I personally thought this video was amazing in showcasing the accuracy of MSFS scenery. Remember, all these airfields were non-handcrafted and located in relatively remote areas. They were all default. No add-ons. Yet I kept having to remind myself which video window was reality and which video window was MSFS. Also, there was no photogrammetry involved here -- all autogen. My highest compliments to the video creator.

@Noel That looks very good! Pretty much the same quality that I see inside and outside the aircraft. But you can tell YT has taken a bit of an edge off the sharpness! If you have a 4K large TV, mirror your videos. They look so much more impressive and they are clearer for whatever reason. My LODs are both at 150. I could probably bump up and see improvements on my sim monitor, but by the time they make it to YT for people viewing on a cell phone or iPad, probably not worth it.

Edited July 22, 20223 yr by Doering

49 minutes ago, Doering said:

... then Final Cut Pro renders ...

I too own and love Final Cut Pro. But my videos never turn out like yours! 🙂

1 hour ago, Malaromane said:

The thing that struck me the most in the video was the difference in stability during the landings between the sim and the real thing. Constant roll and pitch adjustments all the way in to the runway in the real life videos whereas the sim landings appeared to be on rails. That, more than the graphics, is what bothered me.

I think that was as much the flight model as anything, or possibly the weather in use.  I can tell you I typically have lots of adjustments to make on short final on for example the JustFlight Arrow.  But yes, railsy-ness is something that many aircraft flight models fall victim to.    It's definitely something that can be dialled out of a flight model but it takes a lot of work.  It'll be interesting to see how the A2A Comanche handles.

54 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

And equally entertaining is to hear from the glass is half full of p..s crowd.

What is wrong in offering some advice how to improve the video by using tools currently available?  

8 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

What is wrong in offering some advice how to improve the video by using tools currently available?  

Nothing.  Advice is great and welcomed.  In fact these comparison videos are excellent to look for areas to improve, like runway ground textures etc.

The issue is in how the message is delivered.  Elevating the discrepancies above the accomplishment of a global world recreation to the point of saying it looks "bad", is odd to me and comes off as "glass is half full of.."  It cheapens the message that the poster is intending to make (if in fact that was their motivation). 

2 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Nothing.  Advice is great and welcomed.  In fact these comparison videos are excellent to look for areas to improve, like runway ground textures etc.

The issue is in how the message is delivered.  Elevating the discrepancies above the accomplishment of a global world recreation to the point of saying it looks "bad", is odd to me and comes off as "glass is half full of.."  It cheapens the message that the poster is intending to make (if in fact that was their motivation). 

I complemented the poster on the video and editing and stated how far flight simulation has come. Rather than 'bad', the MSFS videos did not look as good as they could have, because of the low res default textures and colouring.

1 hour ago, VFXSimmer said:

And equally entertaining is to hear from the glass is half full of p..s crowd.  I'm sure someday when we achieve near photorealism they will continue to complain that the bug splats are not species appropriate for the locale of the airport in question, and thus the sim is still garbage.  Such a hobby we have huh folks 😉 

And this is exactly how it got to be what it is today..

Edited July 22, 20223 yr by KERNEL32

1 minute ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I complemented the poster on the video and editing and stated how far flight simulation has come. Rather than 'bad', the MSFS videos did not look as good as they could have, because of the low res default textures and colouring.

Gotcha.  You're comments are not what I'm referring to.  Your advice is solid and useful.

1 minute ago, KERNEL32 said:

And this is exactly how it got to be what it is today..

I suppose.  I'd give credit more to those who gave constructive criticism working with the devs, writing bugs reports etc.  There's also a world of people who merely point out flaws without doing much about it - which is a lot easier to do, but tends to have less of an effect.  Those people certainly benefited from the work done by the first group - a rising tide lifts all boats - but I wouldnt assign them as much of the credit, IMHO.  

1 hour ago, Malaromane said:

The thing that struck me the most in the video was the difference in stability during the landings between the sim and the real thing. Constant roll and pitch adjustments all the way in to the runway in the real life videos whereas the sim landings appeared to be on rails.

I agree with you.  MSFS SU10 is further improving the 'on rails' feeling with SU10. I just flew an approach into Leeds/Bradford (Just Flight BAe146) in a shower and it was marvellous!  Lots of turbulence descending through the shower on the ILS.  Over the numbers the aircraft yawed strongly to the left, requiring plenty of rudder and aileron to correct - then it yawed in the other direction.  I floated a fair way then landed heavily - my ButtKicker had a workout!

This 'on rails' aspect of MSFS, and especially previous versions, induced a dead feeling most of the time, but MSFS is now starting to come alive nicely.

 

@VFXSimmer Yes, exactly. I wanted to highlight the smaller rural airports that this sim offers and a memory reminder for how far this sim has progressed.

@MrBitstFlyer No Problem. Always good to be aware of ways to improve. Things are pretty high res on my end before the recordings hit the rendering and compression stages. We are in a forum with the best of the best here and when the feedback is positive from your peers, it makes those many hours of recording and editing very rewarding!

2 hours ago, Malaromane said:

.   

The thing that struck me the most in the video was the difference in stability during the landings between the sim and the real thing. Constant roll and pitch adjustments all the way in to the runway in the real life videos whereas the sim landings appeared to be on rails. That, more than the graphics, is what bothered me. 

Sadly it reminded me a lot of FSX/P3D MSFS can do much better than that in this day of age. No wonder that other X group laughs at this FM. 

Edit and this is why a developer like A2A is solely needed in MSFS with accurate FM with G.A. aircraft with Accusim. JMO

Edited July 22, 20223 yr by jbdbow1970

2 hours ago, Mace said:

But yes, railsy-ness is something that many aircraft flight models fall victim to. 

MSFS is similar to P3D, only P3D was even worse in this regard.

5 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

 No wonder that other X group laughs at this FM. 

 

They shouldn't - XP has a lot of faults too...  ever tried a tail dragger in XP?  Eeek!  Sure there are some issues in this sim but particularly in these comparison videos we, as viewers, don't know what the conditions were like in the real video.  I've flown ILS's IRL without barely touching the controls because the atmosphere was so stable.  I was properly trimmed with proper power settings.  I've also flown in very rough conditions where I constantly had to dance with the yoke and power settings the entire way to the ground.  I think sometimes people see a comparison video and they think "oh look how wobbly the real video was, MSFS/FSX/XP11/sim of choice is on rails."  Real life flying can feel like you're on a railway too!