55 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

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 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 🙂

 

3 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

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'.

 

Interesting...
In my own very subjective point of view, XP12 looks like the older gen flight sim in comparison.
The autogen pop-ups in Franz007's linked video are incredibly distracting and the lighting in XP12 reminds me of the dull/overcast day 'bright sunshine' depiction that plagues P3D. The lighting ot the autogen also doesn't look quite right in the linked video in MrBitstFlyer's OP—the objects all look very uniform and a bit cartoony.

That said, the picture in the OP (autogen aside) looks closer to reality than MSFS can manage without the use of ReShade or similar.

All-in-all, if XP12 gives you the warm and fuzzies, go enjoy it!

So realistic I can hear birds chirping and crickets cricking over the roar of the twin turboprops and noise cancelling headphones, all with the windows closed.....

38 minutes ago, Daytona125 said:

So realistic I can hear birds chirping and crickets cricking over the roar of the twin turboprops and noise cancelling headphones, all with the windows closed.....

You should file a bug.

36 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Interesting...
In my own very subjective point of view, XP12 looks like the older gen flight sim in comparison.
The autogen pop-ups in Franz007's linked video are incredibly distracting and the lighting in XP12 reminds me of the dull/overcast day 'bright sunshine' depiction that plagues P3D. The lighting ot the autogen also doesn't look quite right in the linked video in MrBitstFlyer's OP—the objects all look very uniform and a bit cartoony.

That said, the picture in the OP (autogen aside) looks closer to reality than MSFS can manage without the use of ReShade or similar.

All-in-all, if XP12 gives you the warm and fuzzies, go enjoy it!

There are a few bugs in XP12 obviously as it is so soon after release.  

I don't think you are seeing autogen pop-ups, rather shadows not appearing until close to the aircraft.  ground scenery is plotted WAY further out than MSFS.  several bug reports have gone into Laminar Research for this.  They have acknowledged several lighting issues, one of which you mentioned.  My system is set to HDR and XP12 is mostly very bright, but it can 'go dull' on occasions 🙂

You are correct the autogen can look a bit cartoony and that is because they do not have shadows (unless very close to them). Again, this bug has been reported by me and others.  

16 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Later in the flight over Eastern England the sun was a little higher so the ground textures and autogen colours were warming up.

That is a photo!

Anyway, I noticed that the lighting in XP12 is influenced by a lot of factors. Even changing the air temperature will change the lighting.

Just now, Murmur said:

That is a photo!

Anyway, I noticed that the lighting in XP12 is influenced by a lot of factors. Even changing the air temperature will change the lighting.

Couldn't believe my eyes flying in XP12 when I took that screenshot 🙂 

The lighting in XP12 can portray the 'mood' of the weather too.

19 minutes ago, Murmur said:

You should file a bug.

HAHA! Maybe I'll TWEET it to them!!!

3 minutes ago, Daytona125 said:

HAHA! Maybe I'll TWEET it to them!!!

Here's the bug report page!

http://dev.x-plane.com/support/bugreport.html

4 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

No it's not, it's built to run on home PC's, hence in the recent beta post by Ben he was discussing people that don't have beefy GPUS such as 3080 and 3090 or lot of VRAM, they are trying to optimise it as much a possible. It is advertised all over Twitter by X-Plane themselves towards the home consumer. 

Something like stata ($4000 for a 3 year licence) is also "built to run on home PCs". The big sims still run on "consumer" PC hardware.

The point I was making is that xplane - like stata - wasnt built from the ground up as a home consumer product, that anyone and their dog can pick up a controller and "fly". That is fairly recent (their first forages onto steam) endeavour, as they got really, really good at everything else. 

So complaints like

3 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

XP12 will look great but it's far from being everywhere all of the time.

Have very little meaning.

All XP12 airports look great all the time, have for years (and if they dont its a bug that will be fixed).

Getting a local area used for real life practice looking pretty much exactly like the local area is easier and a lot more fun than importing your first dataset into stata (complete side track, use R, its much better and free..). With XP12 lighting and weather effects it will now even change pretty much perfectly with the seasons.

XP12 like all previous xplane versions before it have absolutely prioritised realism as far as it can be achieved in a commercial use setting.

 

 

I did my best to recreate the best possible picture I can on XP12 using Orthos and SimHeaven X-Europe vs Stock MSFS. This was taken at EDDB. Notice , I get almost 3 times the frame in MSFS.

3 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

Notice , I get almost 3 times the frame in MSFS.

 

I dont notice that tbh, getting less than 60fps in xplane is a bug, either because you dont have the hardware needed but more likely because you have some setting set which isnt optimised yet or using an aircraft which hasnt been optimised for modern cpus.

And again, this is a fairly meaningless comparison when the one on the left has a 95% chance of not having a single realistic airport to land at anywhere near if you have an engine failure, while the other has a 90% chance of having every airport in the region done to a highly realistic standard in 3D.

(all other comparisons aside, I am generally of the opinion this is why I see and saw so many "came back to xplane" comments even before XP12 Beta1 came out. There is surely a finite limit to the number of times spawning into a random airport results in some of the worst graphics in gaming, after which no amount of expensive marketing will be sufficient)

5 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The lighting in XP12 can portray the 'mood' of the weather too.

Exactly! And with a more natural look.

Edited September 15, 20223 yr by MauB

I just wanted to thank you guys for this thread. It made me laugh so hard I wet my pants several times. And thats not about the topic itself. It's about the main participants doing such a nonsense lobbyist work from both sides of the story. I wanted to thank personally at least some of you named but lobbyists don't get the point anyway so I will drop that part. But some of you could start as a comedian for sure without any further need for practice.

And just to get it clear. I love my XP and I love my MSFS. I'm not a single sim guy. But it needs just some open mind to accept the shortcomings of each of them. Stop throwing this nonsense at each other. They are both just flight sim games on consumer hardware. Quite good but nothing more.

Cheers

T.

3 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

I did my best to recreate the best possible picture I can on XP12 using Orthos and SimHeaven X-Europe vs Stock MSFS. This was taken at EDDB. Notice , I get almost 3 times the frame in MSFS.

Xplane 12 looks much better. The sky, colors, dynamic range, atmospheric scattering and the shading of clouds, all look marginally better. As for the fps, you are comparing a product that has been optimized over 2 years versus the one that is literally in early beta with no optimizations. Do you remember the performance of msfs when it was released 2 years back. It was abysmal with insane ram usage.

29 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

As for the fps, you are comparing a product that has been optimized over 2 years versus the one that is literally in early beta with no optimizations.

If XP12 were written from scratch, you'd have a point there.