Is iniBuilds going all in on MSFS?

[Bobsk8 12,730]

41 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

How is this different to MSFS autogen?  

You have to be kidding trying to compare flatten wallpaper scenery  in XP, for something that looks like the real thing when flying over it. 

[Fiorentoni 4,225]

I'll just say that XPL was the worst simulator for me with the worst array of study level airliners, the worst visuals  and the worst immersion (no moving people, no useful AI traffic etc.). P3D was superior by far.
Now that might be different with a Cessna 152 because of better flight dynamics, but on the PMDG and FSL that's not as impactful at all.
Now with MSFS visuals and immersion are spot on, and the array of airliners is slowly getting where I need it. Flight dynamics are better than P3D, so flight dynamics is - if at all - the only upside for XPL. The only one. Anything else in XPL is far inferior to P3D and MSFS, at least for my way of simulating real life airliner procedural flying. I sure know not a single real life tubepilot that flies airliners in XPL (other than once or twice to see the A300 or something). Most have been using P3D for home training purposes but more and more are switching to MSFS now, especially with the Fenix out now (most pilots I know here in Germany fly the Airbus).

[MrBitstFlyer 3,874]

21 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

You have to be kidding trying to compare flatten wallpaper scenery  in XP, for something that looks like the real thing when flying over it. 

XPlane autogen is flatten wallpaper scenery? 

[DD_Arthur 1,050]

2 hours ago, SAS443 said:

You are sitting on an office chair at your desk. You are not simulating flight.

Lol. Don’t spoil it😆

[DD_Arthur 1,050]

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Is this the so called "rabid dog" forum? 😀 (BTW, not my invention, this term ...)

Hardly. I think it’s all quite tame and gentlemanly.

 In combat flight sim forums I’ve seen discussions on flight models degenerate into accusations of holocaust denial and perms bans!🙃

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

How is this different to MSFS autogen?  

XPl11 autogen is landclass based.  Without resorting to tools like Ortho2XP and W2XP buildings are somewhat randomly placed as is vegetation.  Autogen buildings are placed in rectangular 'plots of land' that are stacked around the road network.   Its a "plausible" world, but doesn't resemble the real thing.  And it also doesnt take long to see the repetition in the process.  As I've said before, I spent a huge amount of time working on scenery for XP11 - this is spoken from personal experience.  I still hold a place in my heart for XP - spent many hours in VR flying over the areas I had worked hard to recreate and had a great time doing it.  But day one in MSFS showed me what a true world recreation could really be and I havent looked back.

Even in its most "generic" areas the 'autogen' is based on Blackgen's AI so buildings are where they are supposed to be, match the real footprints and even match roof color.  Vegetation is also amazingly accurate.  I just did a helicopter flight along the cliffs of northern France, 100% out of the box and it was amazing to see the detail, little hamlets with churches in the right place.  I was actually beautiful sightseeing in the truest sense of the word.  I suppose the best way to describe it to someone who has only used XP is to imagine you have ORBX True Earth level detail... EVERYWHERE.

BTW, its interesting to see the term 'sightseeing' used to imply something derogatory by some when 'sightseeing' is one of the primary reasons humans got into flight in the first place.

I am certainly encouraged by what XP12 is showing, but unfortunately, it has a high hill to climb to win me back at this stage.  I know others have different priorities, and I certainly wish them well and hope they find enjoyment in their sim of choice.

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by VFXSimmer

[tweekz 2,165]

Well... there's Austin on XP who I truly believe is involved in his flight sim beyond monetary reasons. Then there are some loyal enthusiast devs that base their decision on platform preference.

For most other devs, their primary goal is a business goal. It'd be foolish not to prioritize MSFS unless you have a nearly done product (like porting from XP11 to XP12).

Edited June 6, 2022 by tweekz

[tweekz 2,165]

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

XPlane autogen is flatten wallpaper scenery? 

He's probably refering to orthos. They indeed do look very bad at times, with displaced or missing autogen buldings, trees on parking lots or fields, etc.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,874]

Just now, tweekz said:

He's probably refering to orthos. They indeed do look very bad at times, with displaced or missing autogen buldings, trees on parking lots or fields, etc.

Oh I see. I have never used ortho in XPlane as I always found an accurate landclass good enough.

[blueshark747 1,843]

FSX/P3D Full ORBX Visuals> XP11 Full Ortho Visuals

[flying_carpet 657]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

Hardly. I think it’s all quite tame and gentlemanly.

But only because some postings were deleted. You don't seem to heave (fully) read the "MSFS Forum surpasses Prepar3D post count…" thread.
There, someone insulted me to be "the most pathetic person here. And that means a lot." Unfortunately I didn't make a screenshot, the only (kinda) prof can be found here.
And as answer to my following post, where I only showed facts, another user insulted me of "fanbo.ism showing their sh.t" (or something similar, I don't remember the exact wording). I should have made a screenshot ...

 

1 hour ago, VFXSimmer said:

BTW, its interesting to see the term 'sightseeing' used to imply something derogatory by some when 'sightseeing' is one of the primary reasons humans got into flight in the first place.

Do they? Pilots (and especially professional ones) do it as their daily work and (much) more often look to their instruments. Of course, they also look out of the windows, but that's not "the first place". Even VFR flyers are (primarily) looking out of the windows, searching for landmarks like roads, road junctions, powerlines, rivers, bridges, (not to forget ...and very! important) other planes, .... Passengers indeed have much more time for sightseeing.

 

[micstatic 4,319]

I hid a few posts as well as dealt with the offensive posts.  They were hidden as they were not really relevant to the discussion at hand and some of the later posts quoted the hidden posts.  

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Do they? Pilots (and especially professional ones) do it as their daily work and (much) more often look to their instruments. Of course, they also look out of the windows, but that's not "the first place". Even VFR flyers are (primarily) looking out of the windows, searching for landmarks like roads, road junctions, powerlines, rivers, bridges, (not to forget ...and very! important) other planes, .... Passengers indeed have much more time for sightseeing.

Not to wax too poetic, but I meant 'humans' not just pilots.  Viewing our world from a new vantage point drove us to flight - first in balloons, and eventually in powered aircraft.

And certainly, if all you care or want to get out of your sim experience is fiddling with the instruments, then yes of course, visuals are less important.  Some of the earliest "study sims" were nothing but instrument simulation.  But from a experiencial, and perhaps romantic point of view, i think it says something that one of the biggest things the Mercury astronauts fought for (over the complaints of the engineers) when they saw the first prototype of the capsule that would take them to orbit ... was a window.  The engineers argued that they could do their jobs successfully without one, but the astronauts felt that if they were putting their lives on the line and doing all the work anyway, the might as well be rewarded with ... a good view.

Edited June 6, 2022 by VFXSimmer

[flying_carpet 657]

36 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Not to wax too poetic, but I meant 'humans' not just pilots.  Viewing our world from a new vantage point drove us to flight - first in balloons, and eventually in powered aircraft.

And certainly, if all you care or want to get out of your sim experience is fiddling with the instruments, then yes of course, visuals are less important.  Some of the earliest "study sims" were nothing but instrument simulation.  But from a experiencial, and perhaps romantic point of view, i think it says something that one of the biggest things the Mercury astronauts fought for (over the complaints of the engineers) when they saw the first prototype of the capsule that would take them to orbit ... was a window.  The engineers argued that they could do their jobs successfully without one, but the astronauts felt that if they were putting their lives on the line and doing all the work anyway, the might as well be rewarded with ... a good view.

Sure ... to a certain extent, you're not this wrong 😉. If I watch videos from the ISS cupola and the beauty of Earth from the space, I'm with you. OTOH, what do the astronauts train/simulate down here on Earth in their simulators? Operating the ISS and to deal with failures - not looking out the window of the cupola. Watching towars Earth through the cupola is their spare time and "sightseeing", isn't it? 🙃 Even if they are real professionals and no tourists. Not really required to operate the whole thingy, at least nice to have ...

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

52 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Sure ... to a certain extent, you're not this wrong 😉. If I watch videos from the ISS cupola and the beauty of Earth from the space, I'm with you. OTOH, what do the astronauts train/simulate down here on Earth in their simulators? Operating the ISS and to deal with failures - not looking out the window of the cupola. Watching towars Earth through the cupola is their spare time and "sightseeing", isn't it? 🙃 Even if they are real professionals and no tourists. Not really required to operate the whole thingy, at least nice to have ...

Fair enough.  That is true.  Pilots/astronauts specifically training for failures work in systems (like level D sims) where scenery is not important at all.  What is more important in those cases is a physical recreation of the cockpit so both procedural memorization AND muscle memory is developed and fostered as part of the process.  Unless you have a complete home cockpit (any there are some of YOU here 😉 ) you can only do the former with a desktop sim.

While I dont doubt there are some out there doing a lot of failure practice and true out of the envelope pilot training, anecdotal evidence would say that this is a minority.  By far the vast amount of stories told, videos produced, forums posted to asking questions, etc are about trying to recreate normal, everyday flying, and making you believe that you are piloting a craft you might never get to do in real life.  In those cases, the view out the window is just as much an integral part of the suspension of disbelief as the nuanced functioning of every system and flight model.  And the beauty is that we now have at our disposal a choice of tools to pick to allow you to follow whichever path "floats your boat".