7 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I can hover the 744.

just call up a 120kt headwind, fire up the engines and drop the flaps to 30.

A bit like this:

 

10 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I can hover the 744.

just call up a 120kt headwind, fire up the engines and drop the flaps to 30.

Humpty has been trying it for ages... He's known in all Mumbai... There's even a NOTAM that reads ZULFA ( standing for, Zulfi Flight Activities may occur )...

Edited October 27, 20223 yr by jcomm

3 minutes ago, Murmur said:

A bit like this:

 

And there's me doubting the realism. I shoulda known better.

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

 

 

I think they're doing pretty well compared to those who have a much bigger budget (same cloud height, thickness and coverage in both sims):

 

Starting to look a bit better. The darkness at the bottom is there. But a long way to go.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Narcotic guffawing aside, I did have a legit question before the other thread got locked down:

What leads you to suggest that the XP visuals (clouds, visibility, lighting, etc.) are not FAA certified out of the box?

Oh just saw your comment. The fact that they are not. To my knowledge, any relevant FAA certification is a per-device certification.

Me think the clouds still need some serious work. Just updated and flying out of Cardiff... in front of me nice... turning around meh... So still a hit or miss. But lets wait and see...

Happy flying...

Cheers T

55 minutes ago, rka said:

Oh just saw your comment. The fact that they are not. To my knowledge, any relevant FAA certification is a per-device certification.

And what modifications from the commercially-available sim code itself are employed as part of that per-device certification?

If nothing, I have yet to hear anything but false information from you (or anyone else) on this one.

If no changes are made, the visuals are indeed certified. 

1 hour ago, rka said:

Oh just saw your comment. The fact that they are not. To my knowledge, any relevant FAA certification is a per-device certification.

Actually, I think I see your point now...there's no FAA stamp on LR's website.

I'll update what I say to either "FAA-certification ready" or "level-D compliant visuals". Latter sounds cooler.

6 hours ago, Murmur said:

I think they're doing pretty well compared to those who have a much bigger budget (same cloud height, thickness and coverage in both sims):

The work LR team did on the clouds in indeed impressive. Not perfect yet, yes, but impressive nevertheless. And as I said before, the simple fact that volumetric clouds are finally included  in the sim graphic engine is the most important thing. Improvements will come later.

Concerning your comparison shots, I'm a bit surprised though. In the XP shots you seem to have several (well, two maybe) cloud layers, whereas the MSFS shots show only one layer. Did MSFS ignore your second layer ? Also, would have been nice to compare in the same place, with the same zoom level...

One of the biggest achievement (IMHO) is to have a dedicated person working on ATC, reacting to user feedback and constantly trying to improve this extremely challenging aspect of the sim.

I often wonder why Laminar did not bring Traffic Global into XP12 and price it accordingly given how that developer now works for Laminar. Seems like a missed opportunity.

 

Edited October 27, 20223 yr by peroni

1 hour ago, Daube said:

Concerning your comparison shots, I'm a bit surprised though. In the XP shots you seem to have several (well, two maybe) cloud layers, whereas the MSFS shots show only one layer. Did MSFS ignore your second layer ? Also, would have been nice to compare in the same place, with the same zoom level...

X-Plane has a slider which AFAIK is missing in the other sim, i.e. regional weather variation. It makes weather and clouds more realistic, both visually and physically. My advice is to never set it at "none", because in that case the weather is unrealistically uniform.

Beta 9 has been a good step forward.  I am seeing better performance and graphical improvements.  Over the last 24 hours I have completed several flights in XP12, then the same flight in MSFS - both sims are very, very good!  The flight experience has improved in MSFS with the aircraft reacting more to wind and turbulence.  

Personally I find myself choosing XP12 as my sim of choice specifically because the atmosphere looks more realistic in my eyes.  Addon developers should be seeing an upturn in XP sales as I'm buying just about every new addon that appears 😁

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

X-Plane has a slider which AFAIK is missing in the other sim, i.e. regional weather variation. It makes weather and clouds more realistic, both visually and physically. My advice is to never set it at "none", because in that case the weather is unrealistically uniform.

Regional Weather Variation ?????? 

I feel ashamed :-((((((

I never noticed that slider ? Well, I just hope it's new to Xp12 because otherwise I have even more reasons to feel stupid never having seen it ...

28 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Regional Weather Variation ?????? 

I feel ashamed :-((((((

I never noticed that slider ? Well, I just hope it's new to Xp12 because otherwise I have even more reasons to feel stupid never having seen it ...

I haven't seen that slider either....

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

X-Plane has a slider which AFAIK is missing in the other sim, i.e. regional weather variation. 

Where is that slider I looked and I don't see it, I will look again.