2 hours ago, Pe11e said:

then it calls for pickiness

I seriously doubt the poster is looking for that, but i see its common practise.

8 hours ago, GoranM said:

Many a time, I have seen a sky, and lighting, exactly like that, shortly after a storm, in the city where I live.  

The purple/orange on the horizon is very similar to the pollution haze I am very familiar with, as the airport is very close to the city.

Obviously, images like this are very subjective, but I still think it captures many environmental elements, extremely accurately.

Can't argue with the subjective nature but I just find the image weird, looks entirely off. As Pe11e said, something in the material render, plane looks like a piece of plastic and the whole vibe of the lighting looks like an odd render. I just find when people start messing with these addons, whether it be Visual XP or ReShade, they just ruin the realistic vibe and go for a gamey, oversaturated, botched lighting look because it "pops". Just made it look like MSFS instead. 

And that's a massive hats off to X-Plane 12, because it genuinely looks superb out of the box and I personally wouldn't start messing with it, they nailed the colours, lighting and subtle tones. 

5 hours ago, Sethos said:

And that's a massive hats off to X-Plane 12, because it genuinely looks superb out of the box ...

Are you joking or are you serious??? 😉  

It's 2023... you know ???
The simulation in XP12 is undoubtedly the best, but the visualization is not.

Edited November 28, 20232 yr by Bulva

11 minutes ago, Bulva said:

Are you joking or are you serious??? 😉  

It's 2023... you know ???
The simulation in XP12 is undoubtedly the best, but the visualization is not.

I think he was only talking about the lighting, colours and tones.

OK 😉 

Sorry, English is not my language.
Lighting, colors the best ???
Very OK, but is it best... 😉

 

Another proof that visuals are also highly subjective and the devs certainly can't please everyone. That is why shader plugins exist. 🙂

I mean if you can remember FSX and P3D v4 days. It was a gallery of the most diverse visual styles that one sim can handle. From pale and boring all the way to over-saturated contrasty mess with weirdest tinted skies. Oh the times.

 

Edited November 28, 20232 yr by Pe11e

3 hours ago, Bulva said:

OK 😉 

Sorry, English is not my language.
Lighting, colors the best ???
Very OK, but is it best... 😉

 

Yes I think the colours and lighting are the most natural ones.

3 hours ago, Bulva said:

Lighting, colors the best ???
Very OK, but is it best... 😉

 

Yes. Without a doubt. X-Plane 12, out of the box, uses physically based lighting. It can be enhanced in areas with shaders, but out of the box, the lighting is definitely the best and most realistic. 

7 hours ago, GoranM said:

Yes. Without a doubt. X-Plane 12, out of the box, uses physically based lighting. It can be enhanced in areas with shaders, but out of the box, the lighting is definitely the best and most realistic. 

I think in terms of the ENVIRONMENT (not ground, etc), XP12 is the best out of the 3 current sim versions. Even things like trees... I find XP12's trees much better than MSFS, for instance. The one area of improvement is autogen stuff. Also... I pity the other 2 sims for night flying. It's by FAR the best in XP12. I don't enjoy flying at night in the other 2 as much as XP12. An in terms of simulation of flight? Hands down, t's great. Right on par with MSFS (as they made strides in things not feeling on rails, etc...) 

Tested RC1 with VisualXP. This is a default preset 5, and taking into account that the sky is really dramatic, it looks really really good in overall.








And a VR stream recording:
 

 

On 11/13/2023 at 9:38 PM, Pe11e said:

ORBX Spain HD + VisualXP + freeware Alouette III HSF.

No way 😦, this looks too real for a simulaltor, look at this highlights and reflections.  Honestly, and in this case, I've real problems to distinguish between virtual and reality.

Did you use any post process filters ?  If it is out of the sim as it is it's staggering.

1 hour ago, Grisu said:

No way 😦, this looks too real for a simulaltor, look at this highlights and reflections.  Honestly, and in this case, I've real problems to distinguish between virtual and reality.

Did you use any post process filters ?  If it is out of the sim as it is it's staggering.

I was using modified VisualXP preset with brighter sky and scattering. The visual style I'm convinced it is the most realistic one, trying to mimic it while working on Ultimate Realism Pack back in the Prepar3D days.

Edited November 29, 20232 yr by Pe11e

10 hours ago, Pe11e said:

Tested RC1 with VisualXP. This is a default preset 5, and taking into account that the sky is really dramatic, it looks really really good in overall.
 

...

The differences in lighting between sky and SF50 is quite prominent in the exterior shots. Looks almost as if the Cirrus was photoshopped into a photo.

Edited November 29, 20232 yr by Bjoern

12 hours ago, Pe11e said:

Tested RC1 with VisualXP. This is a default preset 5, and taking into account that the sky is really dramatic, it looks really really good in overall.
 

 

The clouds look a bit too blurry to be realistic but this is something Laminar is fully aware of and at the moment cannot fix without a major performance impact linky  I'm good with that. 

What irks me greatly is how one guy alone in his spare time can come up with something like X-World using freely available resources and a full team cannot get anywhere closer. 

For example this is how Venice look in default XP 12, an iconic place not something in the middle of nowhere

Edited November 29, 20232 yr by peroni

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

The differences in lighting between sky and SF50 is quite prominent in the exterior shots. Looks almost as if the Cirrus was photoshopped into a photo.

I kind of agree. The aircraft does not reflect the environment properly, and it seems the lighting affect it differently.
 

13 minutes ago, peroni said:

The clouds look a bit too blurry to be realistic but this is something Laminar is fully aware of and at the moment cannot fix without a major performance impact linky  I'm good with that. 

What irks me greatly is how one guy alone in his spare time can come up with something like X-World using freely available resources and a full team cannot get anywhere closer. 

For example this is how Venice look in default XP 12, an iconic place not something in the middle of nowhere

I think that LR devs and Austin just accept the fact that it's easier for users to download X-World for free, than for LR to implement something similar into their scenery packages, especially considering that you can't include anything freeware into a commercial product, that is the main issue.

Edited November 29, 20232 yr by Pe11e