5 hours ago, Crunchmeister said:

And no one can say with honesty that the visuals aren't light years beyond what other sims can offer.

Depends what aspect of the visuals you are talking about.  If you are talking ground textures, I agree MSFS is amazing, but I can get the same result with XP12 and Orbx addons.  Granted an addon or downloaded ortho is required, but the result is the same.  If you are talking lighting, XP12 is actually very good out the box, as is MSFS of course.  If you are talking clouds then I think I initially said the same as everyone else - they are awful!  However, after a couple of days flying in XP, my thoughts have changed.  Apart from resolution and graphical glitches, not surprising for an early release,  the clouds can be very nice indeed. XP12s haze effects are better than MSFS and this results in the clouds looking more natural in the distance (not all of them granted, but a good start) as they merge with the haze.

I just did a comparison flight in the UK using the default C172 in both sims. I used the C172 because this aircraft utilizes new MSFS features.  I enjoyed both flights immensely. Visually there were subtle differences between them, but both sims looked great.  The cumulus in XP12 looked a little better as the shading and form looked more realistic to me (sure they could do with more resolution).  XP12s atmosphere looked a little better because of the haze effects on the ground and clouds.  These are subtle differences though because both sims visually are stunning, with both keeping a place on my system.

Not a visual point but the flight model in both felt almost identical.  The MSFS C172 did react a little more to wind/turbulence though which was a pleasant surprise.

2 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

but I can get the same result with XP12 and Orbx addons.  Granted an addon or

No you can’t. Because it doesn’t have the required autogen. 
Just re-read that. Sorry. With orbx autogen it’s a bit better, but it’s still not as good as default msfs. It’s better than default xp12 by a million miles though, imo.  

Edited September 9, 20223 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

6 minutes ago, mSparks said:

youtube is offering refunds now?.... wow, thats new....

Or do you mean people expecting to fly an aircraft but were incapable of trying the free demo and think youtube is the place to ask for a refund were commenting on videos... If so I wouldnt recommend paying any attention to people with that level of intellect tbh, do you?

youtube does not refund xplane buyers😂the comments section had discussions on refunds👍

6 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

No you can’t. Because it doesn’t have the required autogen. 
Just re-read that. Sorry. With orbx autogen it’s a bit better, but it’s still not as good as default msfs. It’s better than default xp12 by a million miles though, imo.  

I can agree with you MSFS autogen is currently better looking, but there isn't much difference to Orbx.  The test flight I just did in the UK was virtually the same in both sims, with a few subtle difference I described.  During the flight, to aid with VFR navigation, I was looking for villages, rivers, railways, towns, villages, hills etc.  What I didn't need to do was look for the local fish and chip shop.

4 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I can agree with you MSFS autogen is currently better looking, but there isn't much difference to Orbx.  The test flight I just did in the UK was virtually the same in both sims, with a few subtle difference I described.  During the flight, to aid with VFR navigation, I was looking for villages, rivers, railways, towns, villages, hills etc.  What I didn't need to do was look for the local fish and chip shop.

The biggest difference is that Orbx still uses autogen and the cost of acquire each region while the competitor actually have photogrammetry area and AI built autogen building which is an approximate of what the shape of the building really is. It's groundbreaking technology. There is nothing that come close to it. 

Edited September 9, 20223 yr by fogboundturtle

4 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I can agree with you MSFS autogen is currently better looking, but there isn't much difference to Orbx.  The test flight I just did in the UK was virtually the same in both sims, with a few subtle difference I described.  During the flight, to aid with VFR navigation, I was looking for villages, rivers, railways, towns, villages, hills etc.  What I didn't need to do was look for the local fish and chip shop.

The region I fly in, the landmarks help greatly, so, I do look for specific buildings. 
 

in any case, I think the the ortho looks better from higher altitude in xplane. That’s one thing I noticed In msfs when I first got it, it’s blurry mess from up above. 

Maybe I am alone in this but personally I don't think MSFS2020 looks all that good outside of photogrammetry areas. Where I live is WAY too green hell even the roads are green, then you go a few miles north and the photogrammetry area is a giant square you can see because the colors are more life like and it is not at all blended with the non PG areas. Plus I can not get past the airport lights always being on. IRL airports can be kind of hard to find.  

 

Plus I do not like how dependent msfs2020 is on MS staying in this, I work for a fortune 100 company, plans can change on a whim, one exec loosing a power struggle can cancel the whole thing.  for example my company bought 20 million worth of land near me several years back to build a giant hub, we had a leadership change and the new CEO cancelled the project, the 20 million in sunk cost plus planning they spent meant nothing to them.  

 

anyway, I enjoy both platforms, neither are perfect but I enjoy both. 

Edited September 9, 20223 yr by mikea76

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

and LR just completely closed that gap, and in some areas exceeded it

Lol

7 minutes ago, mikea76 said:

Maybe I am alone in this but personally I don't think MSFS2020 looks all that good outside of photogrammetry areas. Where I live is WAY too green hell even the roads are green, then you go a few miles north and the photogrammetry area is a giant square you can see because it is not at all blended with the non PG areas. Plus I can not get past the airport lights always being on. IRL airports can be kind of hard to find.  

 

Plus I do not like how dependent msfs2020 is on MS staying in this, I work for a fortune 100 company, plans can change on a whim, one exec loosing a power struggle can cancel the whole thing.  for example my company bought 20 million worth of land near me several years back to build a giant hub, we had a leadership change and the new CEO cancelled the project, the 20 million in sunk cost plus planning they spent meant nothing to them.  

It always depends where you fly. There is area where they have excellent DEM satellite images, These area are amazing. Other areas looks like FS2002. It's bad. They did say they would try to acquire the best DEM data they can and redo the whole world.  If you only fly airliners, Orthos is ok but if you like GA, it's not even in the same decade in terms of technology.

10 minutes ago, mikea76 said:

the 20 million in sunk cost plus planning they spent meant nothing to them.

economics 101

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy

7 minutes ago, mikea76 said:

Maybe I am alone in this but personally I don't think MSFS2020 looks all that good

Obviously you’re not alone, but I think even the most ardent XP fan would have to admit that it’s a very minor opinion given that we’re not seeing a mass exodus from MSFS to the new sim on the block.

It is, of course, perfectly fine to think so though…

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

Sony actually take quality control very seriously

Lol

Hello,

you dont need to pay money. Look at simheaven. Its free and uses with data from OSM and Microsoft building footprints.

Buildings are different for several regions.

In the new version it will use the new 3D-Trees from X-Plane 12.

Together with Ortho4XP it brings a very good scenery for XP.

I think that the community from XP has grown over many years and many of them are as enthusiastic as Austin.

That is the point that brings Laminar forward

1 minute ago, scotchegg said:

XP fan would have to admit that it’s a very minor opinion given that we’re not seeing a mass exodus from MSFS to the new sim on the block

well, someone above mentioned the C172.

I think thats an interesting comparison, because, yep, I would agree its seems a C172 is pretty equal regardless of sim. At which point its a question of cost, leaving MS losing even there.

once you get into everything else, issues like blurry textures from altitude, or the way photogrammetry actually ruins the flight experience when you hit the boundary and "not that good" seems to sum it up.

All depends what you want from your sim, but if all you want is to "fly over your house", then taking a real life panoramic flight near your house is most definately the best thing to spend your money on tbh...

8 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

given that we’re not seeing a mass exodus from MSFS to the new sim on the block.

But thats mostly because the mass exodus from MSFS had completed by about 2 months after MSFS released, they all just gave up and went elsewhere. One or two sim updates have caught peoples attention for a few days, but right now there are less people on MSFS than there was on FSX a few months before MSFS released....

I dont care what sim is your favourite, anyone who thinks that is good is delusional. 

28 minutes ago, mikea76 said:

anyway, I enjoy both platforms, neither are perfect but I enjoy both

How it should be. 😀