55 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Considering it hasn't been released yet that is an odd comment.  Like most things, flightsim is about balancing performance, visuals, realism and personal choice with what is more important in a sim.

I know you value the worldwide satellite imagery, so with that missing in XP12 you are likely to dismiss it, regardless of how good the quality of other aspects are.  I like satellite imagery but I value weather, lighting, flight model and other aspects more. Therefore my start score for XP12 is going to be higher for me than you.

I completely understand your requirements mean that MSFS is going to be your only choice, but that fact does not mean XP12 will be a poor flightsim.  It may or may not excel in some areas over MSFS, but if it has more good points to overcome the bad then I'll purchase it.

 

 I have been hearing the same old story about, " Wait until the next version of XP comes out, you will be really impressed", for decades, and it has never happened. XP is as relevant today, as a VCR.

For myself, I think Laminar could have saved themselves some development time and resources and probably just made a deal with Xenviro, putting them within close range of visual parity with MSFS clouds.

Of course, the same people finding faults with MSFS clouds would still find just as many with Xenviro, but I think the vast majority would be pleased, keeping in mind that in the real world, on real home computers, the sort of perfection some seem to be demanding is (I think) very likely not realistically attainable..... without creating a slideshow.

 

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I really couldn't care less what XP clouds look like, it is yesterdays sim, period. 

I asked (even repeatedly) some time back for detailed justification for such statements - but there was no answer, so what's up ...?

6 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

For myself, I think Laminar could have saved themselves some development time and resources and probably just made a deal with Xenviro, putting them within close range of visual parity with MSFS clouds.

Of course, the same people finding faults with MSFS clouds would still find just as many with Xenviro, but I think the vast majority would be pleased, keeping in mind that in the real world, on real home computers, the sort of perfection some seem to be demanding is (I think) very likely not realistically attainable..... without creating a slideshow.

 

IMO, the xEnvrio clouds are less blurry than the ones in the XP 12 video.  But the lighting is very weird for the clouds, Like at the 27 second mark, as the plane is about to enter the clouds, the lighting is just not right. But maybe it's an issue with XP 11 lighting, I don't know.  Perhaps the clouds could be better in XP 12, since XP 12 is better.

But yeah, I agree with you that LR needs better talent, or perhaps it's a manpower issue. Whatever the reason is, the result is pretty poor for what they have shown for XP 12 so far.

Guys, can't you take the xplane chat over to the xplane forum?

I'm interested in following the discussion about clouds in MSFS2020.

Please don't get this thread shut down.

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

I asked (even repeatedly) some time back for detailed justification for such statements - but there was no answer, so what's up ...?

It looks like an old out of date sim, with terrible looking scenery. How can I be any clearer than that? 

1 hour ago, FishBowlMan said:

Guys, can't you take the xplane chat over to the xplane forum?

I'm interested in following the discussion about clouds in MSFS2020.

Please don't get this thread shut down.

Why do you complain? Who started to talk about X-Plane?

 

9 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

It looks like an old out of date sim, with terrible looking scenery. How can I be any clearer than that? 

That's all?? Scenery? Ok .... then I can sit back reassured.

BTW ... do you know the Aerowinx 747-400 Precision Simulator? It even has NO scenery. But is still a fantastic simulator ...

Edited July 19, 20223 yr by flying_carpet

14 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Why do you complain?

Because this isn't the xplane forum, hence asking those people who are talking about xplane if they could take a conversation about clouds in xplane over to the xplane forum.

55 minutes ago, FishBowlMan said:

Because this isn't the xplane forum, hence asking those people who are talking about xplane if they could take a conversation about clouds in xplane over to the xplane forum.

Yeah this nonsense belongs over there or in the Hanger Chat. This word not allowed is ridiculous.

55 minutes ago, FishBowlMan said:

Because this isn't the xplane forum, hence asking those people who are talking about xplane if they could take a conversation about clouds in xplane over to the xplane forum.

Ok, so ... abrams_tank, Bobsk8, Krakin, etc. would you follow FishBowlMan's wish?

3 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Au contraire - the XP algorithm is more sophisticated than the one of MSFS. You know why? There are turbulences within the clouds ...

LOL! There are videos out there regarding "Overzealous" cloud turbulence when MSFS first came out.

Undoubtedly tuned downwards now because of that, to the point we can now complain about not enough or even no turbulence.

And round and round we go!

This phenomena is known as the "too many word not allowed chefs in the kitchen" effect.

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

LOL! There are videos out there regarding "Overzealous" cloud turbulence when MSFS first came out.

Undoubtedly tuned downwards now because of that, to the point we can now complain about not enough or even no turbulence.

And round and round we go!

This phenomena is known as the "too many word not allowed chefs in the kitchen" effect.

Yeah man, I also found that comment hilarious but I chose not to say anything lol. 

My observation, which in fact may be wrong, is that it is now harder to use a cloud layer to enhance the gamma of the scene.
Instead, it tends to darken it too much too fast so that you have to use only a thin wispy cloud layer, instead of previously like when flying Colorado I could use a high cloud layer to make the Ortho look almost as good as the Eastern US does.

Of course it could also be that, because they changed the clouds, I just do not know exactly how to replicate the previous lighting to affect the gamma as before.

Take your pick, but I do think overall they have been degraded, hope in SU 10 we see SOME improvement.

 

If the options are...

1.  Many cloud types, flat bottoms, thicker high level cloud but a BIT SOFT.
2.  Limited cloud types, irregular bottoms, translucent high level cloud but SHARP.

I know which I prefer.  

Edited July 19, 20223 yr by MrBitstFlyer

11 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

LOL! There are videos out there regarding "Overzealous" cloud turbulence when MSFS first came out.

Undoubtedly tuned downwards now because of that, to the point we can now complain about not enough or even no turbulence.

And round and round we go!

This phenomena is known as the "too many word not allowed chefs in the kitchen" effect.

 

10 hours ago, Krakin said:

Yeah man, I also found that comment hilarious but I chose not to say anything lol. 

So ... you even confirm my statement, that MSFS hasn't turbulences in its clouds. Thanks ... 😄