So XP12 has gone from being a "beta" to being an "early-access beta" to a "pre-release beta" to an "early-access pre-release beta." In other words, you can't believe what you're seeing either.

59 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I don't think it is a fair comparison anyway, considering XP12 is in its first couple of days in a pre-release beta stage. 

Well, I just put it to the wife test, showed her the comparison video stating absolutely no bias beforehand. She told me that it looks like there's a 10 years difference between the two. My wife is never wrong 😆

All joking aside, I told her it's definitely not a 10 year difference! 

 

6 minutes ago, David Mills said:

So XP12 has gone from being a "beta" to being an "early-access beta" to a "pre-release beta" to an "early-access pre-release beta." In other words, you can't believe what you're seeing either.

Remember, children:

Don't feed them. 

I received a recruitment letter from Jorg Neumann encouraging me to join Microsoft Special Forces and sow discord on X-plane forums. The pay looked fairly good for part time work, and their may be promotion opportunities!

Edited September 7, 20223 yr by Fielder

1 minute ago, Fielder said:

I received a recruitment letter from Jorg Neumann encouraging me to join Microsoft Special Forces and sew discord on X-plane forums. The pay looked fairly good for part time work, and their may be promotion opportunities!

lmao...Xplane people need to stop being so sensitive about every single thing. Not everyone is against Laminar Research. It's a freaking early access.

I have a question about installing a drive loaded with Ortho scenery for X-plane. Is a simple portable drive plugged into an USB slot a fast enough interface for lag free performance? These sorts of drives are easy to connect and are really cheap these days.

I am not going to join the debate whether it is good or bad. It's a product and like every other product it will find a consumer base. I personally did not like the look in the first place. Runway and Taxiway textures are looking good, lighting is improved and all that, clouds are meh at this stage but everything else is very XPlane 11'ish in my opinion. Will it change and improve? I don't think any of us has the answer to this question we can only expect but Laminar is calling the shots here.

When it comes to the big debate about flight model being more realistic than the other sim. I have no idea and nor I will have a chance to fly a real airliner to compare. In fact I don't care too much both sims will eventually mature and provide a good simulator experience that's what I believe. Plus no one flies with default aircraft in any sim and the 3rd party aircraft has custom flight models which I believe will also mature with the development of the platform they are using.

I personally enjoy flying in MSFS and even enjoy more flying in VR. I don't think XPlane 12 will give me the same feel when I look outside from my cockpit window in VR. Yes there's Ortho imagery to improve but I personally don't feel like I'll keep gigabytes of data just for that. I might get it later down the road to support the developers spending time and money in flight simulation but not right off the bat.

That one, more than 2 years underway and still lacking basic things for a flight sim, but: "It'S a TeN yEaR pRoJecT!!!!"

This one, first day of early release: "It HaS bUgS!!! It'S nO gOoD!!!!"

Some people are dang funny. 😆

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

There are a few folks who will defend xplane like it’s their child. Don’t seem to be able to take criticism. 

I assume this means you actually like the ground textures then or? What makes them good? What pros do the ground textures have? 

I will defend MSFS as well if somebody makes an unfair statement about it because it is a superb simulator.  If it important for a flight I am making to have Realistic satellite scenery, I can load up MSFS.  

For me, I am more concerned with ground features that can aid in VFR navigation. I find XP12 slightly better in this regard than MSFS for a few reasons.

1.  Roads are easier to see in the distance and have more realistic traffic driving on them.  It also helps the traffic is seen further into the distance.  For example, approaching the M1 motorway in the UK at 2,000ft, I struggle to see it from just a few miles away.  In XP12 at the same distance I can see a lot of moving traffic that is well defined, not ghostly in appearance as in MSFS.

2.  XP12 has railways with moving trains, again another very useful aid in VFR navigation. MSFS has none.

3. I personally do not like MSFS photogrammetry.  It often looks horrendous as do the trees in photogrammetry areas.  MSFS autogen reflects light much better making it more visible in the distance.  XP12 wins out here for me because it is visible for a far greater distance than MSFS.  From the same viewpoint and same altitude, towns, villages, roads, railways, hills, mountains are in the same place and look very similar in both simulators.

4.  Rivers and canals are depicted better in XP12 - water does not ride up the banks in XP12 as in MSFS.  When close, the water in shallow waterways almost disappears in MSFS where still highly visible in XP12. In MSFS, the canal I live on looks nothing like the real thing - it meanders through the country like a stream. In XP12 it looks exactly right and is visible much further away.

5.  Visibility - XP12 already has fantastic visibility effects and does not suffer from unlimited visibility as MSFS often does. This also aids with realistic VFR navigation.

As far as ground textures are concerned, important to me is the texture being correct for its location.  Farmland, Mountain, grass, meadow, urban etc.  Sure, I love the ground ortho in MSFS, its fantastic, but I do not see this as a negative in XP12.  MSFS is a fantastic flight sim and I will continue to enjoy using it.  XP12 is also fantastic and I shall enjoy using it too.

 

4 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I will defend MSFS as well if somebody makes an unfair statement about it because it is a superb simulator.  If it important for a flight I am making to have Realistic satellite scenery, I can load up MSFS.  

For me, I am more concerned with ground features that can aid in VFR navigation. I find XP12 slightly better in this regard than MSFS for a few reasons.

1.  Roads are easier to see in the distance and have more realistic traffic driving on them.  It also helps the traffic is seen further into the distance.  For example, approaching the M1 motorway in the UK at 2,000ft, I struggle to see it from just a few miles away.  In XP12 at the same distance I can see a lot of moving traffic that is well defined, not ghostly in appearance as in MSFS.

2.  XP12 has railways with moving trains, again another very useful aid in VFR navigation. MSFS has none.

3. I personally do not like MSFS photogrammetry.  It often looks horrendous as do the trees in photogrammetry areas.  MSFS autogen reflects light much better making it more visible in the distance.  XP12 wins out here for me because it is visible for a far greater distance than MSFS.  From the same viewpoint and same altitude, towns, villages, roads, railways, hills, mountains are in the same place and look very similar in both simulators.

4.  Rivers and canals are depicted better in XP12 - water does not ride up the banks in XP12 as in MSFS.  When close, the water in shallow waterways almost disappears in MSFS where still highly visible in XP12. In MSFS, the canal I live on looks nothing like the real thing - it meanders through the country like a stream. In XP12 it looks exactly right and is visible much further away.

5.  Visibility - XP12 already has fantastic visibility effects and does not suffer from unlimited visibility as MSFS often does. This also aids with realistic VFR navigation.

As far as ground textures are concerned, important to me is the texture being correct for its location.  Farmland, Mountain, grass, meadow, urban etc.  Sure, I love the ground ortho in MSFS, its fantastic, but I do not see this as a negative in XP12.  MSFS is a fantastic flight sim and I will continue to enjoy using it.  XP12 is also fantastic and I shall enjoy using it too.

 

please show me how rivers and canals are depicted better ?

Edited September 7, 20223 yr by fogboundturtle

There is a new update out. Waiting for release notes.

I don't think the update will provide for more than 15 minutes of sample flying. Which is the reason I can't give X-plane a fair trial.

3 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

please show me how rivers and canals are depicted better ?

I don't see a negative in either of those two screenshots - I would be happy flying in both simulated environments.  I prefer the colours, visibility effects and autogen visibility distance in the XP12 screenshot.  I also love the satellite scenery in the MSFS screenshot (personally though I would use ReShade to get that looking a bit better - the colours look flat and dull considering its a clear sky).  What you can't really capture in a single comparison is the variability of the scenery.  Some areas of default Bing imagery in MSFS are some of the best I've seen, where some areas make me want to scratch my eyes out.  

I was very specific in my comments on water - 'water does not ride up the banks in XP12 as in MSFS.  When close, the water in shallow waterways almost disappears in MSFS where still highly visible in XP12. In MSFS, the canal I live on looks nothing like the real thing - it meanders through the country like a stream. In XP12 it looks exactly right and is visible much further away'.  I wonder why you chose to post an image comparison that doesn't show any of the points I raised?  

5 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I don't see a negative in either of those two screenshots - I would be happy flying in both simulated environments.  I prefer the colours, visibility effects and autogen visibility distance in the XP12 screenshot.  I also love the satellite scenery in the MSFS screenshot (personally though I would use ReShade to get that looking a bit better - the colours look flat and dull considering its a clear sky).  What you can't really capture in a single comparison is the variability of the scenery.  Some areas of default Bing imagery in MSFS are some of the best I've seen, where some areas make me want to scratch my eyes out.  

I was very specific in my comments on water - 'water does not ride up the banks in XP12 as in MSFS.  When close, the water in shallow waterways almost disappears in MSFS where still highly visible in XP12. In MSFS, the canal I live on looks nothing like the real thing - it meanders through the country like a stream. In XP12 it looks exactly right and is visible much further away'.  I wonder why you chose to post an image comparison that doesn't show any of the points I raised?  

well. I could do a close up shot of the river if you want to talk about Bathymetry which is a new features of XP12. MSFS does it as well but I just wanted to point out that Xplane 12 meshes, at least in its current state are extremely coarse and low resolution therefore doesn't really depict canal and river better if the shore a square line to begin with.

42 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

I just wanted to point out that Xplane 12 meshes, at least in its current state are extremely coarse and low resolution

In the locations you have flown or you have data to back that up?