29 minutes ago, soaring_penguin said:

So I would hardly call this a U-turn.

Ermmm, it’s a massive U-turn! He said sat scenery was no good for a multitude of reasons, one being that shadows are baked in. 
And yes, I must have misheard for years, even as recent as a few months ago because he also said:-

he kept emphasizing that X-Plane is a flight simulator, not a driving simulator and as a result, the only scenery that really matters is airport scenery (since that's when you're "driving" the plane and looking outside). He said that when he flies he's not flying around looking for his house (little dig at MSFS) or admiring the scenery, so as a result that's not his focus when building X-Plane.

I have  the link to the interview if required… 

 

So, my question stands; why the massive U-turns?

 

 

Did you actually read my reply? Or your own comment for that matter?

You were commenting on, and I quote :  "diehard XP folks" making an U-turn.

My answer was that it was not the diehard XP folks making this turn, many of us wanted this for a  long time. It is the reason why the likes of Ortho4XP and simheaven exist.

And yes, Austin seems to have changed his opinion on the matter, I did agree with you, didn't I?

But it seems to me that you are looking for a fight and to lock another thread.

45 minutes ago, soaring_penguin said:

My answer was that it was not the diehard XP folks making this turn, many of us wanted this for a  long time

Well thats hard to believe, after what I read here and over there. I am not looking for anything, merely just very very very surprised at the U-Turns... 

Who cares even if it's a U-turn. The good thing is that he finally realised that ground scenery DOES matter. Look at the number of gamers msfs pulled in. But it's not just streaming in orthos that makes MSFS special. It's that Blackshark AI that is supporting that visual outcome but artistically and accurately placing correct objects on top of the imagery. Whoever is responsible for the ground scenery at Laminar needs to come with a good solution or maybe some kind of procedural tech that handles the placement of objects on top of orthos. But in my opinion orthos is just old school. I'd rather they go for a next gen procedural tech that handles everything from regional accurate ground textures to buildings. 

Edited November 30, 20223 yr by Baber20

28 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

Who cares even if it's a U-turn. The good thing is that he finally realised that ground scenery DOES matter. Look at the number of gamers msfs pulled in. But it's not just streaming in orthos that makes MSFS special. It's that Blackshark AI that is supporting that visual outcome but artistically and accurately placing correct objects on top of the imagery. Whoever is responsible for the ground scenery at Laminar needs to come with a good solution or maybe some kind of procedural tech that handles the placement of objects on top of orthos. But in my opinion orthos is just old school. I'd rather they go for a next gen procedural tech that handles everything from regional accurate ground textures to buildings. 

Might just be a bit late to start now...

34 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

But in my opinion orthos is just old school. I'd rather they go for a next gen procedural tech that handles everything from regional accurate ground textures to buildings.

I do partly agree with you, because I used X-Plane 11 without Ortho for a long time,  Most important to me is to have ground features in the right place to enable VFR navigation.  SimHeaven and SFD Global gave accurate land structures all in the correct places.  However, the world and technology has moved on, so for XP12 to have wider appeal, the ground scenery does need an update.

I fly in Europe and the USA, so have downloaded Ortho for those places.  I get to tune the ortho for my purposes, which leads to higher quality Ortho than I get in MSFS. Together with X-World and Global Forests, I have an amazing visual experience.  However, If I do want to fly somewhere without Ortho, I still do find the world plausible and good enough for VFR navigation. 

Streaming ortho has been introduced to the world, so to be relevant to the masses, XP12 really needs an ortho solution.

And above is enough to explain Austin’s U turn.

He doesn’t need to provide this in the base sim (probably he would face licensing issues) but a sane system to set this up as independently freeware would suffice.

 

5 hours ago, rka said:

Might just be a bit late to start now...

If he wanted us to toss rose petals at his feet when he walked into flight sim expo, ya, a bit late. Or maybe not too late on that one... I might still...

He's never sounded like he wanted to increase his house sqft or move to a thrust turbine from the Evo. Didn't the Ferrari get replaced a while back w/ the Tesla? I lost track.

5 hours ago, Baber20 said:

It's that Blackshark AI

Yes. Credit where credit is due. This and Meteoblue. Asobo who?

On 11/28/2022 at 6:49 PM, MrBitstFlyer said:

This screenshot shows why I think the lighting model in XP12 does a better job.  MSFS light is 'too clean, too white', where XP12 light has depth, haze, smoke.

I disagree with that because I could tell it was XP12 right away and not for good reasons

18 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I disagree with that because I could tell it was XP12 right away and not for good reasons

I was specifically discussing the lighting, not the whole sim.

20 minutes ago, Krakin said:

not for good reasons

Be specific, now. What reasons?

21 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Be specific, now. What reasons?

You took the bait.

6 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

You took the bait.

🙂 🙂 Haha... No, no! If they've got something intelligent to say like the post below, I'm all for it. I guess what I'm really nibbling at is for them to "use your words"!

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 20223 yr by blingthinger

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

I guess what I'm really nibbling at is for them to "use your words"!

I'll use my words but since you did not offer anything near as complex as the post you linked, I think it would be fair for me to follow your lead. Something that makes XP12 easily identifiable is its lighting. XP12's lighting simply isn't vibrant enough. No matter the time of day there is this weird dullness to it and the way it interacts with the environment. This is very apparent with how it interacts with the clouds but its probably the fault of how they are rendered so that might be an unfair criticism. It is definitely improved over XP11 thankfully. The most convincing aspect of MSFS' graphics engine is it's lighting and the sim has no trouble depicting haze, pollution and so on when conditions call for it.

Edited November 30, 20223 yr by Krakin