Whilst I do not have much experience of water operations in flight simulation, I would be surprised if the simulation of it in any current flight simulator is better than it was in Flight Unlimited 3.

Edited January 3, 20242 yr by Christopher Low

1 hour ago, fsiscool said:

 

I am not mixing anything. You might read the topic in your original post again.

You were not even the one I commented to, originally, so I would suggest YOU go ahead and read again 😉

This is the quote I commented on:

And oh, he's actually talking about 3D objects being placed there by the AI based on its analysis of the topography of the terrain and photogrammetry.

AI is not live tracking pebbles and placing few inches sized objects.

They are not objects.

They are high-freq greyscales with a mesh accelrated using tessellation shaders. Hence, Asobo called this feature "tessellated materials". Not "AI pebble tracker".

MSFS already apply those high-freq details for ground textures NOW.

The new feature here is the shader.

4 minutes ago, Inu said:

You were not even the one I commented to, originally, so I would suggest YOU go ahead and read again 😉

This is the quote I commented on:

And oh, he's actually talking about 3D objects being placed there by the AI based on its analysis of the topography of the terrain and photogrammetry.

AI is not live tracking pebbles and placing few inches sized objects.

They are not objects.

They are high-freq greyscales with a mesh accelrated using tessellation shaders. Hence, Asobo called this feature "tessellated materials". Not "AI pebble tracker".

MSFS already apply those high-freq details for ground textures NOW.

The new feature here is the shader.

Still can't edit my comments.

@fsiscool Just to clarify, that is the what I commented on:

"How very predictable of you. And oh, he's actually talking about 3D objects being placed there by the AI based on its analysis of the topography of the terrain and photogrammetry."

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Aaahhhh !!! ... That's the fly in the ointment !! It's so unfair ... "XP is shown with addons to look as good as MSFS by default". Because THAT'S what's important in a flight simulator - that it looks good. Finally I understood ... So, should XP users also be forced to show why it flies so much better?

You seem to be missing the point by quite a large margin, lol

About the quality of the flight model; if one throws certain addon aircraft at MSFS one could easily show it flies a lot better than anything in X-Plane default, but that would not be fair right? See what I'm trying to say here?

On a side note. The harder you and others shout X-planes FM is so utterly superior to other sims the lesser I believe it. Also because I have first hand experience with the sim proving that claim wrong. Marginally better at most and even then only dependent on the aircraft you use. 

1 hour ago, Rimshot said:

You seem to be missing the point by quite a large margin, lol

About the quality of the flight model; if one throws certain addon aircraft at MSFS one could easily show it flies a lot better than anything in X-Plane default, but that would not be fair right? See what I'm trying to say here?

On a side note. The harder you and others shout X-planes FM is so utterly superior to other sims the lesser I believe it. Also because I have first hand experience with the sim proving that claim wrong. Marginally better at most and even then only dependent on the aircraft you use. 

When facts don't help anymore ... don't you know the principle of repeating stuff often enough and people will believe it eventually (some perpetual doubters aside) 😜?

Apart from that and to summarize the (meanwhile) last 4.5 pages ... not aimed specifically at you but in general.
I'm really LMAO ... these last 4.5 pages were generated only because I made an iconic ... ironic post about how Asobo is planning to generate pebbles with AI. As if pebbles are important enough for a flightsim to generate them by AI. For simulation of e.g. rheological behaviour in a river - ok. But hey ... some guys are taking this all too serious. Do they really believe there aren't more important things for a flight simulator than ... PEBBLES? C'mon ...
I give you an example which is indeed even less important than generating pebbles by AI in a flightsim: creating the postage stamps in the offices of the (default) airports by AI 😆.

Edited January 3, 20242 yr by flying_carpet

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

First of all, all of what you said has no connection to what you quoted so..

It very much does have a connection in calling you out in your statement the was imply in meaning to downplay an image that was clearly LR default scenery as" You can never be too careful. Add-ons are often passed off as default in XP circles." which dismiss it as anything but LR work. 

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

it is abundantly apparent that one of the platforms does have 200 devs working on it. That is actually part of the reason why the survey results came out the way they did

It is abundantly clear that they have 200 developers working on their sim so they score more points on the survey? Why should that regarded as some monumental achievement after a 14 year break. To me with their resources, contractor and partnership that it took to get them back in the game is something to be expected and surprise if they fail.

 

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

Yeah, LR achieved quite a lot and they're a bunch of talented people but don't forget they've been plugging away with incremental upgrades for years. What about everything Asobo has achieved on their first crack at an advanced flight sim?

But LR stayed in the game all this 30 years straight and has grown some. Asobo first crack is not MS first rodeo who happens to own all the resource. You don't get to claim credit when you are handed a head start while given the finance backing that will insure your market success. If they had to do it own their own, where would they be in the scheme of things?

 

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by BobFS88

8 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

2 hours ago, Krakin said:

First of all, all of what you said has no connection to what you quoted so..

It very much does have a connection in calling you out in your statement the was imply in meaning to downplay an image that was clearly LR default scenery as" You can never be too careful. Add-ons are often passed off as default in XP circles." which dismiss it as anything but LR work. 

Awww you thought I said that because I thought it looked good? I did say it was just a flat image and not anything new like what Jorg was talking about. I asked because you really can't be too careful about the distinction. A large number of XP users use Ortho add-ons and will not disclose that they are until they get asked. This actually happened recently in the XP forum where a user was showing off "how far" XP12 had come with it's snow cover depiction. One of the other users claimed, "nothing else comes close", only to find out there were a ton of add-ons in use. Whether the scenery looks good or not, I ask.

Lets face  it  xp will never  look like  msfs  out  of  the  box  🙂

23 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

Lets face  it  xp will never  look like  msfs  out  of  the  box  🙂

As long as it is convincing it is not necessary either. I use both simulators and enjoy them both equally, each with its pros and cons.

46 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

Lets face  it  xp will never  look like  msfs  out  of  the  box  🙂

The elephant in the room is XPlane is the only viable option should Microsoft backtrack and cancel MSFS like they did FSX.  There's always that spector and it's always good to have options.  I hope XP continues to improve just in case this community has to do a quick switch at some point in the future (with MSFS more so cloud based, lights out can happen very fast compared to versions past).

On another note, I'm surprise at how small the number is of VR users...🧐

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by Dillon

32 minutes ago, Dillon said:

The elephant in the room is XPlane is the only viable option should Microsoft backtrack and cancel MSFS like they did FSX.  There's always that spector and it's always good to have options.  I hope XP continues to improve just in case this community has to do a quick switch at some point in the future (with MSFS more so cloud based, lights out can happen very fast compared to versions past).

I strongly agree. With the memory of two cancelled ESP projects (Flight and FSW) still haunting me, I’m very nervous about Microsoft having a monopoly on the hobby, and XP is a very good backup.

It’s clear again (as if it needed proving), that MSFS is the overwhelming choice of every market segment, if it’s Steam gamers or Navigraph subscribers, young / old, or rich 4090 owners / poor 1080 users (😅) . It’s clear that XP sim-warriors will throw stones (sic) at any little comment that refers to something their sim doesn’t do well (it used to be clouds when MSFS first came out, but when XP started doing volumetric clouds it suddenly became important for flight sims to show good clouds), and MSFS sim-warriors will take pot shots at things XP doesn’t do well like scenery and ecosystem.  But when the market has made its choice very clear in every segment, it does seem arguing the toss over small details is a bit of a waste of effort for both sides.

Anyway, I’m glad MSFS exists and offering a flight experience in a realistic world that can’t be (currently) matched, but also feel secure having tried XP 12 and owned two previous versions that an excellent backup is available if someone at MS decides to pivot away from gaming / simming (again). If they offer a compelling scenery update after nothing for so long, I might even buy it.

 

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by scotchegg

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Do they really believe there aren't more important things for a flight simulator than ... PEBBLES? C'mon ...

Actually, rock-level terrain detail can be very immersive for VFR / bush / mission simulation. I mean, would you say bobbleheads of Austin / Austin on the crapper / people hanging off balloon baskets etc. were important simulation features that Austin was justified in devoting scarce resources to? (Nb, I liked these features, but it’s not me out here using terrain detail as proof of misguided simulation focus…)

16 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

I strongly agree. With the memory of two cancelled ESP projects (Flight and FSW) still haunting me, I’m very nervous about Microsoft having a monopoly on the hobby, and XP is a very good backup.

It’s clear again (as if it needed proving), that MSFS is the overwhelming choice of every market segment, if it’s Steam gamers or Navigraph subscribers, young / old, or rich 4090 owners / poor 1080 users (😅) . It’s clear that XP sim-warriors will throw stones (sic) at any little comment that refers to something their sim doesn’t do well (it used to be clouds when MSFS first came out, but when XP started doing volumetric clouds it suddenly became important for flight sims to show good clouds), and MSFS sim-warriors will take pot shots at things XP doesn’t do well like scenery and ecosystem.  But when the market has made its choice very clear in every segment, it does seem arguing the toss over small details is a bit of a waste of effort for both sides.

Anyway, I’m glad MSFS exists and offering a flight experience in a realistic world that can’t be (currently) matched, but also feel secure having tried XP 12 and owned two previous versions that an excellent backup is available if someone at MS decides to pivot away from gaming / simming (again). If they offer a compelling scenery update after nothing for so long, I might even buy it.

 

With free addons xp12 is already very convincing, the discussion of "vanilla" simulator is sterile, all of us who take a simulator seriously at least, whatever it is, use addons.

XP is often criticised for its default scenery but little is said about the default airports in mfs. In xp with auto ortho and simheaven I don't need more to have a very convincing simulator, in mfs I need dozens of airports to be able to say the same.

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

When facts don't help anymore ... don't you know the principle of repeating stuff often enough and people will believe it eventually

A technique you seem determined to excel at looks like 🙂 (given that facts don't seem to help you at all).

 

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

I'm really LMAO ... these last 4.5 pages were generated only because I made an iconic ... ironic post about how Asobo is planning to generate pebbles with AI. As if pebbles are important enough for a flightsim to generate them by AI. For simulation of e.g. rheological behaviour in a river - ok. But hey ...

So you try to fixate on a specific example given by Jorg on v2024's topographic detail level and then wonder out loud "as if pebbles are important enough for a flightsim"

I assume you are asking similar serious and probing questions about your sim of choice.. like why they implemented the sounds of crickets, and felt the need to highlight that feature when marketing about XP12, "as if crickets are important enough for a flightsim".

I doubt you'll get it, but see how your desperate attempts at denigrating MSFS just keep failing again and again? That said, perhaps you might be able to grasp that all these little details that both sims are implementing has to do with... immersion! Ponder on that for a little while 🙂

In the meantime, we'll continue to LOAO at you and certain others' contributions here.

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by lwt1971

13 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

little is said about the default airports in mfs

Not true, lots was said about the default airports which is why they realised they needed a scenery hub.

13 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

In xp with auto ortho and simheaven I don't need more to have a very convincing simulator

It can absolutely look great in areas where the simheaven autogen fits and the orthos are good. That doesn't help me in most of the world though, and requires a lot of setup / storage etc. that I just prefer to use for other things.

Edit: anyway, I have it on good authority from many XP sim-warriors that scenery is not actually important for flight simulators, so I’m not sure why people are developing these addons for XP? (Not aimed at you…)

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by scotchegg