9 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

one of the things they need to focus on is making the OSM integration better,

They have a lot of tech in tech demo stage there waiting to wing its way to production, as I understand it, the main reason we are still on 97% XP11 scenery is the mesh shader stuff intended to go into 12 is still borken.

May well end up coming a lot later though, and I could be mistaken, they have been pretty silent on the topic.

Plus even 97% XP11 scenery is better than having trees all over the runway approach.

Edited December 24, 20223 yr by mSparks

58 minutes ago, Noel said:

That's poor photogrammetry only which is not ready for prime time and is why so many fly with it off for now and rely on Blackshark AI--here's what it looks like w/ PG off, all over the world in large part--unbelievably accurate, photorealistic beyond words, and always looks this good here in pedestrian Kansas City MO:

 

 

 

 

Apart from the ridiculous bridge over the river.

7 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Apart from the ridiculous bridge over the river.

Oh, okay gee let's go back to XP10 scenery now since it's all OSM data 😂  

 

32 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Plus even 97% XP11 scenery is better than having trees all over the runway approach.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

1 hour ago, Noel said:

That's poor photogrammetry only which is not ready for prime time and is why so many fly with it off for now and rely on Blackshark AI--here's what it looks like w/ PG off, all over the world in large part--unbelievably accurate, photorealistic beyond words, and always looks this good here in pedestrian Kansas City MO:

MSFS has very nice scenery (with its flaws) and I look forward to improved scenery for XP12.

What many non X-Plane users can't understand, is that X-Plane users may prefer X-Plane even if it hasn't the best absolute scenery of them all (and yet, they're of course still looking forward to improved scenery!)

I recently spent a lot of hours in DCS, and despite its scenery being significantly worse than MSFS (and XP12), the immersion I felt in it was absolutely incomparable. I tried MSFS afterward and it almost felt like a kids toys. I find X-Plane halfway between the two, maybe closer to DCS.

And yet, the simple fact that someone can prefer X-Plane over other products, is enough for people like you to use derogatory terms like "cultists". But sure, the toxic community is the X-Plane one. 🤷‍♂️

 

 

 

 

Actually the result is relatively a disaster for MS. WHAT???? Ok - I'll explain. To simplify the calculation, I will concentrate on the 2 biggest players in the market. X-Plane consists of "3 people in a shed"^TM, whereas Asobo has hundreds of devolopers - let's say 200. That's a factor of 67 to 1. According to this, MSFS should have a market share of 98.5%, X-Plane only 1.5% (users who use both excluded, but it won't make a big difference). And the server costs for streaming the scenery aren't yet included.
Conclusion: huuuge effort for such a relatively poor result.

19 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

MSFS should have a market share of 98.5%, X-Plane only 1.5%

yup, and not just by those metrics either, it should also look similar to that if there was truth to the "10m msfs pilots" line, which means even that disastrously low figure is greatly exaggerated. 

19 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

the result is relatively a disaster for MS.

I'd say flight sim in general tbh. An eye watering amount of money burnt for minimal progress is no good for anyone.

Edited December 24, 20223 yr by mSparks

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

done, was just testing it here first. YT flamewars get messy quickly.

Thanks. You should also read what « Giuseppe’s Gaming » is writting. And perhaps answer him 😀

Edited December 24, 20223 yr by Franz007

20 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Actually the result is relatively a disaster for MS. WHAT???? Ok - I'll explain. To simplify the calculation, I will concentrate on the 2 biggest players in the market. X-Plane consists of "3 people in a shed"^TM, whereas Asobo has hundreds of devolopers - let's say 200. That's a factor of 67 to 1. According to this, MSFS should have a market share of 98.5%, X-Plane only 1.5% (users who use both excluded, but it won't make a big difference). And the server costs for streaming the scenery aren't yet included.
Conclusion: huuuge effort for such a relatively poor result.

Don’t forget that we are talking about a Navigraph poll that took 15 minutes to complete.

In other words, mostly “serious” simmers have answered it and, even then, MSFS, supposedly a kids toy for some, was number one by a large margin. That does not mean that XP didn’t do well, by the way. 

2 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Thanks. You shoul read what « Giuseppe’s Gaming » is writting. And perhaps answer to him 😀

that would just be cruel, he already had his soul destroyed, no need to rub salt on open wounds unless they really deserve it.

He is probably already downloading the XP12 demo while we speak to prove to himself he was right.... In for a shock I think.

1 minute ago, GCBraun said:

Don’t forget that we are talking about a Navigraph poll that took 15 minutes to complete.

In other words, mostly “serious” simmers have answered it and, even then, MSFS, supposedly a kids toy for some, was number one by a large margin. That does not mean that XP didn’t do well, by the way. 

What's nice about that though, is the answers make it more representative of people likely to further invest in FS, rather than less.

The seriousness barrier to spending 15 minutes answering a questionnaire is much lower than spending $75 on an IEXG 737 or $110 on a CL650 (or whatever their prices are these days)

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

What many non X-Plane users can't understand, is that X-Plane users may prefer X-Plane even if it hasn't the best absolute scenery of them all (and yet, they're of course still looking forward to improved scenery!)

You're in left field my friend.  I fully appreciate why XP has its adherents but fair and balanced is never part of the discussion here, by core members.  When I first came here looking for information about XP12 I had no agenda other than to learn about it, but when the anti-MSFS drivel that was laced with such animousity and outright lies rapidly appeared it became very clear this forum was not the place to get fair and balanced anything. 

Here you go, I just read this from one of the frequent flyers here...this is absolute classic out of this forum.   Do you see the constant, recurrent derogatory analysis in this post, twising the poll into this? 

59 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Actually the result is relatively a disaster for MS. WHAT???? Ok - I'll explain. To simplify the calculation, I will concentrate on the 2 biggest players in the market. X-Plane consists of "3 people in a shed"^TM, whereas Asobo has hundreds of devolopers - let's say 200. That's a factor of 67 to 1. According to this, MSFS should have a market share of 98.5%, X-Plane only 1.5% (users who use both excluded, but it won't make a big difference). And the server costs for streaming the scenery aren't yet included.
Conclusion: huuuge effort for such a relatively poor result.

Edited December 24, 20223 yr by Noel

2 minutes ago, Noel said:

outright lies

Those of us who have been on XP for a while have a very different perspective to those just coming into it.

Like you just posted, what I assume you think is a good cityscape.

I just see one of the most fugly cityscapes I have had the misfortune to come across. 

Being "busier" than your typical XP scene doesnt make it better, especially when its busier with melted bridges, impossible clouds, cartoon trees and twisted chimney stacks.

I 100% agree it looks fantastic at first glance, but in aviation you are 100% focused on every tiny detail all the time, since that is what keeps you breathing, and omg the detail in that shot is nothing short of grotesque.

This is also surely the reason it hasnt caught on much with the gamer crowd, in many respects they are even worse than pilots - almost all they care about are the beautiful details wrapped around a decent story, with the odd explosion to get their blood pumping.

36 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

In other words, mostly “serious” simmers have answered it and, even then, MSFS, supposedly a kids toy for some, was number one by a large margin. That does not mean that XP didn’t do well, by the way. 

I said "almost", and not in absolute terms but in comparison to DCS. At least quote me right. But don't take my words for it, just do a flight in even a default DCS aircraft and then tell me it's on the same level of realism and attention to details of MSFS. 🤷‍♂️

33 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

In other words, mostly “serious” simmers have answered it and, even then, MSFS, supposedly a kids toy for some, was number one by a large margin. That does not mean that XP didn’t do well, by the way. 

I wouldn't call 75% (MSFS) "by a large margin" compared to 65% (XPP 11+12). Additionally to ...

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Actually the result is relatively a disaster for MS.

... I should also have said "a triumphal success for LR" (remember: 65% compared to the 1.5% I mentioned before). Herewith done.

Re: mostly “serious” simmers: here in the XP forum the survey wasn't even announced (whereas in the MSFS forum one of the lead cultists vocally beated the big drum for it) - if it were, the result might have been even more "disastrous" for MS and triumphal for LR 😋.

21 minutes ago, Noel said:

Here you go, I just read this from one of the frequent flyers here...this is absolute classic out of this forum.   Do you see the constant, recurrent derogatory analysis in this post, twising the poll into this? 

Apart from the tone of that post (which is common both in this and in the MSFS forum), his point is not that far fetched, i.e. the sales ratio between XP and MSFS is likely greater than the budget ratio between them, hence XP might even be the most financially sustainable product of the two.