This could/should have been x-plane 12 - more than plausible

[mSparks 2,094]

Just now, Daube said:

Hahaha, no you were not. You were replying to a message you quoted partially that tell "XP12 lighting isn't vibrant enough", as CLEARLY visible in the post I linked. It was purely about lighting, not at all about autogen texture quality. Do you really think XP users are dumb ? You are being insulting to all of us here.

That post was just checking that he prefers complete garbage scenery with nothing important simulated, over everything pretty much where it should be, and doing what it should do - as a yardstick for whether his opinion on lighting should be taken seriously.

[psolk 3,057]

26 minutes ago, mSparks said:

When in practice MSFS isn't delivering even lvl16 ortho to its users, yes

 

 

That statement has been proven factually incorrect yet you keep using the same image to prove a point that has already been disproven... 

That is intentionally misleading others to try and prove yourself correct. It is a fallacy. 

[psolk 3,057]

Ironic the different tones when this same thing was posted in the P3D forum....  Seems to be some overly zealous defenders of ANY criticism or suggestion XP can be improved... 

 

[mSparks 2,094]

6 minutes ago, psolk said:

That statement has been proven factually incorrect yet you keep using the same image to prove a point that has already been disproven... 

No it hasn't, this screenshot IS NOT ORTHO!!!!

Half that screenshot SHOULD BE A LAKE, and has BEEN A LAKE for 20 odd years or more.

Secondly, "not my MSFS screenshots", but sure, feel free to post a higher res MSFS one if you think the poster was faking his sim, its taken on final approach to EGLL

Edited December 2, 2022 by mSparks

[Daube 355]

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

That post was just checking that he prefers complete garbage scenery with nothing important simulated, over everything pretty much where it should be, and doing what it should do - as a yardstick for whether his opinion on lighting should be taken seriously.

Trying to escape from reality again ? That post was only about lighting, and you know it perfectly. You're just desperately trying to deny, in the most comical way I've seen in a while. Also, until now you told it was about autogen textures, but now it's about scenery accuracy ? Please, go see a medic. 

[psolk 3,057]

27 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Can PMDG, Fenix et al simulate longer braking distance on rain and ice?

Apparently they can.... I haven't tried wake turbulence personally because AI is still so broken in MSFS and bird strikes, frankly something that is such a rarity in the real world is not a "requirement" for me personally...   It's one of those features you "may" see in your flying career or you may not...  Sully did, but 99.9% of pilots will never experience it and as demonstrated there are instances they wont even know it happened until after the flight on a post flight inspection.  I'd be one of those people who shut it off anyway.  And yes, you can overstress an aircraft in MSFS as well.  

 

[Daube 355]

4 minutes ago, mSparks said:

No it hasn't, this screenshot IS NOT ORTHO!!!!

Half that screenshot SHOULD BE A LAKE, and has BEEN A LAKE for 20 odd years.

Secondly, "not my MSFS screenshots", but sure, feel free to post a higher res MSFS one if you think the posters was faking his sim, its taken on final approach to EGLL

100% ortho scenery. Outdated pictures from Bing, yes indeed, but still ortho scenery. And still Zoom 18 or more.

 

[psolk 3,057]

15 minutes ago, mSparks said:

No it hasn't,

But is has been proven MSFS provides greater than Lvl16 so your whole statement was false...  ie presenting to people that MSFS can't deliver beyond Lvl16 is a fallacy.  Holy cow man do you realize you are arguing with everyone here?  

Sure, this is all Lvl16

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by psolk

[threexgreen 3,156]

11 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

The flaw in you statement is that it had nothing to do with economic.

They decided to go into the what they thought was the path of lease resistance only to find themselves in same situation that they wanted to avoid and was caught by the SDK for the next 2 years while they would have had a aircraft sold on the other platform by then. Then they comeback to MSFS and start their 737 line of aircraft with a complete efb like all the others developers who are starting from scratch. But instead they wanted rush back and put something out that still doesn't measure up to what they had in P3D you know it and so does the rest of the market. Now they are announcing the 777 and the responds on FSElite has been met with contempt because they are waiting for the efb and GFO which they have working for some over 10 years.  

That was what they wanted you to know but that was not case and it didn't stop others to continue their projects. 

I don't know what argument you're trying to make tbh. Going the way of least resistance to release a product that it is then held up by technical difficulties that would require either learning and re-adjusting or simply waiting for a third-party module to be able to continue development while being perfectly able to release a product on another platform (P3D) at the same is a purely economical decision. Hence my earlier statement stands in that it wasn't economically viable to expand XP development.

The 737 for MSFS is getting an EFB even if I'm not a fan of the delay and the 777 doesn't change anything about it.

[mSparks 2,094]

5 minutes ago, Daube said:

Trying to escape from reality again ? That post was only about lighting, and you know it perfectly. You're just desperately trying to deny, in the most comical way I've seen in a while. Also, until now you told it was about autogen textures, but now it's about scenery accuracy ? Please, go see a medic. 

I have never commented on MSFS lighting, I had never seen MSFS lighting, I am really not interested in MSFS at all, I was just checking whether a poster had a rational opinion or was stuck spouting the usual nonsense, he has the benefit of the doubt atm because he couldn't bring himself to praise it either.

1 minute ago, Daube said:

100% ortho scenery. Outdated pictures from Bing, yes indeed, but still ortho scenery. And still Zoom 18 or more.

100% not ortho scenery, you can see the outline where the lake and rivers should be in the MSFS shot, it fills in the winter and dries up in the summer, but it is a lake and has always been a lake

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dobanovci/@44.8180134,20.2015881,919m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x475a681de2f467ab:0x3afab99b4696a5af!8m2!3d44.8275987!4d20.2228523

 but its not a lake MS, its a green field, it was never a green field, therefore neither a satellite, nor plane took the images in half that shot, - Its 2D autogen.

[BobFS88 651]

27 minutes ago, psolk said:

but it seems people get their feathers ruffled when you merely imply improving the scenery to the level of MSFS would somehow be a bad thing...

A bad thing when nobody ask them to come over a do rather than than  just enjoying their sim since they think is so much better. But apparently it doesn't seem to hold their attention long enough, I wonder why.

Do you think LR is going to seriously pay any attention to this? 

37 minutes ago, psolk said:

It's not mine, I don't own it and I am in no way linked to it.  In fact P3D is my primary sim.  So what happens to this discussion when it is LM using Unreal Engine as they have already done a press release showing?

Good for them and I think its a good move, but you don't see me in your PD3 forum with these kind of statements below, belittling  your choice in PD3 present graphics situation.  We know it not the best but why rub it in. But here you are in the X plane forum with the evidence below.

 

1 hour ago, psolk said:

So the consensus is having the simulation aspect of XP with more realistic looking scenery is NOT something this crowd desires.   Got it...   This is a crowd that would tell you the sky is green if LR said that's the way it should be LOL... 

 

[jcjimmy 150]

Wow! Many interesting comments............................. Seems too argumentative.

If a more realistic 3D environment can be made available to X-Plane 12 users, subscribed or unsubscribed, it should be evaluated.

Thank God for the talented people that even make these arguments possible.

[psolk 3,057]

3 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

Do you think LR is going to seriously pay any attention to this? 

Yes, yes I do....  

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/spotlights/lockheed-martin-engages-unreal-engine-for-aerospace-simulation-r-d

This same thing is being discussed in the P3D forums and ironically most there would see it as a positive...  

Ah, sorry, didn't realize users of all 3 sims aren't allowed to comment on things they would like to see improved... 

So many feathers ruffled... 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by psolk

[Daube 355]

18 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Secondly, "not my MSFS screenshots", but sure, feel free to post a higher res MSFS one if you think the poster was faking his sim, its taken on final approach to EGLL

I don't have screenshots of EGLL approaches right now.

However, these shots from another user should show clearly enough that YOUR assertion "MSFS doesn't even deliver zoom16" is completely wrong:

[UKflyer 630]

2 minutes ago, psolk said:

Yes, yes I do....  

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/spotlights/lockheed-martin-engages-unreal-engine-for-aerospace-simulation-r-d

 

this is going to be good, i mean really good.