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

[psolk 3,040]

1 minute ago, Daube said:

You brought this picture already not so long ago, and you were proven wrong. Are you trying to lie to us now ?

The lengths he will go to to try and prove himself "right" seeking out every poor image of MSFS on the web is actually comical. All he has to do is go to the screenshot forum to realize how foolish he looks implying that is all MSFS can deliver... 

 

[flying_carpet 657]

31 minutes ago, psolk said:

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...

Can PMDG, Fenix et al simulate longer braking distance on rain and ice? Can they simulate or react on wake turbulence? Can they simulate or react on birdstrikes (especially the Fenix should be able, like in reality ...)? Can they simulate damaged control surfaces like flaps? Can they simulate or react on microbursts? Can they fall from the sky due to icing? In X-Plane EVERY plane can do it, even the default ones.

LOL

 

14 minutes ago, Daube said:

Why wouldn't it do seasons ?

Huuuhh? Because seasons massively affect flying. You might have heard of it ...

[Daube 353]

Just now, mSparks said:

What are you talking about? that isn't my MSFS shot on the right, it was from some cocky poster that was so used to low res ortho he couldn't tell he'd just taken a shot in exactly the same location as I did with high res ortho and made the proclamation "London doesn't even look like that".

Are you in panic mode ?

You wrote MSFS isn't even deliverying Zoom 16 textures, and you were proven you LIED.

So, either you're having some brain issues, or you are insulting all the XPlane users by trying to spread fake informations AGAIN (after being proven wrong already), hoping that people will believe you. Don't you feel ashamed ?

[mSparks 2,086]

Just now, psolk said:

The lengths he will go to to try and prove himself "right" seeking out every poor image of MSFS on the web is actually comical. All he has to do is go to the screenshot forum to realize how foolish he looks implying that is all MSFS can deliver... 

 

So linking other peoples MSFS screenshots is going to great lengths now,  🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣

[threexgreen 3,139]

5 minutes ago, mSparks said:

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

 

Nice cherry picking of a situation where either the user's bandwidth or the server bandwidth didn't allow better resolution or the user had their settings turned down a lot. I can assure you MSFS looks miles better than what you see here and I'm sure you know that as well.

This is exactly what I mean by people arguing in two different realities. Could have been an interesting topic but we're all being too personal about our favorite sims again. Just like rejecting big scenery improvements because another sim uses the same tech.

[mSparks 2,086]

1 minute ago, Daube said:

You wrote MSFS isn't even deliverying Zoom 16 textures, and you were proven you LIED.

Well, the XP shot on the left is level 16 ortho, and the MSFS shot on the right is obviously lower resolution, so what is this proof you talk of?

[Daube 353]

5 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Well, the XP shot on the left is level 16 ortho, and the MSFS shot on the right is obviously lower resolution, so what is this proof you talk of?

That same screenshot of mine you used recently in a shameful attempt to show how bad the MSFS lighting is compared to the glorious "FS9-style" lighting of your hangar screenshots just a few hours ago.

We had that talk right on this forum, you and me. And I brought that picture showing clearly that MSFS was providing AT LEAST zoom 18 (less than 1m/pixel) level ground textures. But I suppose you don't (want to) remember 🙂

EDIT: direct link, right on top of the page 🙂 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Daube

[UKflyer 630]

16 minutes ago, mSparks said:

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

 

that's what you get when running low settings on a Macintosh 128K, time for you to upgrade

Edited December 2, 2022 by UKflyer

[mSparks 2,086]

1 minute ago, UKflyer said:

Macintosh 128K

XP is the one on the left.....

[mSparks 2,086]

3 minutes ago, Daube said:

show how bad the MSFS lighting is

I've never commented on MSFS lighting, so you are most likely confusing me with someone else.

[UKflyer 630]

Just now, mSparks said:

XP is the one on the left.....

i know it's so bad

[Daube 353]

Just now, mSparks said:

I've never commented on MSFS lighting, so you are most likely confusing me with someone else.

I have edited my previous message with the direct link to your message. Dude, go to the hospital, it looks like some pipe might have broke up there.

[mSparks 2,086]

3 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

i know it's so bad

neither are great tbh,

 

2 minutes ago, Daube said:

I have edited my previous message with the direct link to your message. Dude, go to the hospital, it looks like some pipe might have broke up there.

That wasn't the lighting, it was refering to the terrible 2D autogen as a texture MS delivers at lower alitudes, that covers a lake up with a grass field.

Edited December 2, 2022 by mSparks

[Daube 353]

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

That wasn't the lighting, it was refering to the terrible 2D autogen as a texture MS delivers at lower alitudes, that covers a lake up with a grass field.

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.

[BobFS88 635]

2 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

The flaw in your argument is that PMDG didn't further go into XP because of economic reasons,

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.  

 

7 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

As per their own statement it wasn't economically viable to venture into XP in the long run by adjusting development to it while continuing P3D as their main platform as well.

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