6 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

That is certainly true, it is just by the time artists would have covered the whole globe, AI is already modelling the world on atomic levels!😉

In other words, on a global scale, the choice is either somewhat reduced accuracy by AI or nothing at all.

Yup, agreed.

AI is kinda scary in that it can do so many things these days, and people have a real reason to worry about their jobs as AI keeps improving. But having said that, if the world in flight simulation is going to be made more realistic, AI is the way to go, because it's just too big for even a team of artists to cover the entire world.  This is why I like the MSFS team approach, that they are using AI to make the world better and more realistic. Of course, this costs big bucks, but fortunately, the MSFS team has the budget to do it.

Edited January 3, 20242 yr by abrams_tank

3 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

That is certainly true, it is just by the time artists would have covered the whole globe, AI is already modelling the world on atomic levels!😉

In other words, on a global scale, the choice is either somewhat reduced accuracy by AI or nothing at all.

You are mixing 2 different aspects here.

1) What kind of ground texture you have to begin, generic or satilite imagery.

2) Procedural rules that are applied to place high-freq detail, typically color keyed, slope-sensitive shaders etc..

Second part is already possible now in default SDK in other sim as well, it's just last time the ground texture there got a large update it was a decade ago.

Anyway, if you want discuss technical aspects a bit more, we can do that in private, let's not dive into what other engines can do 🙂

8 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Yup, agreed.

AI is kinda scary in that it can do so many things these days, and people have a real reason to worry about their jobs as AI keeps improving. But having said that, if the world in flight simulation is going to be made more realistic, AI is the way to go, because it's just too big for even a team of artists to cover the entire world.  This is why I like the MSFS team approach, that they are using AI to make the world better and more realistic. Of course, this costs big bucks, but fortunately, the MSFS team has the budget to do it.

Again, this has nothing to do with AI.

You have an image, you have it's rgb values properly keyed to place roght details (green is probably grass etc..).

You have a mesh, then you have a slope sensitive shader working to place the correct details.

Non of this data needs any AI magic, just normal procedural rules in the shader.

If you want further insights, shoot a DM.

BTW, why I can't edit my comments?

Sorry about the many typos 🙄

New year, new arguments. My sim has better pebbles than yours.

My vote goes to MSFS2020/MSFS2024.

2 hours ago, Krakin said:

Um, Jorg wasn't talking about a flat image of rocks. That has been possible for years. Also, is that picture even showing default scenery? If it is something like Ortho4XP, you should disclose that because Austin would definitely have a good reason not to talk about it........

Of course that's default. Why do one need to use AI for pebbles (=waste of resources, which could be used for far more important things for a flight sim) instead of simply using good textures?

 

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

I love correct water physics.
it allows us to really do crazy stuff like balancing the wingtip like this and defy gravity altogether.

You see, XP12 really, really wants to flip you around the roll axis, and when that behavior meets the sea bed, the cracks in the physics start to show.
Obviously, this is not correct water physics. But we can agree it's better than MSFS at least .

What does that picture prove? If the wing touches the water (not within the first centimeters of course), the plane gets tossed around, like it should (not completely perfect, i.e. 100.00%) but with a very good approximation. At least my version of the C172.

 

47 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

🤣

🙈🙉🙊 The video is already 4 months old, but still valid.

 

10 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

What does that picture prove? If the wing touches the water (not within the first centimeters of course), the plane gets tossed around, like it should (not completely perfect, i.e. 100.00%) but with a very good approximation. At least my version of the C172.

Let's try moving images instead 😉

 

Skip to 1:15 mark to see the stationary Cessna rest on its portside wing. Like totally ignoring the heavy engine in the front.

Is this correct water physics, @flying_carpet?

Edited January 3, 20242 yr by SAS443

7 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Let's try moving images instead 😉

 

Skip to 1:15 mark to see the stationary Cessna rest on its portside wing. Like totally ignoring the heavy engine in the front.

So, with this extreme exceptional situation you want to prove what? I understand what you want to say, but instead do a video flying and landing with a wing hanging into the water and post again.

Edited January 3, 20242 yr by flying_carpet

16 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Let's try moving images instead 😉

Skip to 1:15 mark to see the stationary Cessna rest on its portside wing. Like totally ignoring the heavy engine in the front.

Is this correct water physics, @flying_carpet?

🤣

4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Q: Tell me more!
A: Haha, I shouldn't... Not right now anyway. The idea is to wait a bit on that but we can say this, I recently played Forza Horizon 5 and was blown away by how incredibly beautiful it is, even if you stop the car and study details on the ground. So Nice and Detailed We aim to make the 2024 game so nice with a different kind of detail and photo-realistic accuracy in terms of topography and more. I flew over a patch of forest in Flight Simulator 2024 the other day and chose to land in a place where it was possible to study in detail thousands of rocks underwater in a stream, for example.

Hasn‘t that already been posted a few months ago? Because I remember how many had a good laugh at that (me included) 😁

Edited January 3, 20242 yr by Franz007

24 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Of course that's default.

You can never be too careful. Add-ons are often passed off as default in XP circles.

 

26 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Why do one need to use AI for pebbles (=waste of resources, which could be used for far more important things for a flight sim) instead of simply using good textures?

Well for one thing, AI actually frees up resources and there is something you need to wrap your head around; MS has the resources to do whatever they want. They can get down to the little visual details and still provide very accurate aircraft, physics, etc. This isn't an either/or situation. So just because they are taking visuals to the next level does not mean other aspects are suffering.

56 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

So, with this extreme exceptional situation you want to prove what? I understand what you want to say, but instead do a video flying and landing with a wing hanging into the water and post again.

Wait, are you saying correct water physics are only applied at certain times, and not consistently?

🤡

51 minutes ago, Krakin said:

You can never be too careful. Add-ons are often passed off as default in XP circles.

Oh no kidding?

So when did Microsoft buy blackshark, who is a 3P provided services for their default scenery under contract? 

Edited January 3, 20242 yr by BobFS88

37 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

Oh no kidding?

So when did Microsoft buy blackshark, who is a 3P provided services for their default scenery under contract? 

Come on now 🙂

I think he means what you get out of the box.

With that being said, I agree some there is some hypocrisy here, if there was no demand for 3rd party addons in MSFS then we would not have so many addons for it.

1 minute ago, Inu said:

I agree some there is some hypocrisy here, if there was no demand for 3rd party addons in MSFS then we would not have so many addons for it.

How am I being hypocritical when I specifically mentioned add-ons being passed off AS IF they are default? I never said add-ons are a bad thing, heck, I use plenty of them myself. I was talking about the misleading practice of showing off a screenshot or video and presenting it as if everything shown is default.