2 hours ago, evaamo said:

3 hours 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.

This should be pinned in the front page!

Totally agree.  Each home flight simulator will bring its own unique features to our hobby, and we will have choice with what sim we use for a particular flight.  If XP-12 is amazing with IFR flight for example, I will gladly use it and not be obstructed by the simple fact I love MSFS.  By the same token, I am not going to stop using MSFS if XP-12 happens to excel in one area over it.

This whole us v them attitude is so word not allowed silly.

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by MrBitstFlyer

6 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Good for you, after all we all have a personal choice.  Nobody has yet seen the final version of XP-12, so I will keep an open mind and continue to be excited at the prospect of another flight sim being updated with modern graphics. 

My preference is easily described:

The one who offers the best overall package.

For a long time it was FS9/FSX, then 2016 I wanted a new sim that is actively developed and current-tech. I decided to go with XP although being used to the FSX/P3D ecosystem.

Since MSFS and with the release of PMDG / Fenix, etc. I can't really see what could make me move again. It gives me the best solution to relive real world flights. But maybe XP12 will offer something groundbreaking I do not have on the radar yet.

Just now, tweekz said:

11 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Good for you, after all we all have a personal choice.  Nobody has yet seen the final version of XP-12, so I will keep an open mind and continue to be excited at the prospect of another flight sim being updated with modern graphics. 

My preference is easily described:

The one who offers the best overall package.

For a long time it was FS9/FSX, then 2016 I wanted a new sim that is actively developed and current-tech. I decided to go with XP although being used to the FSX/P3D ecosystem.

Since MSFS and with the release of PMDG / Fenix, etc. I can't really see what could make me move again. It gives me the best solution to relive real world flights. But maybe XP12 will offer something groundbreaking I do not have on the radar yet.

A very good perspective.  Maybe XP-12 doesn't bring anything to the table above what MSFS offers.

 

1 minute ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

A very good perspective.  Maybe XP-12 doesn't bring anything to the table above what MSFS offers.

 

Nevertheless, it's always good to have an alternative (and competition).

5 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

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."

Well ya for the purposes of training real world procedures the visuals of MSFS is certainly not necessary, as evidenced with Level D sims and other training sims. No one who lauds MSFS's visuals are really saying that. 
 

5 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

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.

Right so per your observations being able to spot grandma's house "while sitting in a 777 fitted with 4-engine 747 panel" aircraft is apparently an ideal experience for some, and that is certainly a cherry picked data point... But for many of us, procedural simulation with programmable system failures, ability to set up approach scenarios, and being able to do most other real world procedures, in aircrafts such as the PMDG 737 or Maddog MD80 or Bae 146 or Milviz C310 with convincing aerodynamics and not that flying-on-rails feeling, while also being able to immerse ourselves in a very realistic world/atmosphere/lighting/weather rendering and get that "being there" feeling... *that* is where it's at. And for many of us, that happens to be MSFS.

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by lwt1971

5 hours ago, mtaxp said:

imo, x-plane 11 is better at flight model, avionics and SDK. If x-plane 12 will be even better (logic) hence...? So no, not promotional. But saying that the *unreleased* xp12 is already inferior seems like someone is really worried about his own interest. My opinion, you can ignore it. If you don't want to see the name x-plane here, maybe revert to @abrams_tank first rather than attacking me.

Haven't been in this thread as I, frankly, have better things to do. 

You positing the superiority of X-plane is entirely your opinion and nothing else. Plenty of people are calling the flight model of MSFS no less advanced than the flight model of X-plane. Several people, even rated pilots, have given their honest and positive opinions of MSFS and products such as PMDG. You denigrating MSFS in this thread means absolutely nothing and comes out as nothing but blind fanaticism. It is obvious at this point that MSFS can harbour VERY good virtual aircraft. And this in a virtual world that is simply not beatable by the competition at this point. 

That said; I will get X-plane 12 the second it releases. Not because I think it will be better than MSFS, but because I actually support X-plane. And have done since version 9 because it is a great sim and I absolutely would like the developer to stay in the game. 

I know the narrative of the thread has probably moved leagues ahead my humble ramblings, but as I said at the beginning, I have little time for this as I am entertaining guests tonight. This platform-bickering is bordering on the retarded. 

 

@Swe_Richard

Very good post. This thread is about how realistic MSFS is able to look. People should accept that there will be the one or other comparison in favor of MSFS when posted in a MSFS forum (it was originally posted in the MSFS subforum).

Edited May 14, 20224 yr by tweekz

5 hours ago, Shack95 said:

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. 

Agreed - and know what you mean - this has that "glowy" je ne sais quoi

If a recall correctly, they toned the "glowiness" down as a side effect of improving the way lights looked at higher altitudes. There's always a trade off it seems. Hope they continue tweaking since I miss this nightness. 

3 hours ago, mtaxp said:

Yes I do.

Tell me, if this "prominent" photogrammetry landmark is under some rennovation and now it's surroundings now look different than MSFS, can you count on it? 

I agree, it can help preparing for a flight, it might help when getting lost, but frankly if you are teaching your students to navigate based on photogrammetry or orthos, it is imo a horrible and unsafe practice and I mean it the nicest way possible.

What is more improtant for VFR? Roads/mesh/water bodies/vectors/towns/cities OR the colors of the ground and the roofs (those are not even in maps...)?

Photometry give enough to know surrounding out of the box. XP11 gives nothing in this respect.

Now about your valuable opinion about teaching process. Are you an aviation professional? How many students have  endorsed ?

 

 

14 hours ago, mtaxp said:

Tell me, if this "prominent" photogrammetry landmark is under some rennovation and now it's surroundings now look different than MSFS, can you count on it?

It might change at one point in time, so let's not depict it at all?

  

14 hours ago, mtaxp said:

What is more improtant for VFR? Roads/mesh/water bodies/vectors/towns/cities OR the colors of the ground and the roofs (those are not even in maps...)?

Visual Flight Rules. I guess it has something to do with visuals overall. Often there are distinct features to fields, riverbanks, mountains, cities which cannot be known by autogen.

For example:

8 minutes ago, tweekz said:

 

It might change at one point in time, so let's not depict it at all?

What matters is what you have on the map, don't twist my comments please. Anything else is pure "eye candy" but I prefer mine to look better than photogrammetry, my own preference and watching many others turning them off proves that what I'm saying totally makes sense. 

A "prominent" landmark that can't be identified by the map, is not a good one period, otherwise once you enter an unfamiliar zone, it is going to be much harder for you to identify. There is a reason they teach this practice.

This is how VFR navigation works, clock, map, surface.

10 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Photometry give enough to know surrounding out of the box. XP11 gives nothing in this respect.

Please mention what you think x-plane 11 is missing compared to a typical map that one uses in VFR.

My credentials don't matter, unlike others here who like to mention them every other post.

2 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Please mention what you think x-plane 11 is missing compared to a typical map that one uses in VFR.

GA flying is much more than just flying by the aid of a VFR map. You familiarize with the terrain and you even enjoy the view. 😉

5 minutes ago, tweekz said:

GA flying is much more than just flying by the aid of a VFR map. You familiarize with the terrain and you even enjoy the view. 😉

There is a difference between "this is needed for VFR navigation" vs some nice eye candy that you can enjoy on a particular route.

We are discussing the first one. I agree that x-plane 11 scenery is very outdated visually, but still has everything needed for VFR navigation.

Edited May 15, 20224 yr by mtaxp

5 hours ago, mtaxp said:

 

Please mention what you think x-plane 11 is missing compared to a typical map that one uses in VFR.

My credentials don't matter, unlike others here who like to mention them every other post.

I already did! Good bye and good luck with your xp cult LOL

Since this has gotten way off track from what the OP stated out to to, which was compare RL to MSFS and has turned into an XP vs MSFS war, it’s time to close it.