2 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Im not the defensive one here, trust me.

Yeah, we know that. 😄

3 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

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.

It helps a lot indeed being familiar. But you can't count on it as a safe pilot imo, many times stuff can look to familiar and recursive in this world and you CAN be mislead so you better know the proper practice.

You never count on stuff like ground colors, espicially in a world that has seasons.

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by mtaxp

5 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

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.

I had XP11 when I installed  MSFS alpha. When we are discussion a value of a sim for real world training I choose MSFS, and photometry plays a very vital role.

 

 

5 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

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.

You're doing both. That's why I didn't spend much time GA flying in previous sims. Following streets, rivers doesn't cut it. You're also looking out for buildings or special landmarks - especially in traffic patterns etc.

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by tweekz

Just now, sd_flyer said:

I had XP11 when I installed  MSFS alpha. When we are discussion a value of a sim for real world training I choose MSFS, and photometry plays a very vital role.

 

 

It can help a lot prepearing for a flight I agree. BUT you can't count on MSFS ground colors match what reality is right now, you can't count that a certain landmark does not look different now etc.

 

4 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I had XP11 when I installed  MSFS alpha. When we are discussion a value of a sim for real world training I choose MSFS, and photometry plays a very vital role.

I agree. Even if the flight model was worse. You do not learn to fly on a simulator (but you can get a good impression of how control surfaces work nevertheless). But you can practise your flights, especially for VFR. And especially with MSFS.

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by tweekz

Always funny to see how much arguing can go on between people over a video game… 

Those comparison shots are some of the best I’ve seen yet! It’s absolutely crazy how far flight simulation and technology has come. About time!! Love it!

2 minutes ago, Hatch76 said:

Always funny to see how much arguing can go on between people over a video game… 

 

You sound juts like my wife ! I keep telling her it's not a game it's sim! LOL

5 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

It can help a lot prepearing for a flight I agree. BUT you can't count on MSFS ground colors match what reality is right now, you can't count that a certain landmark does not look different now etc.

 

Yes I can ! I fly and teach in Southern California LOL For rest of folks seasons are coming soon according to MSFS

6 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

It can help a lot prepearing for a flight I agree. BUT you can't count on MSFS ground colors match what reality is right now, you can't count that a certain landmark does not look different now etc.

You can't count on that IRL as well... but you get a good general impression.

13 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

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.

I live in the Atlanta area now and got my PPL in the South Florida area many years ago. I can fly around both these areas using roads, buildings, scenery, visually with no problems at all. That would not be possible in any other sim I have tried, and I have tried all of them. 

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by Bobsk8

5 minutes ago, tweekz said:

You can't count on that IRL as well... but you get a good general impression.

Thats my point, if somebody is flying vfr based on "this building roof is green" or this "terrain should be brown mud" his practice is not safe imo.

5 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Yes I can ! I fly and teach in Southern California LOL For rest of folks seasons are coming soon according to MSFS

If it works for southcal, great, not in my home country and many other locations I experienced that can look radically different from bing and other sources.

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by mtaxp

3 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

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.

I don't think either a $40-million level-D sim in a professional training center or a much less expensive microsimulation-based trainer are reasonably considered "just a game."

Most real-world simulator training is done on platforms that do not attempt to reproduce an artistically-pleasing exterior view with accurate reproduction/placement of buildings and other infrastructure.  Terrain, user-controllable scenario parameters such as time, season and weather (ceilings, wind, and especially visibility), navaids and the airport environment are what matters outside the aircraft in a training environment, not spotting grandma's house.  I've never heard of an instructor at FlightSafety International putting the sim on pause and telling his trainees "guys, let's take a minute here to have a look at that pretty sunset."

The relative importance of fidelity in the various aspects of a simulation will vary with the user and the purpose of the simulation.  For some, a chock-to-chock procedural simulation with programmable system failures and the ability to set up approach scenarios down to minimums is where it's at.  For others, getting a bird's-eye view of some visually-pleasing scenery while sitting in a 777 fitted with a 4-engine 747 panel is the ideal experience.  Which sim platform you pick will depend on what matters to you.

6 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

I don't think either a $40-million level-D sim in a professional training center or a much less expensive microsimulation-based trainer are reasonably considered "just a game."

Most real-world simulator training is done on platforms that do not attempt to reproduce an artistically-pleasing exterior view with accurate reproduction/placement of buildings and other infrastructure.  Terrain, user-controllable scenario parameters such as time, season and weather (ceilings, wind, and especially visibility), navaids and the airport environment are what matters outside the aircraft in a training environment, not spotting grandma's house.  I've never heard of an instructor at FlightSafety International putting the sim on pause and telling his trainees "guys, let's take a minute here to have a look at that pretty sunset."

The relative importance of fidelity in the various aspects of a simulation will vary with the user and the purpose of the simulation.  For some, a chock-to-chock procedural simulation with programmable system failures and the ability to set up approach scenarios down to minimums is where it's at.  For others, getting a bird's-eye view of some visually-pleasing scenery while sitting in a 777 fitted with a 4-engine 747 panel is the ideal experience.  Which sim platform you pick will depend on what matters to you.

I guess the question we must ask is do we want our sim to look as much like the real world as possible? Or doesn't it matter?

1 hour ago, enright said:

The night shots are the most surprising to me - I thought the brightness of highways compared to streets was overdone in the sim - turns out it's spot on. It's eerily accurate. 

I agree, the brightness in the sim is actually quite accurate. What‘s not so convincing though is the diffusion of light. It‘s hard to describe, but the way streets and adjacent buildings are illuminated just doesn‘t look right to me. The photos may be blurry and overexposed, but the city streets looked all bright, you couldn’t make out single light sources like you can in the sim. Early alpha screenshots as the one below looked more convincing in this regard. Overall, I think night lighting looks okay, certainly a lot better than a few month ago, but it‘s still not completely there yet. 

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by Shack95