Honestly, XP12 scenery is not looking bad at all.

[Pe11e 812]

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

flightsim might possibly not be for you if you get airsick looking a photos from aircraft cabins.

And yet, enjoying flight simming tremendously with proper looking scenery. What I see here? A sand storm? Broken shaders? Sorry, but I need to see a solid looking scenery during the "boring" parts of airliner flights, not to mention GA VFR where you look otuside of the window 80% of the time. Luckily I have good ortho scenery in XP11 and MSFS, and probably in XP12 when I setup Autoortho for it. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but default XP11/12 scenery just won't cut it in current state, nor with SFD Global.

[mSparks 2,086]

4 minutes ago, Pe11e said:

What I see here?

clearly a lake in the evening from about FL300 at about 30x zoom.

There are youtubers who could geolocate it for you very quickly given the general location if needed.

Edited January 14, 2023 by mSparks

[bogdansrb 230]

The "sandstorm" effect is from the cockpit window, not from the scenery/weather. It's a lake near ENVA. The point was to show the awful sharp corners of the shoreline.

I moved the plane near the lake for a better view.

[mSparks 2,086]

15 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

It's a lake near ENVA

ooff, not even going to try and find that given the number of lakes near ENVA.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/xw6mq2YcE1KAXVrF9

16 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

The point was to show the awful sharp corners of the shoreline.

 

[Tork_Curve 27]

Give up. I can imagine many people with a keen interest to explore xp have come here with an honest aim to learn and been put off by the blinkered, misinformed and downright wrong view posted by many. Leave 'em to it. Move on and be happy elsewhere.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Bob Scott
//admin edit: removed absurd amount of excessive white space

[The Flight Level 2,114]

XP-12 has a phenomenal camera system! So much fun!

[Pe11e 812]

58 minutes ago, Dirk.M said:

For all, who shows al lot of silly screenshots. All flightsimulators of the world will not stisfy you. Save your money, not to buy an new computer, no, make an flight license, than you have only the chance to see real live.

At the other hand, buy 38er colt an make an end.

 

thanks

 

 

 

I'm pretty satisfied with XP11 in general, and with MSFS visually,  thanks.

Not investing in PC that I use also for a serious work, will not make me happy. And yes, I can now sim in VR properly.
Also, flight license will cost me probably 10 to 20 times the cost of a solid PC machine, so I'm not sure what you want to say. Like we are not aware that in RL you don't have to worry about scenery and fps. Imagine that. 🙂

[GoranM 3,772]

35 minutes ago, Pe11e said:

and I don't see MSFS as my main sim in the near future, it feels fake while flying

You're poking the bear with that comment.  You'll get the MSFS guys sniffing out this comment and start making posts about how wrong you are.  

35 minutes ago, Pe11e said:

XP11 feels much more like flying. I mean, you know that for sure, since you guys developed TBM and Challenger, which is, if you ask me, by far the best addon aircraft done for ANY sim to date, period!

Quite the compliment.  Thank you.

35 minutes ago, Pe11e said:

If you can get this in XP11/12, without a single gigabyte taken, and single fps lost, then we'll talk. Again, I'm not mocking XP11/12, as XP11 is my main sim, but you guys have to admit how far is XP scenery tech. With Autoortho, it's getting close, but it's still ZL16/17, which is usually good only for airliners and high flyers. 

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/629030-honestly-xp12-scenery-is-not-looking-bad-at-all/?do=findComment&comment=4906334

Looks pretty good to me.  

Ortho, if done properly, should actually improve performance over autogen, under the same hardware.  And if it takes hardware, in the form of hard drives, to do it, I'm more than happy to go to those measures.  Purely because I hate to depend on any kind of server to have things work.  I'd much rather buy hard drives.  They're relatively inexpensive.  I just bought a back up external drive.  20TB for just under $AUD900.  I understand not everyone will have that kind of disposable income, but my point is, for 20TB, that price is a bargain.

As for how far behind X-Plane scenery is...I'm not familiar with what is available for realism...aside from ortho or photogrammetry.  Austin can't just decide one day to release X-Plane with worldwide ortho coverage.  Obvious legal issues.  So when people scream, "But X-Plane scenery is so bad and MSFS is the best!", I have to smh.  There are obvious issues with photogrammetry, just like there are obvious issues with XP autogen.  That's why he opened a scenery repo for people to contribute to.  30 000 airports and counting.  

I'm just amazed that some people (not yourself) feel the need to keep trolling, making excuses for the trolling by saying, "It's criticisms.  You should be able to take criticisms." when they can't take legit criticisms of their OWN platform.  

What a serious waste of time.

Edited January 15, 2023 by GoranM

[Pe11e 812]

20 minutes ago, GoranM said:

You're poking the bear with that comment.  You'll get the MSFS guys sniffing out this comment and start making posts about how wrong you are. 

I don't care lol. I mean flying the PMDG 737 in MSFS feels pretty good, but still not close as feel when flying ZIBO or any other narrow body in XP11 with a proper flight model.
 

20 minutes ago, GoranM said:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/629030-honestly-xp12-scenery-is-not-looking-bad-at-all/?do=findComment&comment=4906334

Looks pretty good to me.  

Ortho, if done properly, should actually improve performance over autogen, under the same hardware.  And if it takes hardware, in the form of hard drives, to do it, I'm more than happy to go to those measures.  Purely because I hate to depend on any kind of server to have things work.  I'd much rather buy hard drives.  They're relatively inexpensive.  I just bought a back up external drive.  20TB for just under $AUD900.  I understand not everyone will have that kind of disposable income, but my point is, for 20TB, that price is a bargain.

Yes, ZL18/19 looks amazing in XP, but after few tries, I just don't have the time, resources and energy to fiddle with it. Just the time needed to create ZL18 tiles + investing in hard drive space, and to see fps tank when using it, is just a NO NO for me. Just a personal preference.
And yes, using zl16/17 ortho with SimHeaven autogen is a win win in my book, also because you'll gain some performance over using default scenery, not to mention a visual gain. Since I'm sick of dealing with hard drive space and with creating ortho scenery, I'm pretty happy with Autoortho. That tool just came out of heaven, just in time.

You mentioned gateway airports. Well, that feature of XP is one of the best features in ANY sim, and one of the reasons why XP is my main choice. Having no need to deal with addon airports is a HUGE plus in my book. I literally cannot describe how much that means to me, when I don't have a need to think about airports, as default ones are pretty good. Remembering how bad P3D and MSFS default airports are, XP11/12 are 3 steps above. Just imagine how much money P3D/MSFS folks did/are investing into addon airports. No thanks, seriously.

Ah yes, I also mentioned FTX Global for P3D. I compared it to default XP11/12 scenery, silly me, considering that it costs 100 bucks when you pair it with OpenLC. But my main reason why I compared it to XP11/2 scenery, is that it uses pure landclass data to place textures, and it throws autogen over it. And it looks pretty good imo for 2004 tech. The main issue with XP11/12 scenery is BAD landclass data, and low resolution ground textures that look pretty messy below 3000ft AGL. If LR acquire good landclass data and work on textures like ORBX did with FTX Global, we have a winner. Until then, ortho here I come. 🙂

Edited January 15, 2023 by Pe11e

[MrBitstFlyer 3,877]

58 minutes ago, Pe11e said:

Yes, ZL18/19 looks amazing in XP, but after few tries, I just don't have the time, resources and energy to fiddle with it. Just the time needed to create ZL18 tiles + investing in hard drive space, and to see fps tank when using it, is just a NO NO for me. Just a personal preference.
And yes, using zl16/17 ortho with SimHeaven autogen is a win win in my book, also because you'll gain some performance over using default scenery, not to mention a visual gain. Since I'm sick of dealing with hard drive space and with creating ortho scenery, I'm pretty happy with Autoortho. That tool just came out of heaven, just in time.

You do not need to 'fiddle' with ortho4xp once you understand the settings screen, which for me was a couple of hours and a YouTube video.  I download the ortho while asleep - a ZL17 tile with ZL18 around airports takes around 30 minutes for me. I select 16 tiles, click the batch download button then go to bed.  I wake up in the morning with the downloads finished.  Completely easy and painless

1.  Select tiles in ortho4xp, batch download, go to bed.

Wake up.

2.  Run XOrganizer to get the scenery_packs.ini in the right order - 1 minute.
3.  Run X-Roads to remove AI roads to expose the ortho roads - a few seconds
4.  Fly in new scenery.

Hard drive space is relatively good value these days.  MSFS ortho can vary between excellent and poor.  Terrain colours, resolution and photogrammetry can often be just plain ugly.  No such issues with downloaded ortho because YOU get to choose the map provider.  I fly in the USA and Europe and for the most part the ortho is great.  On those occasions a tile has poor colour, ortho4xp allow mixing map providers in a single tile - this can be done at your leisure.

I'll keep an eye on autoortho, but at the moment a base of ZL16 is too low for GA flying. Anything under 4000ft look awful to me, but if in the future it can up the resolution I'll consider it for those areas I don't normally fly.  I doubt I'll replace using downloaded ortho because it is so flexible.  I rarely use ZL19, but in those areas I fly a lot I will put in a few areas for spectacular results.

[GCBraun 2,392]

29 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Downloaded ortho is at the quality decided by the user.  By carefully configured, are you referring to looking at a couple of ortho tiles and deciding which one is best?  Hardly a difficult choice to make.

Can you please confirm which ortho source delivers good quality material for northern Latin America or even northern Italy? I have tried both Google and Bing and the result was atrocious. The whole process took me about 2-3 days of downloading, testing and confirming that all the electricity and hardware time used was wasted. I would also love to get rid of those ancient HDDs that I use just for X-Plane...

[mSparks 2,086]

51 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

They all look the same.

water does look pretty much the same everywhere yes

for everything else

https://simheaven.com/x-world-for-xp12/

Also, is that the video where he said xenviro is coming to xp12? cos one similar to that that did was just about as wrong about everything else as well and got a thumbs down from me.

EDIT: Yep, has the thumbs down, pretty much everything in that video is just wrong, xenviro isnt coming to xp12, xp12 clouds are far superior to anything Ive seen from msfs - even with the flaws in xp12 that are still to be fixed, and everyone knows - including asobo, that bridges in msfs are a disaster.

Sigh.

Edited January 15, 2023 by mSparks

[GoranM 3,772]

2 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

Regarding photogrammetry, let’s just agree to disagree, as I do believe it is a nice feature and it may be turned off for those who don’t like it. 

We've been asking Austin to somehow add it to X-Plane.  Of course we would like streaming ortho in X-Plane.  It looks incredible.  Much, MUCH better than default XP12 scenery.  We all acknowledge the scenery needs work.  Whether he can do it or not, depending on the legal side, is up in there.  We don't know of his plans.  He did say in a video he is interested in streaming ortho.  Beyond that, it's anyones guess.

For now, those who choose X-Plane with stock scenery, are willing to go without ortho.  And that is entirely up to them. 

6 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

I would also say that your assessments of MSFS are generally fair, even more so considering that you are an XP Dev.

I try to be objective.  Avsim is a community forum.  I'm not going to go in an MSFS thread and start complaining about something MSFS doesn't have, that X-Plane has.  I don't like raining on someone else's parade.  It's not wrong that people do it, but if you ask me, a line has to be drawn when it comes to rants, complaints and tirades.

[GoranM 3,772]

15 minutes ago, Daube said:

I usually appreciate your answers in the XPlane discussions because they tend to be smarter and more "informed" than average.

But if you try to point an MSFS issue, please try to use less outdated data. And when you try to quote a topic as a "proof", please read the content before doing so. We already have mSparks for posting non-sense, we don't need you to do that too. If you read that topic, you will notice the user had set its scenery level of details to the minimum. After he set the settings back to low average, the issue was gone.

 

 

ok, my point wasn't to make a post exploiting a problem in MSFS.  If that's what you took away, then you obviously misunderstood my post.  

I was showing a problem that existed, and, from what I have seen, still exists, to people who complain about more minor issues in X-Plane 12.  A flight sim that is coming up to 4 months old.  People are willing to excuse the melted buildings problem, in a 2+ year old flight sim, but when XP12 shows jagged coastlines, it's unflyable.

What I CAN do is point out a series of issues in MSFS.  One that I have compiled over the course of 2 years.  But I'd rather not.  The reasons are:

It's not appropriate in the X-Plane forums.

It's not appropriate in the MSFS forums. 

You can call my posts nonsense if you want to.  It only means you are missing my larger point.

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by GoranM

[Daube 354]

I understood what you were trying to say, and no the problem doesn't really exist anymore. All the people who suffer from it had either incorrect graphic settings, or forgot to cleanup the scenery cache. My computer is pretty outdated so I keep the photogrammetry off most of the times, but when I activate it I get correct shapes. Not as clean as regular autogen of course, but not melted like what you are showing on your screenshot.

Or should I also lower the settings of my XPlane12 down to minimums and post screenshots here claiming how bad the new sim looks like ? Would that be smart and constructive for the topic ?