

17 minutes ago, Seth2021 said:

I think you should take your advices to X-plane forum possibly? Here is MSFS forum if you didnt understand Mr  X-Planecius !!

 

 

Finally there it is!😏

If your motives were to just state the above all along, than just say so from the jump.

Here you are quoting all these folks and trying to start debates of things you don't understand, just to simply say "urghh well yea...go to xplane forums"

Next time just be upfront with your basic simplicity.😉

Take care!

 

 

Edited February 1, 20224 yr by blueshark747

MY GOODNESS!!!!!!!!!! Does EVERY topic on this forum has to evolve into an off topic argument?!?!?!?!? Post what you want to say ONCE and do NOT try to convince everyone of your own view: it won't work, never has, never will.

I am getting sick and tired off all those topic that derail into (for instance) an MSFS vs XP debate and people becoming rude, calling each other names and what not just because they simply see things differently. Does this never end???

Apparently not.

Why is it so hard to 1. stay on topic and 2. keep ones mouth shut about how good or bad other sims are.

Sigh.

5 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

So, in your eyes what is more important for VFR, all the aspects you mentioned, or the roof color of a building?

Thats another question. Having buildings replicated better is better in a flightsim, no matter the importance for VFR.

For VFR, the ranking of important things is this imho:

- Agricultural terrain (type, shape) -> covered globally by aerial images
- Settlements & cities -> covered globally by aerial images
- Traffic infrastructure well -> covered globally by OSM and aerial image
- Water surfaces -> 
- Powerlines -> covered, not sure whether globally though 
- Details like single buildings, chimneys

MSFS does an outstanding job in nearly all of these.

1 minute ago, mrueedi said:

I think a lot is taken from OSM, AI maybe is able to detect inplausible data to some degree, but OSM surely is an important data provider. Good for maybe 10% of the earths surface.

Trees are too large because someone at Asobo has not fine tuned the vegetation generation good enough. There might be even good reasons for that, like hiding the baked in shadows on the ground texture as good as possible. Removing the shadows from the ground textures entirely might be the long term solution for that.

So i'm not getting it, how orthos are superior as a visual solution, if they need to make trees 3x larger to hide ugly shadows (I though the AI should fix that as well?!), if the amount of data extracted is still limited even for landmarks like Buckingham palace and major other obstacles in many airports.

You do realize that analyzing color data is not a new practice at all? 

Where i'm getting with this? It's really only about how much data you can ship/stream, not about a visually superior or more accurate. 

MSFS will be much more appealing to me visually if they hired a kickass art assets studio rather than an AI that results in an inherit buggy art assets that don't even look that good.

The choice to stick with photogrammetry, AI driven art assets and orthos as a visual solution (and not as a data gathering practice only) really baffled me about MSFS since day one.

Still waiting for a simulator to manage mix both approaches, MSFS imo is more of the same scenery we got for free using addons on other solutions just now more accessible storage wise.

5 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

Thats another question. Having buildings replicated better is better in a flightsim, no matter the importance for VFR.

For VFR, the ranking of important things is this imho:

- Agricultural terrain (type, shape) -> covered globally by aerial images
- Settlements & cities -> covered globally by aerial images
- Traffic infrastructure well -> covered globally by OSM and aerial image
- Water surfaces -> 
- Powerlines -> covered, not sure whether globally though 
- Details like single buildings, chimneys

MSFS does an outstanding job in nearly all of these.

imo your priorities for VFR are not on par of what needed for reality.

If you are navigating in reality based on ground colors, you are doing it wrong and will probably get lost. what about seasons? weather effects? all those may affect the ground colors.

What you need for VFR is what you see on your map, you can't see roof colors, nor specific landmarks buildings. You see mesh, landclass, roads, waterbodies, powerlines, major obstacles. Anything beyond that is pure eye candy, and for eye candy autogen is MUCH better than photogrammetry imo.

 

Edited February 1, 20224 yr by mtaxp

1 minute ago, mtaxp said:

if they need to make trees 3x larger to hide ugly shadows

They are not 3 times larger. Stick with facts.

And the shadows are not ugly, they mostly reflect, how they would look anyway. Only in relation to the daytime, they might look differently in reality.

4 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

And the shadows are not ugly, they mostly reflect, how they would look anyway. Only in relation to the daytime, they might look differently in reality.

Ugly is subjective, and as you just agreed, not suitable for real time rendering.

As for trees meant to write 2X larger but finger slipped towards the number 3, sorry about that I guess.

18 hours ago, Noel said:

The higher end 'art' in XP11 does look very nice, but there is a certain artificiality in it that I have a hard time ignoring.  It's almost too good if there is such a thing.

Yep, i see what you mean. It's like it's following all the rules how things should look, but alas, that's not enough to make it realistic. The parking lot for example looks too clean somehow, the cars on it too pronounced and too present, and besides that; the cars are all parked perfectly straight, which we know is not very realistic.😀

Edited February 1, 20224 yr by Wildblue

The south coast of England right through from Southampton to Eastbourne is simply astonishingly good. Especially with the addition of the power lines mod, GAIS and Vessels SE.