And who is going to pay for it all. You lot. Once upon a time people where happy with little boxes buzzing around there screen, now people demand fly pooh on the wind screen. Most people could care less, and would be content with what they had till the "experts", show them "pretty". Than they mess up there installs and stop enjoying it, if they where just left alone. But sadly these days, people just demand and demand. Im glad laminar is doing what they do best and ignoring most people. Its a flight sim not a holiday poster after all, I guess that is why Austin spends his time improving flight models.

1 minute ago, mjrhealth said:

And who is going to pay for it all. You lot. Once upon a time people where happy with little boxes buzzing around there screen, now people demand fly pooh on the wind screen. Most people could care less, and would be content with what they had till the "experts", show them "pretty". Than they mess up there installs and stop enjoying it, if they where just left alone. But sadly these days, people just demand and demand. Im glad laminar is doing what they do best and ignoring most people. Its a flight sim not a holiday poster after all, I guess that is why Austin spends his time improving flight models.

 It is not what people ask for... It is evolving tech... If one platform / software / company is not able to reach an xyz level of tech evolution, it does not make evolution bad...

Modern professional simulation cares about the flight modeling and systems but it is constantly seeking cutting edge visual system technology for immersion...

In XP many of the things that are implemented now, were judged irrelevant before in the name of the flight model... 

Again my experience with XP showed me that anything that XP does not or can not have is played down... Until it is there.

9 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

Most people could care less

Any source or proof for this statement?

9 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

Im glad laminar is doing what they do best and ignoring most people.

Well, we'll see how ignoring most of your potential customers works out, won't we?

I'm of the opinion not to put all your eggs in one basket with just using MSFS as MS have a track record of pulling the plug when least expected, any original FSX before steam/dovetail users around ? has anyone seen the DX10 update from MS for Vista to date ? lol

I don't know if you been keeping a log on the world updates but, they are starting to take up a lot of drive space and that's before we get to Asia or South America! Imagine how much space China will take with a World update huh....its about 364gb for XP for China just alone from the China XP site and that is without any additional models added.

I feel MSFS has something to add but I don't necessarily gravitate towards the MS corporate ideology and think back to this, Steve Jobs had the right idea (lol) and for this reason XP12 doesn't need to be an MSFS match with global scenery as it has something better that MSFS will never have CHRACTER!

I love the fact there is nothing that I cannot edit in Xplane including the splash screen, scenery, or even meshes! It is that versatile for anyone to use that MSFS in comparison has no offer with this accessibility without needing 3dsmax for instance. I have 3dsmax but most people don't have access to spare money required for the license for 3dsmax to be able to create scenery, sure they can do this in Blender3d but that is not straight forward transition to MSFS.

So, yes MSFS has a lot bells and whistles but only if you have the money to afford the additional items required to do anything else where as Xplane offers a more modest approach for people who have no money for autodesk but want to create scenery.

With regards to geospatial services for flight simulators as we cant have ESRI than it would be google all the way as they are more reliable with maps!

 

Edited May 29, 20224 yr by ianlighting

4 hours ago, rka said:

Any source or proof for this statement?

Something like, the only people you see saying xplane is broken are those who have issues, the other 95% you dont hear from. The small group on here complaining dont stand for the rest of us, Just because 5% dont like it doesnt mean the rest of us are not satisfied.

Yes it is evolving tech, Hence the reason they had to wait for Vulkan. But someone has to pay for it.

6 hours ago, Claviateur said:

And unlike the misinformed comments above, I did not even use the word "terrible"...

Are you saying the bottom pic is blackshark AI?

Because 1. There isn't much of note between those screenshots, both are pretty bad - terrible even, if anything the upper one is slightly better than the lower one, with way more detail and variation.

and 2. We already have detail on XP12 trees, MSFS has a lot of catching up todo, and only ~6 months before they stop updating it in any meaningful way:

Edited May 29, 20224 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

Something like, the only people you see saying xplane is broken are those who have issues, the other 95% you dont hear from. The small group on here complaining dont stand for the rest of us, Just because 5% dont like it doesnt mean the rest of us are not satisfied.

Yes it is evolving tech, Hence the reason they had to wait for Vulkan. But someone has to pay for it.

So no proof. 

17 hours ago, mtaxp said:

Yep..but I almost sure its also under the same license as OSM, hence, LR can use it if they want. 

As I understand it, you're right.

License terms for Microsoft's building footprints:

Quote

Data in this repository has been licensed by Microsoft under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL).

 

Summary for the license:

Quote

You are free:

• To share: To copy, distribute and use the database.
• To create: To produce works from the database.
• To adapt: To modify, transform and build upon the database.

As long as you:

• Attribute: You must attribute any public use of the database, or works produced from the database, in the manner specified in the ODbL. For any use or redistribution of the database, or works produced from it, you must make clear to others the license of the database and keep intact any notices on the original database.
• Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of this database, or works produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted database under the ODbL.
• Keep open: If you redistribute the database, or an adapted version of it, then you may use technological measures that restrict the work (such as DRM) as long as you also redistribute a version without such measures.

https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/

 

Tl;dr: The building footprint data is more than fair game for use by X-Plane.

11 hours ago, Claviateur said:

Well, one thing I learned from being an XP user and scenery developer through the years, is that everything XP does not have and FS has, is either played down or criticized... And then one version later, some of that make it to XP and then it becomes legit...

LOL WOT? 😆 XP introduced (in no particular order):

.birds and birdstrikes

.global lighting

.atmosphere scattering

.finite element flight model

.complex failures

.complex avionics and systems for default aircraft

.64 bits

.Vulkan (equivalent to DX12)

.OSM data

and many other little things BEFORE FS series, which often trailed years after. Maybe there are more things pioneered in XP that made it in the FS that the other way around... But it's a normal thing: in a competitive market, each product tries to keep up with the competition in the features it's lagging behind, and keep the advantage in the features it already has it over.

Edited May 29, 20224 yr by Murmur

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

Are you saying the bottom pic is blackshark AI?

Because 1. There isn't much of note between those screenshots, both are pretty bad - terrible even, if anything the upper one is slightly better than the lower one, with way more detail and variation.

and 2. We already have detail on XP12 trees, MSFS has a lot of catching up todo, and only ~6 months before they stop updating it in any meaningful way:

 

I can't answer "Because 1" simply because I am completely speechless... I can't understand the level of denial one can live with just to refuse to accept something logically crisp and clear... So no logical argument from my side can win over weird mix of arguments that can simply mute basic common sense even with basic evidence... A bare outdated generic ground texture has more "detail and variation" vs the immersive forest that a rendered in another platform and that is the closest to that area in the real world... Oh well if you convince yourself with such formulas and live in this type of logic, then I lost!

And for the "2", yes indeed, 12 will bring 3D highly detailed trees and I look forward to see how these will or will not be able to render dense forests and how they will be vs performance... Yet I still believe if these were on the other side, their high level of detail would have been criticized...  But now here is another thing that makes me speechless.. MSFS has catching up to do? Ok! ... Well logic would say that it is sadly the opposite... The worldwide rich data driven procedural world (yes with data fetched by modern technology called AI) make it possible to renders areas with no OSM data or even Bing... This is what XP12 will not have unfortunately and won't allow someone living in the far side of the world enjoy the same experience as one living in EU or the US... That is the issue behind old tech sim platforms and that issue was a limitation of the Real Intelligence and Real Resources that can't put thousands of people 24/24 to trace every footprint and vegetation zone worldwide, tag them etc... 

So again logically, and I doubt it works in this discussion, XP12 will have many catching up todo in the terrain components worldwide... For now,  they only have 3D trees...

But again I feel that this conversation is not going anywhere because the level of weird irrelevant arguments is unsettling... Like it is the case with other discussions around this sim...

Edited May 29, 20224 yr by Claviateur

59 minutes ago, Murmur said:

LOL WOT? 😆 XP introduced (in no particular order):

.birds and birdstrikes

.global lighting

.atmosphere scattering

.finite element flight model

.complex failures

.complex avionics and systems for default aircraft

.64 bits

.Vulkan (equivalent to DX12)

.OSM data

and many other little things BEFORE FS series, which often trailed years after. Maybe there are more things pioneered in XP that made it in the FS that the other way around... But it's a normal thing: in a competitive market, each product tries to keep up with the competition in the features it's lagging behind, and keep the advantage in the features it already has it over.

That was not the point I made... Let's say I have a product and I criticize the competition for things they have and call them eye candy and my product users follow my thoughts and repeat the same thing... And then tadaaaa, the next version in my product has some of this eye candy... And then I criticize the other things I still don't have and call them eye candy... And then I add them a version later...

This is my experience with XP development process...

But I agree that a lot of "eye candy" happened in XP and not present in FS yet XP users around me still repeat that if one wants "eye candy", they should go to FS... 

So my point is that, if I criticize something in the competition, I basically should not add it to my product...

Edited May 29, 20224 yr by Claviateur

1 hour ago, Claviateur said:

I can't understand the level of denial one can live with just to refuse to accept something logically crisp and clear..

Very clear, you are promoting this "many words not allowed" 

As better than this

and want to demonstrate it by comparing MSFS with 10 year old XP scenery.... which even though the XP screenshot of 10 year old scenery looks better than the blobs of green playdoh you posted, the mighty MSFS must be better because of the mythical blackshark AI..

I'm not speechless, I find your logic hilarious.

Edited May 29, 20224 yr by mSparks

Ok, so ... following scenario: I'm the decider for buying a new level D simulator. There are 2 competitors, and I have to decide whom to give my money:

1. The one has a worldwide coverage of streaming satellite imagery, and some simulation aspects, but a lot of them are missing.
2. The second one has birdstrikes, loss of control due to iced control surfaces, knife edge flying, complex failures, hypoxia, turbulences within clouds, wake turbulences, microbursts, landing on frigates/oil rigs/aircraft carrier/ ... but only a generic scenery without satellite imagery (however with correct placement of roads, power lines, rivers, ...)

So, if I decide to buy the first one (because it is or might be cheaper and looks nicer - the "immersion factor" - you know ...): who will pay compensation, when the streaming stops due to server error? Our pilots can't train, because the main aspect of that simulator fails.
And what's even worse: my boss will bite my head off, because our pilots can't train when there is a failure/malfunction of all of that numerous equipment inside and outside of the aricraft ... Isn't training of exceptional situations of failing equipment the (main) reason for using simulators? At least for professional use it is.
Watching the scenery is entertainment. Most people, if they do guest flights at the local airfield want to "see their house from above". That's all they want. There's nothing wrong with that, but well ... everyone has different needs and wishes.

But all of that was already discussed to death, so ...

 

Edited May 29, 20224 yr by uwespeed

3 hours ago, Claviateur said:

Let's say I have a product and I criticize the competition for things they have and call them eye candy and my product users follow my thoughts and repeat the same thing... And then tadaaaa, the next version in my product has some of this eye candy... And then I criticize the other things I still don't have and call them eye candy... And then I add them a version later...

But that isn't exclusive of XP.

For years FS users were saying "a BET flight model doesn't matter", and then MSFS declared they were introducing one, and suddenly FS users were enthusiast about it.

"XP is only good at night", and then FS added global lighting, etc.

The fact is, at the moment (and probably in the future as well), LR has not the resources to implement a streaming satellite scenery, so discussing about that is basically useless. In any case, XP has the possibility to use satellite scenery for those interested in it, although of course it requires more work than a product natively streaming it (but that also has advantages, for example the possibility of choosing the preferred resolution, the source of data, it works offline, etc.)

I think it's natural that if FS tr0lls (not you) come in the XP forum only to provoke, people here are defending their product of choice and counter-attacking them...

Edited May 29, 20224 yr by Murmur