33 minutes ago, PDX Flyer said:

Maybe I should have said "scenery" instead of "visuals".  Yes the lighting and clouds are very very good, but the scenery is where I was expecting more.  So I stand corrected.

I agree. Although a scenery overhaul is on the table once the sim gets stable enough but if you have the time and patience (and disk space) Ortho + simheaven X World Europe is absolutely breathtaking.

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

be having never sat in a cockpit.

Out of curiosity, do you fly in real life? 

4 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Out of curiosity, do you fly in real life? 

 

27 minutes ago, mSparks said:

 

Which country do you fly in? 

46 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Which country do you fly in? 

 

Both XP and MSFS can be showcased to look very good or very bad. The difference is that MSFS looks good naturally. Looking good is the rule, rather than the exception, for MSFS. For XP, however, looking good is the exception, rather than the rule, and is achieved only through radical intervention, like applying heavy makeup to a 1950s movie star.

 

I believe that David Mills summed up the matter in a masterly way. 👍

17 minutes ago, David Mills said:

Both XP and MSFS can be showcased to look very good or very bad. The difference is that MSFS looks good naturally. Looking good is the rule, rather than the exception, for MSFS. For XP, however, looking good is the exception, rather than the rule, and is achieved only through radical intervention, like applying heavy makeup to a 1950s movie star.

 

then xp12 happened,

and now, rather than having to heavily mod an xp9 heli (that cant be shared with people), you can grab the near if not perfect R44 for XP12 from vskylabs for less than it costs to prime the engines of a real one.

VR is now bullet proof.

and looks now blow every last gen sim out of the water - out of the box, with a metric ton of new payware to spoil you stupid a long way down the pipeline.

But by all means, enjoy your msfs, and its 20 odd unrealistic airports to your hearts content. Im sure someone cares in a different thread on a different forum.

28 minutes ago, David Mills said:

Both XP and MSFS can be showcased to look very good or very bad. The difference is that MSFS looks good naturally. Looking good is the rule, rather than the exception, for MSFS. For XP, however, looking good is the exception, rather than the rule, and is achieved only through radical intervention, like applying heavy makeup to a 1950s movie star.

 

Yes, youre right

 

Edited September 15, 20223 yr by Dirk.M

18 minutes ago, Dirk.M said:

Yes, youre right

 

Thats such an unfair comparison, they should use one of the highly realistic photogrammetry areas for MSFS that xplane will never be able to compete against.... 🤣

Edited September 15, 20223 yr by mSparks

36 minutes ago, Dirk.M said:

Yes, youre right

 

 

It shows that MSFS is sooo far advanced in the future that even the cars are flying (like in The Fifth Element - at 1:30 min) 🤣:

 

But then again ... sorry 🙏 ... (I'm referring to the title of the topic) .... what does "realistic" mean ? 🙂

The word "realistic" makes no sense in an atmospheric context.
Do you know why?
Because the sky and the clouds are always changing !!
There is no single model of sky-clouds that can be defined as "realistic". 🤷‍♂️

Look at these photos please.

These photos ... this sky ... these clouds ... this "everything" ... isn't it realistic ?? 🤔
It depends on what we mean by "realistic" .
I like those photos, I consider them as realistic and as much as XP12.

Do you know which simulator I made those photos? (I have hundreds of similar photos in my hard drive)
FS9 !

That is my FS9, a simulator of the year 2004 that I have accessorized personally for years by equipping it with a particular sky addon called Supersky.

Question: "Is it better than XP12"?
Answer: "Of course not!". 😄

But when I hear about "realism" in the year 2022 (XP12) and I see some blurry clouds above a still generic scenery with autogen, I'm not so surprised.
Let's say that after 12 years from the release of FS9 I would expect something more. 🤷‍♂️

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

It depends on what we mean by "realistic" .

using a joystick instead of a joypad to fly the aircraft while getting dragged behind it probably doesn't inspire the ideas of realism here that you seem to think.

cos, like.... its not... even a little bit. 

thanks, but Ill be sticking with

For the forseeable.

Although, I do think the lack of raindrops on the seat is a little unrealistic 😇

Edited September 16, 20223 yr by mSparks

3 hours ago, David Mills said:

Both XP and MSFS can be showcased to look very good or very bad. The difference is that MSFS looks good naturally. Looking good is the rule, rather than the exception, for MSFS. For XP, however, looking good is the exception, rather than the rule, and is achieved only through radical intervention, like applying heavy makeup to a 1950s movie star.

 

I'll pass on your thought to online flightsim stores to change 'addon' to 'radical intervention'.

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

Thats such an unfair comparison, they should use one of the highly realistic photogrammetry areas for MSFS that xplane will never be able to compete against.... 🤣

LOL!

I'm an MSFS user with 1700 hours in it.  I find this video very funny because it is so true! MSFS is a great sim, but it has plenty of problems.  Clearly XP12 has been successful in improving the features highlighted in the video - why can't people just accept another sim has made a step forward in these areas?  If they don't feel the improvements made are enough to want to use the sim just keep using MSFS!

Edited September 16, 20223 yr by MrBitstFlyer