Recently I've finally got a new GPU, so I had the chance to try the latest MSFS SU10 in all its glory. I have to say the scenery is incredible! Here's a real life pic vs MSFS at high settings:

 

 

 

 

The top is real for sure?  Doesn't look like it hehe.  Looks like XP12.

Still the massive bridges after SU10?

3 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

The top is real for sure?  Doesn't look like it hehe.  Looks like XP12.

The reason the first shot looks like XP12 is the lighting, which has advanced flight simulation realism.  The MSFS shot is still amazing of course, but it can't quite capture the light like XP12.

Edited September 26, 20223 yr by MrBitstFlyer

There's also not much contrast in the XP12 shot... kind of dull.  Could be due to the time of day.  Where is this I want to see if I can replicate the XP12 shot (without any rehsade or nvidia filters etc).

Edited September 26, 20223 yr by ryanbatc

4 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Where is this I want to see if I can replicate the XP12 shot (without any rehsade or nvidia filters etc).

Looks like Portland, heading SW from KPDX.

EDIT: I instantly knew where it was, even though I live on the other side of the world and have never been to the US. Should I be looking up my local Simmers Anonymous groups already?

Edited September 26, 20223 yr by tymk
EDIT

10 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

There's also not much contrast in the XP12 shot... kind of dull.  Could be due to the time of day.  Where is this I want to see if I can replicate the XP12 shot (without any rehsade or nvidia filters etc).

Yes Portland, I think it was 5 or 7 or 10 SM visibility. Scenery is not default though.

I think in these conditions XP12 has a much more realistic visibility model. In comparison, the other sim almost looks like Google Earth.

I actually tried to edit the XP12 shot, but all the filters I tried were actually making it less realistic!

I think it mirrors quite well the real contrast in lowish visibility conditions, e.g.:

First shot is clearly X-Plane 12. 

I'm only at 1440P so I wasn't able to get the same aspect ratio.  Your MSFS shot looks all washed out on my HDR monitor and the XP12 one obviously looks better (but much darker) with heavy addons.  GB's of Ortho scenery (or Orbx TE if you're using that which I used for XP11) and or SimHeaven OSM I'm assuming?

All you need is a few very small and free addons to make Portland look much more realistic in MSFS.  I tried to match your haze and time of day.  Both your XP12 and my MSFS pics looks pretty great I'd say against real world.

I don't use the ortho in xp12 and are you using Reshade or anything?  I can't get the XP lighting like yours no matter what time of day I set.  I am just using today's date for time of year in both my shots.

There's no doubt XP12 can look really nice with addons... but they are very much required to make it look that nice.

PortlandXP12 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

PortlandPG by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

 

4 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

GB's of Ortho scenery (or Orbx TE if you're using that which I used for XP11) and or SimHeaven OSM I'm assuming?

No orthos in my screenshot (I noticed low-res ortho can look worse than no ortho), no reshade or filters. But not default scenery.

4 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

I can't get the XP lighting like yours no matter what time of day I set.  I am just using today's date for time of year in both my shots.

Try 5 sm visibility, 21 June, 15.00:

4 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

There's no doubt XP12 can look really nice with addons... but they are very much required to make it look that nice.

I think the main difference between my shot and default XP12, is the trees. I discussed that on a thread in the XP forums, trees alone can make a 100% improvement to the scenery, that's where LR should focus first IMO.

Edited September 27, 20223 yr by Murmur

I fly mainly MSFS but I did just DL XP12 . The weather in 12 is very good but the autogen is not even close to MSFS . Interesting post , thanks for the shots .

 

Edited September 27, 20223 yr by johnbow72

On 9/26/2022 at 7:36 PM, Murmur said:

No orthos in my screenshot (I noticed low-res ortho can look worse than no ortho), no reshade or filters. But not default scenery.

Try 5 sm visibility, 21 June, 15.00:

 

 

Oh really?  Ahhh it's just a lot more trees - that's cool though.  Yeah LR should add a lot more in....I agree that is the largest scenery issue.  The trees look really great up really close but they are far too sparse.

Yep this is definitely Portland. Looks like the shot was taken half way between the airport and downtown. If it wasn't so close to the airport or so high up I would be able to take the same shot with my drone for comparison. 

1 hour ago, TurboKen said:

Yep this is definitely Portland. Looks like the shot was taken half way between the airport and downtown. If it wasn't so close to the airport or so high up I would be able to take the same shot with my drone for comparison. 

You should take one so we can compare anyway hehe

On 9/26/2022 at 3:13 PM, Murmur said:

Yes Portland, I think it was 5 or 7 or 10 SM visibility. Scenery is not default though.

I think in these conditions XP12 has a much more realistic visibility model. In comparison, the other sim almost looks like Google Earth.

I actually tried to edit the XP12 shot, but all the filters I tried were actually making it less realistic!

I think it mirrors quite well the real contrast in lowish visibility conditions, e.g.:

Too dark and dull. Looks like a photo from a underwhelming camera. In fact my cheap chinese smartphone produces nearly identical results when I fly RW. If that effect is something you want, then by all means you should be satisfied. 

 

Edited September 30, 20223 yr by SAS443