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

[threexgreen 3,156]

17 minutes ago, psolk said:

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.  

Bird strikes actually occur more often than many think, but you're right in that often it's only discovered during the next walkaround or an inspection. What happened to Sully or even wrecking just one engine is rare.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the difference in bird strike simulation in XP is just that you actually see a duck fly into an engine and/or see flames. The simulation of the what the engine does in response to sucking in birds it entirely possible for any aircraft dev to simulate in MSFS by adjusting parameters such as N1, EGT, etc.. It's nice to see that XP simulates this kind of stuff even with default aircraft, but I don't see why would mean MSFS is less of a simulation just because there was no decision to implement this. By the same logic P3D would be less of a simulation as well and I'm not seeing anyone making these kind of statements about P3D.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Nixoq
Typo

[UKflyer 630]

2 minutes ago, Daube said:

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:

beautiful

we all know the full potential of MSFS is limited at the moment for PC performance reasons

Edited December 2, 2022 by UKflyer

[mSparks 2,092]

6 minutes ago, Daube said:

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

showing MS can deliver higher resolution textures (ortho or not) at low altitudes does not prove it is delivering less than L16 for the 95% of the flight when you are not flying at low altitude. 🤷‍♂️

I also, really wouldn't recommend bringing up MSFS at low altitude lest someone like me posts

again

Edited December 2, 2022 by mSparks

[Daube 355]

 

8 minutes ago, mSparks said:

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.

It is ortho scenery, no matter what you say. And no, 2D autogen is used for scenery generic objects, not for ground textures.

You are right about the lack of lake in that place though. I don't know if it's due to outdated aerial pictures, or if it's due to the AI process that deletes the clouds (or what they *believe* is a cloud) from the scenery, replacing it with a locally generic texture based on local landclass information.

So there's a good chance that "100% ortho" is wrong.

However, "100% not ortho" is definitely wrong. Man, you get a lot of things wrong recently. What's going on ?

[psolk 3,057]

8 minutes ago, mSparks said:

showing MS can deliver higher resolution textures (ortho or not) at low altitudes does not prove it is delivering less than L16 for the 95% of the flight when you are not flying at low altitude. 🤷‍♂️

All you have to do is head to the screenshot forum for 3 seconds to know you are wrong...  But sure, keep pushing your "story" and "having" to be right...  Now 95% of the flight is less than L16?  Are you just making things up?

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by psolk

[Daube 355]

4 minutes ago, mSparks said:

showing MS can deliver higher resolution textures (ortho or not) at low altitudes does not prove it is delivering less than L16 for the 95% of the flight when you are not flying at low altitude. 🤷‍♂️

Beautiful. You are in complete denial now. You could have written as well "I said it doesn't deliver zoom 16. Zoom 17 or zoom 18 is not zoom 16, so what's wrong?". You would have been just as ridiculous.

[BobFS88 651]

37 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

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

You mean to tell me they couldn't that on X plane less waiting for an mature SDK?

One note: inibuilds put out 3 aircraft in the time frame that toke PMDG to produce one, and the one aircraft the A310 that was impressive enough that everyone wanted to see in on the MSFS side, in which you got it for free. Where was is economics in that?   

37 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

Hence my earlier statement stands in that it wasn't economically viable to expand XP development.

I am not liberty to say what I know but your statement doesn't hold a candle to the facts.

Edited December 2, 2022 by BobFS88

[mSparks 2,092]

14 minutes ago, Daube said:

I don't know if it's due to outdated aerial pictures, or if it's due to the AI process that deletes the clouds (or what they *believe* is a cloud) from the scenery, replacing it with a locally generic texture based on local landclass information.

Its from overlaying ortho image cuts on 2D autogen based on land class. what was missing (until recently) was the land class definitions in OSM (which I know, because I added them....).

11 minutes ago, Daube said:

Beautiful. You are in complete denial now. You could have written as well "I said it doesn't deliver zoom 16. Zoom 17 or zoom 18 is not zoom 16, so what's wrong?". You would have been just as ridiculous.

You said it was proven wrong that "MSFS is delivering less than L16 to its users". So why the distractions and alternate locations when you could just replace the MSFS screenshot I used with higher than L16?

I doubt you will, because you seem to be in complete denial that "MSFS is delivering less than L16 to its users". 🤷‍♂️

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by mSparks

[Daube 355]

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Its from overlaying ortho image cuts on 2D autogen based on land class. what was missing (until recently) was the land class definitions in OSM (which I know, because I added them....).

You said it was proven wrong that "MSFS is delivering less than L16 to its users". So replace the MSFS screenshot I used with higher than L16?

I doubt you will, because you seem to be in complete denial that "MSFS is delivering less than L16 to its users". 🤷‍♂️

 

I quote you:

Quote

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

You actually wrote that MSFS delivers only zoom 15 or lower to its users. Since you didn't specify anything else, your statement was simply wrong. But of course, you will never recognize it.

[mSparks 2,092]

2 minutes ago, Daube said:

You actually wrote that MSFS delivers only zoom 15 or lower to its users. Since you didn't specify anything else, your statement was simply wrong. But of course, you will never recognize it.

It is around L15 MSFS is displaying in this screenshot yes

screenshots of different situations in other countries do nothing to disprove that.

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by mSparks

[soaring_penguin 431]

1 hour ago, psolk said:

Why do some insist it has to be either or? 

I didn't realize PMDG, Fenix, inibuilds and others were providing anything other than a SIMULATION of the planes you fly in a FLIGHT SIMULATOR...  I guess those are just paper planes with no simulation or modelling behind them... 

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... 

Nobody said that. 
But I did say that I don't want x-plane to be a clone of MSFS. Because apparently that is what some of the people here want it to be.

[BobFS88 651]

29 minutes ago, psolk said:

Yes, yes I do....  

lol

I don't think you watch Austin enough. He has a mindset that goes his own way. He does not come off as follower, at lease not to me.

Edited December 2, 2022 by BobFS88

[UKflyer 630]

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

It is around L15 MSFS is displaying in this screenshot yes

screenshots of different situations in other countries do nothing to disprove that.

 

how do you conclude that from a photo?

[mSparks 2,092]

1 minute ago, UKflyer said:

how do you conclude that from a photo?

Because the left shot is mine with Level16 ortho. and it has finer details in the fields.

Edited December 2, 2022 by mSparks

[psolk 3,057]

1 minute ago, BobFS88 said:

lol

I don't think you watch Austin enough. He has a mindset that goes his own way. He does not come off as follower, at not to me.

You know what Bob that was actually me misreading...  I read LR as LM in my haste so that was entirely my bad.  

I agree Austin is not a "follower" but clearly an innovator, that can never be denied.   

BUT (and this is just my opinion) if he takes all of his innovation and allows someone else to put a very pretty wrapper on it for him I personally see that as a win win not a negative even if it means graphical parity globally with MSFS with the added benefits of XP as a simulator... 

The funny thing is if this was simheaven saying they were going to use blackshark.ai to inject dynamic data into XP and provide satellite streaming quality ortho would people object?