Honestly, XP12 scenery is not looking bad at all.

[UrgentSiesta 932]

5 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

I think we're all tired of hearing that things are going to improve, that someone who knows someone at Laminar heard something but is not allowed to tell us and so on.

As I said in previous posts, it only takes Laminar an update to the mesh to drastically improve scenery. They already started adding new buildings that look a lot better than the previous (and sometimes even better than the other sim), and that alone made scenery look a whole lot better.

I mean, if v12 itself isn't enough "Proof of the Pudding" for you, I can't imagine what would be.

LR focused on the core "deficiencies" and truly delivered on the PRIORITIES.

The rapid uptake of v12 in the market is all the evidence one needs.

And now, they're already showing improvements in the one remaining shortcoming of the sim.

These are tangible, visible, actual-in-your-hands improvements, so if it takes a bit longer to figure out the grass and dirt, I'm giving them time.

[UrgentSiesta 932]

4 hours ago, Bjoern said:

Probably just bad timing in the image, but this looks like as if somebody cut and pasted a DC-3 into a photo of some scenery as the lighting just doesn't match at all.

This is far more true for P3D. The lighting difference between the addons and the World is fairly stark. And the overall lighting is rather wan and evokes winter skies at high latitudes regardless of in-sim location.

MSFS has great lighting, of that there's simply no doubt. And when they launched, they took the crown and have held it - until now.

X-Plane has always had great lighting, and with v12 I'd say they're back on top, esp given the early version.

 

[mSparks 2,086]

26 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Both DCS and MSFS certainly have aircraft with better cockpit texturing than this thing.  A quick search of YouTube (a la' mSparks) seems to indicate it's a frame rate hog too.

The question was not "is there something else in another sim with an element or two that is better".

It was referring to the entire package - is there any other sim with such a highly complex aircraft that comes close to it in terms of "feature complete".

The reason, imho, that Goran used the term "light years", which I also initially balked at, is there simply isnt - "maybe" a couple of the pmdg offerings get halfway there.

For, iirc, an aircraft it took 2 people 2 years to put together.... released..  how many years ago now?

Maybe he is bluffing, but I'm reasonably sure I smell the stench of someone who knows something they are desperate to share and can't yet. 

I have no idea one way or another, if I had to guess (with definately a hint of wishful thinking), I'd say they recently discovered VR and finally understood why I raged so much when I found out, for everything else they did, it wasnt VR friendly..

Time will tell.

Edited January 8, 2023 by mSparks

[bogdansrb 230]

Quote

Does MSFS or DCS or any other sim have even one single aircraft within light years of

What's this have to do with scenery?

Quote

It was referring to the entire package - is there any other sim with such a highly complex aircraft that comes close to it in terms of "feature complete".

If one sim has something that's doing better than the others, it doesn't mean it shouldn't improve on other things too. I bet you liked the complexity of aircraft systems in x-plane, but also the improvements made in the flight model. Having better weather brought better realism, so why should other things be considered "good enough"?

[mSparks 2,086]

1 minute ago, bogdansrb said:

What's this have to do with scenery?

lots of people didnt seem to care about what the aircraft is like when the scenery was bad.

XP12 scenery is not looking bad at all.

[bogdansrb 230]

Quote

lots of people didnt seem to care about what the aircraft is like when the scenery was bad.

Lots of people don't seem to care about what the scenery is like when the aircraft is good. 

Quote

XP12 scenery is not looking bad at all.

Compared to what?

[bogdansrb 230]

54 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I mean, if v12 itself isn't enough "Proof of the Pudding" for you, I can't imagine what would be.

LR focused on the core "deficiencies" and truly delivered on the PRIORITIES.

The rapid uptake of v12 in the market is all the evidence one needs.

And now, they're already showing improvements in the one remaining shortcoming of the sim.

These are tangible, visible, actual-in-your-hands improvements, so if it takes a bit longer to figure out the grass and dirt, I'm giving them time.

It is proof of the pudding and that made me eventually purchase v12 and all the updates for v11 addons and made me decide not to buy MSFS.

Users asked and they delivered, and that's what we're constantly doing. If we weren't confident that they can deliver, we would've moved to another platform.

[Franz007 500]

25 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

Compared to what?

To most of the sims.

[mSparks 2,086]

48 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

Lots of people don't seem to care about what the scenery is like when the aircraft is good. 

Dont think I would say there are lots of them. certainly not really seen any kind of evidence to say there is even much more than a few.

57 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

Compared to what?

the view from a real world cockpit anywhere in the world.

[coastaldriver 920]

I am not going to do comparisons between sims etc etc it is a circular argument. They are all different with pluses and minuses. I tried MSFS and then uninstalled it it does not cater for my simulation needs. I went along with P3DV5.3 for a long time the main reason being the availability and ability to use legacy aircraft not to mention a wide variety of very good simulator aircraft. That said I have found those I like the best have been replaced by others I could not have in any other sim and I am sure in time some other old favourites will make their way into this sim platform too. 

I shifted across to XP12 as my preferred and main use sim platform - why? First its superior performance and underlying software architecture (not MS dependant) but the big reason was SCENERY!

Yes I found XP12 rendition of the world and its approach to scenery a breath of fresh air compared to the texture paste methods employed in the past. Yes there are some lighting issues and some weather interpolation issues (But every sim developer has had these issues - look at any P3D forum and the issues there about cockpit lighting, haze etc etc. 

Scenery wise I have yet to find anywhere in the XP12 world where I have not been impressed (the airport dynamics [vehicles animation], lighting etc., etc is amazing). How about sloping runways, undulating runways all implemented very well indeed. Now overall yes in some places some people may say well I think it is not up to scratch - well you are never going to get that level of realism to the point where what you see out the window in real life is implemented perfectly and completely in a simulator. The trees and grass is completely acceptable, the dynamics of trees in the breeze has yet to be emulated elsewhere, rain drops and puddles, water edge where you can see through the water to the bottom below. I am not sure given this level of fidelity what it is people really want from the sim. 

I built a lot of custom scenery in the other sim in fact I did a world coverage flying boat base package covering and recreating all the old flying boat bases across the globe. So I understand the trials and issues with scenery development. Now I will have to relearn and develop all those skills again for XP12. Oh and wait for some kind souls to develop and make available some of the old flying boats (Missed out on the Mike Wilson Sandringham and cannot get it - what a shame it look brilliant)

Will it improve be tidied up, sure it will and I will enjoy that journey too! 

Absolutely no regrets about going down the XP12 path at all. (I also picked up about half a terrabyte of disc space as a result of not having the other sims there and no constant streaming downloads to make it work! Ticks all my boxes. No complaints from me. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by coastaldriver

[UrgentSiesta 932]

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

Does MSFS or DCS or any other sim have even one single aircraft within light years of [CL 650] yet? - let alone multiple fairly comparable aircraft already out and dropping soon

Because Goran is already working on the next generation of that... And I for one am very very much looking forward to what "better than the CL650" looks like (but if it isnt VR sexy imma be mad)

We're getting away from OP's Scenery topic, but I think it's related in that the package of an exceptionally excellent addon with an excellent sim easily overcomes a few specific limitations. Especially when those limitations can themselves be easily overcome with some time/money.

However, the existence of an ultra high fidelity addon isn't in and of itself a shred of proof of the host simulator's "light years ahead" status.

For e.g., there is simply no better carrier aviation experience available than that offered by the package of DCSW, SuperCarrier and Tomcat/Hornet. Period. But it's also true that DCSW, as a "flight" simulator, hasn't attained the level of XP / MSFS.

To your point (and OP's), it's the total experience that makes it worthwhile.

A little more on point would be the example of the various iterations of the Majestic Q400. Until very recently it was the undisputed turboprop airliner champ (and it may still be - again, depending on priorities), and even so it remains an extremely satisfying experience (including its custom external flight model).

But that doesn't mean any of these examples couldn't also be done in any other sims - if those were the priorities of the players & devs.

We're fortunate to have addons like HotStart's TBM & Challenger (among others) in X-Plane. They're excellent validations of the value an excellent simulator can offer. And in light of examples like that, as well as X-Plane's ongoing improvements, I'm just fine with "needing" some Ortho/TrueEarth as the icing on top. 🙂

[MrBitstFlyer 3,877]

8 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

I think we're all tired of hearing that things are going to improve

Tired after just a month since release?  You may want to change the phrase 'we're all', because you seem to be in the minority with the constant negative posts.  The rest of us grown ups are enjoying the sim and have realistic time frame expectations.

[UrgentSiesta 932]

29 minutes ago, coastaldriver said:

...wait for some kind souls to develop and make available some of the old flying boats (Missed out on the Mike Wilson Sandringham and cannot get it - what a shame it look brilliant)

Wouldn't it be great if we could get our hands on that Canadair CL-415 Austin was talking about? 🙂

 

Quote

I am not going to do comparisons between sims etc etc it is a circular argument. They are all different with pluses and minuses.

Hear, hear...!

 

Quote

Yes there are some lighting issues and some weather interpolation issues

And even so, they're being rapidly fixed because, as you said, the underlying architecture is sound.

 

Quote

I am not sure given this level of fidelity what it is people really want from the sim.

That's actually easy (but not simple): streaming orthophoto.

[UrgentSiesta 932]

3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Both DCS and MSFS certainly have aircraft with better cockpit texturing than this thing.  A quick search of YouTube (a la' mSparks) seems to indicate it's a frame rate hog too.

This is nearly as hyperbolic as "light years ahead"...

And OMG - "texturing" is what you're going with...really?

I'll take the CL 650 on X-Plane vs CJ4+WT / Longitude in MSFS all day, every day. Same/same with the TBMs.

Heck, I'll take the decade old A2A Sims P-51 Civ Mustang in P3D over any warbird in any of the civ sims.

The enhanced realism experience those addons provide more than make up for any minor graphical limitations and performance hits.

Deeply simulated addons, particularly modern aircraft like the CL 650 (where the depth of system simulation goes down to the literal wires connecting everything together) is always paid for in FPS.

And just to prove there's No Free Lunch, IDK how heavy the 650's FPS hit is, but it's probably not any worse than Fenix's.

[mSparks 2,086]

45 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

But that doesn't mean any of these examples couldn't also be done in any other sims - if those were the priorities of the players & devs.

There is an implicit assumption here that "doing it" is not limited by:

The hardware it needs to run on

The operating system it needs to run on (last week for me was finding out all the reasons windows not supporting forking is a much bigger issue than even I realised)

The functionality provided by the simulator itself

and the tools available to leverage the functionality of the simulator.

even when that comes down to the more "obscure" tools like the recent .for exporter for XP12 (keeping it very much on topic)

https://github.com/X-Plane/XPlaneForExporter

Its not as unfair to say XP12 is light years ahead as it first seems, every other sim is effectively "dead in the water", crippled by the environment they need to work in, as Laminar and 3rd parties surge ahead at light speed.

More on topic than the aircraft available now, Has a toolchain for developing highly realistic forestry system in blender even entered the mindset yet of another sim? let alone be in use right now doing exactly that. Not even Unreal Engine has such tools...

The grass in

came from a scenery dev abusing that exporter, it also blows in the wind....

Laminar want and expect better...

Edited January 8, 2023 by mSparks