4 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

I actually wrote it multiple times in many occasions, for a normal simmer who just wants to meet POH numbers, the whole flight model discussion is mostly irrelevant.

Did you fully comprehend what that iniBuilds guy said?He basically said that XP flight model = MSFS flight model.

If the sniping between some members doesn't cease it's probable this topic will get locked which would be unfortunate for the OP.

It's not another my sim is better than your sim discussion. Cease sniping and discuss sensibly. Or else.

2 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Sorry, but you fly low altitude VFR in X Plane, whatever the version, and it doesn't look like what you see in a real aircraft like MSFS does. It is like make believe scenery. 

Don't be silly Bob.  XP12 will have roads, rivers, autogen, railways and many others in the correct place, so vfr flight will be realistic.

If your personal preference is to have Satellite scenery everywhere, fly MSFS only, but this shouldn't mean you take a childish attitude to another simulator that looks like it has improved a lot over XP11.

6 minutes ago, tweekz said:

I guess the layout of buildings are extracted from OSM / Bing map data, not actually from satellite imagery. I guess that's a common misconception. That'd be a waste of resources and probably even less accurte.

The actual appearance of buildings (style, roof, etc.) is what is created by the AI. In most cases it does not really fit on a specific level (my house does look nothing like it is in RL and the hospital is a giant industry building), but the overall impression still feels realistic.

I believe in the video about the AI they use it was also mentioned that it actually analyzed shadows and stuff of buildings in order to determine what height they should be.

Beyond that, just the roof makes sense more or less - you can't create data from nothing.  Though I think the library of building tiles and stuff they use also changes regionally in terms of how it looks.

4 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Did you fully comprehend what that iniBuilds guy said?He basically said that XP flight model = MSFS flight model.

Did you compehend what I wrote?

1 minute ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Good grief, calm down.  Msfs is a flight sim and does many things very well.  XP11/12 are flight sims and will do many things very well.

You'd be well served to take your own advice, and keep reading this thread further. I was, like many others on this thread, responding to some false talking points about MSFS around flight-model/aerodynamics and avionics. Quite obviously one doesn't have to only use *one* sim, or that to like one doesn't mean to hate another (again, obvious).  Just because some of us are exclusively using MSFS as of now, doesn't mean we won't try another sim in a future incarnation, if it offers something more compelling/different for us.

5 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Don't be silly Bob.  XP12 will have roads, rivers, autogen, railways and many others in the correct place, so vfr flight will be realistic.

But what it won't have are buildings, fields and woods and pretty much everything else in the right place. These are also vital for VR flight so I doubt it will be at all realistic?

7 minutes ago, Scottoest said:

I believe in the video about the AI they use it was also mentioned that it actually analyzed shadows and stuff of buildings in order to determine what height they should be.

Beyond that, just the roof makes sense more or less - you can't create data from nothing.  Though I think the library of building tiles and stuff they use also changes regionally in terms of how it looks.

Well then the shadows have mislead them on my home by a large margin. By about 6 storeys to be exact. 😄

I guess the AI could also take other things into account like area of the world, urban, rural, etc. and then make its predicition. I didn't mean this in a negative sense. On a broader scale the cities in MSFS look realistic. That's due to the AI drawing a good picture. I guess.

27 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Most of the MSFS world is autogen.

And thank God for that.   It seems many here talking wonders about flying low and slow in MSFS have never encountered the melt-down buildings in photogrammetry. It's an immersion killer for me. It feels like flying in a post-nuclear apocalypse world. So much for Blackshark AI 😄

4 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

But what it won't have are buildings, fields and woods and pretty much everything else in the right place. These are also vital for VR flight so I doubt it will be at all realistic?

VFR is done based on infrastructures and mesh/waterbodies, with a map (that has no landmarks, colors or roofs or any indication of the colors of the ground) and a clock. 

x-plane has all that, MSFS lacks crucial vectors like powerlines by default. This also includes obstacles like radio masts, street lights etc.

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by mtaxp

26 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

For research and development purposes, both x-plane and MSFS approaches are radically different with x-plane more suitable for real life development (not home simmer mods) uses like NASA use it, BETA and Austin building a real life vehicle and many others. I'm interested in this second aspect as well.

I perfectly understand and respect the value of X-Plane for designing aircraft from scratch with no known performance numbers. However you should realize that your initial comment pretty much sounds like you were talking about the realism of a procedural simulation setup (which is the case for home and pilot training) that can be achieved with both simulators. Your initial comment pretty much reads as "All you care about is visuals, simulation realism doesn't matter to you" when this is simply not the case. Simulation requirements of a home / pilot training environment is completely different than an aircraft design environment. For a home / pilot training workloads MSFS can be as realistic as X-Plane, while for aircraft design workloads ESP simulators have traditionally been unsuitable as the flight model in ESP simulators require a lot of empirical data about the aircraft unlike X-Plane, which is obviously not available until the aircraft design is finalized. However this doesn't mean that MSFS is all about visuals and doesn't offer a realistic simulation experience that can even be used for pilot training, like your initial comment implied.

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by BiologicalNanobot

24 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

... both x-plane and MSFS approaches are radically different with x-plane more suitable for real life development ...

If your point is that X-Plane provides a better environment to more quickly prototype and implement aircraft given its set of tools for that, then I guess that's fair. Asobo is just getting going on various flight/aerodynamics debugging and visualization tools (i.e. https://fselite.net/content/microsoft-flight-simulator-march-live-developer-qa/) such as CFD https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/storage/attachments/2425-debug-aircraft-cfd.pdf, forces display tool, stall debugging tool, weight tools etc.. also the world airflow/drafts visualizations coming in SU10... so I'm definitely watching that space in the coming months.

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by lwt1971

I was curious how a 2 hour old post got up to 6 pages already.

Now it all makes sense.  

3 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

I perfectly understand and respect the value of X-Plane for designing aircraft from scratch with no known performance numbers. However you should realize that your initial comment pretty much sounds like you were talking about the realism of a procedural simulation setup (which is the case for home and pilot training) that can be achieved with both simulators. Your initial comment pretty much reads as "All you care about is visuals, simulation realism doesn't matter to you" when this is simply not the case. Simulation requirements of a home / pilot training environment is completely different than an aircraft design environment. For a home / pilot training workloads MSFS can be as realistic as X-Plane, while for aircraft design workloads ESP simulators have been traditionally unsuitable as the flight model in ESP simulators require a lot of empirical data about the aircraft, which is obviously not available until the aircraft design is finalized. However this doesn't mean that MSFS is all about visuals and doesn't offer realistic simulation experience that can even be used for pilot training, like your initial comment implied.

Maybe, english is not a native language for me. But people here backlashed me based on previous record and I wrote this statement at least a dozen times before. Im not the defensive one here, trust me.

Just now, mtaxp said:

VFR is done based on infrastructures and mesh, with a map (that has no landmarks, colors or roofs or any indication of the colors of the ground) and a clock.

x-plane has all that, MSFS lacks crucial vectors like powerlines by default.

I'm not a pilot but when my daughter in law has taken me up in her P28 shes looking for country houses and landmarks etc? Things she recognises from the real world. At least that is what I get the impression she is doing. The world needs to look real or it's just a game.