1 minute ago, mSparks said:

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

that's very debatable and subjective

8 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

that's very debatable and subjective

You can confirm it by comparing the minimum area taken by a single colour if you need a numerical measure. The higher the level the less area covered by a single pixel in the texture.

Edited December 2, 20223 yr by mSparks

8 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

It's nice to see that XP simulates this kind of stuff even with default aircraft

but when the engine blows in XP12, it's basically the same thing. You see birds, and one millisecond later you have engine fire alarms going off...Also typical just one compressor stall BANG... and not surprisingly you lose the engine completely and its generators....go figure.

if flying the default 737NG and you lose both engines, the actual behavior of the Efis display-system is modelled incorrectly since it blanks the CPT outboard DU AND upper DU (which is cruicial for attempting wind milling re-light during emergency descent).

IRL these displays work fine if all GEN's are inop. But I guess some XP-simmers in here are not into high fidelity systems modelling and likes the overdone Michael Bay drama-effect XP12 simulates. Even if it's a total bogus sim-experience from the flight deck.

3 hours ago, UKflyer said:

yeh why would you want a true representation of the world to fly in.. . silly idea lol

did you even read  before writing this? I literally said good scenery is an important part of the immersion.  But again, I also don't think X-Plane has to be a clone of the other sim. There are different ways to get to this desired result. Photogrammy is only one. Build up the world with refined objects, like Unigine, is another way. 

Both have the same in common, people come here stating that LR should have licensed their solutions. 

It looks like LR/Austin has chosen his own path. Live with it.
 

14 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

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?   

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

Sorry, I don't know what the first sentence is supposed to mean.

In simple terms: Inibuilds developed for XP from the start, knowing the platform in and out, therefore being able to produce more in less time. PMDG developed aircraft for P3D, didn't know much about XP, ventured into it with the DC-6, realized it was too much hassle development-wise to support an additional platform besides their main one and abandoned the XP plans in favor of concentrating on producing products for a platform they now well, thereby balancing development costs (money, time, effort) with revenue which makes P3D the more worthwhile platform for them. That has everything to do with development/business economics and I still don't know why you keep insisting it doesn't.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point and you're saying PMDG clashed heads with LR or something and that's why they abandoned XP? What's that cryptic message at the end supposed to mean? Are you an XP beta tester or other affiliate?

PS: IniBuilds most likely didn't just give the A310 away for fun but probably got a nice compensation from Microsoft to offer it for free to make up for the lack of direct revenue from it. Plus they're getting free advertising to make more people interested in their other MSFS projects.

13 minutes ago, psolk said:

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...

Yeah, well he is hiring more people to increase his staff so that should account for something and he like likes to hire people who are a passionate as he is, which makes it something to look forward to. 

XP - ZL16

Just now, filou said:

XP - ZL16

all of that in one country... wow 😂

1 minute ago, UKflyer said:

all of that in one country... wow 😂

5 for your geographical culture

3 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

all of that in one country... wow 😂

You can pretty easily download the entire world in ZL16, its only ~2GB for 1x1 degrees of coverage.

23 minutes ago, soaring_penguin said:

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.

I really don't get this mentality to be honest. If third-party tech finds a way to deliver better results and one simulator utilizes this, people using another simulator reject those results based solely on the fact that the other simulator uses the same. Why are people so emotional about this?

If XP achieved something amazing I would hope for it to be implemented in MSFS as well if it improves it and I wouldn't give a hoot about whether it's using something that the other simulator is using as well.

 

2 hours ago, SAS443 said:

So bottom line.

XP is all good because us XP-simmers will have to continue to rely on good ol' Simheaven? Or can we find a more up-to-date visual-wise Toronto skyline somewhere? Because this is far cry from acceptable in 2022.

I am finding it a little odd why you are posting in this forum.  Your views of XP seem to suggest your preferred option is MSFS - why not concentrate your efforts over there?

Many simmers would state individual aspects of MSFS are 'better' than XP12 and I will often agree, yet the whole experience is more important to me than any one thing.  Currently, XP12 just tips the scale for me, but if the scale tips the other way for you then great!

SimHeaven is free (although I chose to donate to the developer for his efforts). If you feel that level of ground structure should be part of the base XP, I wonder again why you are posting here when MSFS does what you want?

The city screenshot you posted seems fine to me, because I don't need a sim to show me a building to a (melted) photogrammetry level. I just need to see a representation of the city for navigation purposes.  'Good old SimHeaven' gives me good enough detail on approach, to aid in visually identifying the airport.  It has 1.5 billion building footprints, including those from MSFS.  Together with detailed ortho, XP does a great job for me as my screenshot shows.

Does MSFS or XP12 look exactly like the real world, clearly not, but they get close.  Choose the sim that best suits your needs and post positively about it rather than a mission to criticise the other one.

1 minute ago, Nixoq said:

If third-party tech finds a way to deliver better results and one simulator utilizes this, people using another simulator reject those results

1. What results

2. At what cost

3. With what unwanted consequences.

So far the only "results" seem to be MS used the brandname and it might have some better automatically generated 3D building objects if you want to pay an annual subscription?

That last bit kills it dead for me.

38 minutes ago, mSparks said:

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

Out of interest, how much disk space would I need to cover the whole world with Level16 ortho?

 

8 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I am finding it a little odd why you are posting in this forum.  Your views of XP seem to suggest your preferred option is MSFS - why not concentrate your efforts over there?

This is one of the new Avsim lows. Won't bother to respond (nor report). Wishing you a nice weekend. 🙂