X-Plane 12.05R1 Release notes

[turbomax 3,325]

15 minutes ago, filou said:

1) XP12 on this side has much more possibilities

2) XP12 lighting is simply excellent,

3) the balance is already built.

1) I want a product, not possibilities

2) yes

3) no

[bogdansrb 230]

I see my last post got deleted without warning. Anyway, the point was that trees in x-plane need some work, and it's not like they look bad, but it's a matter of either placement/mesh or rendering.

By comparison, this is the atrocity they call trees in the other sim:

However, viewed from a distance they "fill" the scenery quite well. In x-plane trees look really good:

But not so much from the distance, you can see a lot of gaps and a lot of repetitive treelines. There's also not much variation in vegetation like small trees and bushes.

And not even global forests or x-world seem to fix this (the screenshots are with global forests)

The comparison with the other sim is here because Laminar could learn a thing or two from the other sim, while Microsoft will never have the interest of implementing proper flight or ground dynamics, realistic lighting or in depth systems. 

[mSparks 2,108]

6 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

But not so much from the distance,

Yes, that, among several others is still right at the top of the release notes under "In progress features"

https://www.x-plane.com/kb/x-plane-12-00-release-notes/

2 hours ago, turbomax said:

1) I want a product, not possibilities

https://www.gleimaviation.com/shop/cockpitbatd/

X-Plane 12 will replace that in about 4 years or so when its "finished", by the plan, aiui.

2 hours ago, turbomax said:

2) yes

Yes, Yes, YEsss, OOOOohhhh YES

😛

2 hours ago, turbomax said:

3) no

Not sure I quite get what either of you are saying, but in an effort to contribute to a fairly important topic

XP12.05 / XP1205-2023/05/06 marks a fairly significant milestone imho

1) If you are a PPL or starting/in process on a PPL in a C172/R22 (+R44, SR22 and many others) nothing comes close to XP12.05 at any price

2) The future of X-Plane is also really exciting, and built on really solid foundations, the others are so sketchy it makes me more than a little nervous for air safety when people start recommending them.

3) The Sparky744 has finally, imho, joined the very elite group of tubliners that you can fly because you want to enjoy flying airliners, not just being part of a community that desires that above all else.

 

 

[turbomax 3,325]

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

1) If you are a PPL or starting/in process on a PPL in a C172/R22 (+R44, SR22 and many others) nothing comes close to XP12.05 at any price

could be (real private pilot here who used Microsoft Flightsimulators back then), but only a minority of x-plane users are training for their PPL.

Flight schools may prefer x-plane for pure training purposes because of built-in instructor station and better access to all those data-refs., multi monitor, etc. for the price of missing entertainment features (inferior graphics, inferior modelling, inferior global scenery, inferior performance (Nvidia frame generation)) which are all irrelevant for a pure training device.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,902]

2 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

But not so much from the distance, you can see a lot of gaps and a lot of repetitive treelines. There's also not much variation in vegetation like small trees and bushes.

And not even global forests or x-world seem to fix this (the screenshots are with global forests)

The comparison with the other sim is here because Laminar could learn a thing or two from the other sim, while Microsoft will never have the interest of implementing proper flight or ground dynamics, realistic lighting or in depth systems. 

The trees in this screenshot look fantastic!  Coverage on the ground is good plus distant trees look authentic.  Apart from the fact trees in MSFS do not render as far away as XP12, they quickly look blurred/fluffy/unrealistic/wrong size/wrong colour.  This screenshot is hard to distinguish from reality, and a big part of that is the lighting.  the same shot in MSFS would look like CGI elements had been poorly added to the scene.

Your post is another example of the glass being 'half empty'. 

[mSparks 2,108]

10 minutes ago, turbomax said:

(inferior graphics, inferior modelling, inferior global scenery, inferior performance (Nvidia frame generation)) which are all irrelevant for a pure training device.

But still more likely to compete with warthunder (aka where all the non PPL market is at) in the future than a flight sim that chose to have no weapons and a black screen of crash. No idea who backed that plan but it meant it ended up not even a decent kids game.

[jcomm 6,036]

Well, I honestly still would choose ELITE XTS ( v9 ) if I were studying for my PPL / ATPL, even more if I was at ease enough with $$$ to but their up-2-date GPS / World databases, and owned iPad...

In ELITE the scenery is almost FS4-like out of the GenView / RealView areas, but what matters is the accuracy of the various aircraft models simulated performances, allowing for RW techniques based on experience in the type to use the same memory items, pitch/power relationship, exact fuel consumption, etc...

 

[Bob Scott 7,760]

OK, since like 6 of the 8 pages in this thread are not about the topic, which is (was) XP 12.05r1 RELEASE NOTES, I'm going to lock this now.