7 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

I am trying to say that , it still need a lot of work in terms of lighting. Even if it's an improvement over XP11, it's easy to hide all the things it does bad.  Like the example I gave you, I didn't take this. Someone else did.  It's just to show you that, yes under specific condition, XP12 will look great but it's far from being everywhere all of the time. If you want I can show you at night screenshot I took and you can see how one is still very much unchanged from XP11 compare to the competitor. We are here to talk about how realistic XP12 looks. 

I absolutely agree with you. There are issues in some areas/situatioms that needs to be improved or fixed. Yesterday i flew into a cloud and everything was suddenly completely black. I really hope they will fix all these issues. I will also have to report them more things and it would be great to have some feedback from the devs.

Edited September 14, 20223 yr by Franz007

3 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

it doesn't at all. Not every remotely close but it's "good enough" for some Please don't try to compare , this is not even a fair fight and this will turn into another MSFS trolls are here to tell cause trouble. Please don't. You think Ortho is good enough for you...fine but don't even try to compare it to way the competition generate scenery because it is not. 

Hell even I would say that ortho and XEurope are quite good actually, good enough for "remotely close" for sure 😄

1 minute ago, rka said:

Hell even I would say that ortho and XEurope are quite good actually, good enough for "remotely close" for sure 😄

I can show you example how really far X-europe is to the scenery MSFS generate. It's extremely far. It's not like  Ortho is bad but it just can't and as much as SimHeaven addons is , it just a series of autogen asset that repeats everywhre. It's an improvement over the base sim for sure but it doesn't make it "real" or close. Hey, you like it. good for you. The title of this thread is isn't realistic and I think it's pretty clear there is some huge limitation with the ortho + autogen method. 

5 minutes ago, rka said:

Hell even I would say that ortho and XEurope are quite good actually, good enough for "remotely close" for sure 😄

I can show you example how really far X-europe is to the scenery MSFS generate. It's extremely far. It's not like  Ortho is bad but it just can't and as good SimHeaven addons is , it just a series of autogen asset that repeats everywhere. It's an improvement over the base sim for sure but it doesn't make it "real" or close. Hey, you like it. good for you. The title of this thread is isn't realistic and I think it's pretty clear there is some huge limitation with the ortho + autogen method. 

Edited September 14, 20223 yr by fogboundturtle

13 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I disagree. With X-Europe installed it looks quite similar. I am not talking about photogrammetry that i deactivated in MSFS (although having a high-end PC) but when talking about „awful“: the photogrammetry is such a mess when not flying very low right over the city: you see it building up from the distance, buildings popping up, some still melted down, a grey mass that is blurry and doesn’t look at all natural etc. Its really not an advantage in my eyes. Just a technical nice thing and nice to navigate over cities with a drone-camera (not really what i want to do in a flightsim). But i agree that if its what you like to do, there is no city in XP that looks as good as photogrammetry in MSFS.

I wasn’t talking about photogrammetry. I was talking about the autogen that looks magnificent paired with ortho in msfs. It does not match up as well in xp12. That’s clear to see by most in comparison screenshots. 
I mean I hope someone makes XP12 look good, cause I will use it. Rounding off the roads for starters…! 

@fogboundturtle@Ianrivaldosmith

I think you're being overly harsh here.

If you compare apples and apples, say an area with a good ortho quality, and you make ortho tiles from Bing with HD mesh, in an area with no photogrammetry, and use Xeurope - it will not be a large difference. There are nicely looking screenshots in here.

But basically the product has long stopped being XP at this point. Which is why I find the thread title misleading.

I hope my fellow LR customers are taking note of how I defended XP against the gamer crowd! Hey just kidding guys.

19 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I wasn’t talking about photogrammetry. I was talking about the autogen that looks magnificent paired with ortho in msfs. It does not match up as well in xp12. That’s clear to see by most in comparison screenshots. 
I mean I hope someone makes XP12 look good, cause I will use it. Rounding off the roads for starters…! 

I see. They are perhaps a bit more varied and the ones in XP12 of less variety if we would look at them from very close on a street.

I am basing my thoughs during a dynamical flying, like in this comparison: 

I really found XP in on this particular video looking more natural (colours, sharpness, trees). When autogen is far away, the buildings are too small to be perceived. And on short final we focus on the runway and i personnally don‘t think that the very small differences in autogen will really change anything. What i noticed is that MSFS autogen also suddenly pops up and in XP it transitions slowly from half-transparent to fully appearing when we would also start to see the details of a building in real life.

Of course this is only my opinion but i didn‘t notice any differences in the autogen when using XP or MSFS because the villages or cities disappear in the background (or away from the main point of view/focus) when preparing for the landing. So for me there is zero perceptible differences beetween both-autogen that would make my flying experience incl. visuals better. Again: just talking about my own impression 🙂

Edited September 14, 20223 yr by Franz007

Just now, rka said:

@fogboundturtle@Ianrivaldosmith

I think you're being overly harsh here.

If you compare apples and apples, say an area with a good ortho quality, and you make ortho tiles from Bing with HD mesh, in an area with no photogrammetry, and use Xeurope - it will not be a large difference. There are nicely looking screenshots in here.

But basically the product has long stopped being XP at this point. Which is why I find the thread title misleading.

I hope my fellow LR customers are taking note of how I defended XP against the gamer crowd! Hey just kidding guys.

I think that point is valid if you do it outside of metro area where you can say, this is not exactly the same but if you move to around KLAX or KJFK. this is where the differences start to grown exponentially. Also I know that wherever I want to fly , I don't have to spend 4 hours doing ortho for the tile before hand. I find the whole ordeal limiting in a sense that once you have ortho in one area, you feel force to only fly there. I did the whole pacific coast in my XP11 and it all I would end up flying. 

39 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

it doesn't at all. Not every remotely close but it's "good enough" for some Please don't try to compare , this is not even a fair fight and this will turn into another MSFS trolls are here to tell cause trouble. Please don't. You think Ortho is good enough for you...fine but don't even try to compare it to way the competition generate scenery because it is not. 

Well, we may simply not have the same impression. There is no wrong or truth because it is very subjective. I used MSFS for the last 6 months exclusively and tbh i would never have told someone to purchase XP11 over MSFS as MSFS has a lot more potential than XP11 who will slowly  ends. So i am trying to judge as objectively as i can and i do not notice any differences in the different autogens when using X-Europe with XP or using MSFS.  Mostly because i concentrate on different things during approaches and landings. And i never used orthos myself but am thinking about giving them a try. The thing is that textures really aren‘t the most important thing for me, the immersion comes (again for me) mostly from the lighting and clouds/weather effects. 
I think this discussion could lead to a similar debate about which flightmodel is more realistc and many disagree.

24 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

I think that point is valid if you do it outside of metro area where you can say, this is not exactly the same but if you move to around KLAX or KJFK. this is where the differences start to grown exponentially. Also I know that wherever I want to fly , I don't have to spend 4 hours doing ortho for the tile before hand. I find the whole ordeal limiting in a sense that once you have ortho in one area, you feel force to only fly there. I did the whole pacific coast in my XP11 and it all I would end up flying. 

That could be true indeed over big cities. The big buildings may be a bit better modelled in MSFS. I agree as i tried it once or twice 🙂

Since i very rarely fly close to big cities it didn‘t have a big impact on the flights i am doing.

Edited September 14, 20223 yr by Franz007

Just now, Franz007 said:

Well, we may simply not have the same impression. There is no wrong or truth because it is very subjective. I used MSFS for the last 6 months exclusively and tbh i would never have told someone to purchase XP11 over MSFS as MSFS has a lot more potential than XP11 who will slowly  ends. So i am trying to judge as objectively as i can and i do not notice any differences in the different autogens when using X-Europe with XP or using MSFS.  Mostly because i concentrate on different things during approaches and landings. And i never used orthos myself but am thinking about giving them a try. The thing is that textures really aren‘t the most important thing for me, the immersion comes (again for me) mostly from the lighting and clouds/weather effects. 
I think this discussion could lead to a similar debate about which flightmodel is more realistc and many disagree.

a lot if it is subjective sure but let's not get into the flight model discussion because I think both side don't have enough intricate knowledge on both side and it always turn into this troll fest of nonsense. I think both simulator offers very similar and good flight models. If you prefer xplane, go for it. There is nothing wrong with that.  If you don't see the difference between autogen and AI build scenery, good for you. I wish I was like that. I just can't unsee it anymore. 

This is why we have choices. 

3 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

This is why we have choices.

Sure. I have both and will follow the evolution of both. There may be things where the one sim is better than the other in certain situations. For example if Fenix releases its update, i will for sure want to try it in MSFS and i am sure that i will like the experience 🙂

20 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

And i never used orthos myself but am thinking about giving them a try

There is good ready to install Ortho available for the US, would save you bothering with the creation process.

 

 

 

 

 

a comparison that should not be taken very seriously

 

46 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I really found XP in on this particular video looking more natural (colours, sharpness, trees)

Wow, MSFS lighting, terrain and visibility effects suddenly look previous generation in this comparison!  In the approach section, MSFS looked ugly against XP12!  I have been using MSFS since release and loved every minute of it, but the new lighting and visibility effects in XP12 makes MSFS look 'dated'.