On 4/6/2024 at 9:49 AM, fluffyflops said:

@GoranM,

have you tried the fantasic a330 yet Goran ?  the flagship aircraft on all their marketing ?

No.  Does that have anything to do with the topic?

Edited April 8, 20242 yr by GoranM

Well it was an impressive screenshot of XP12. Model, Sky and Scenery almost picture perfect and the light-shading balanced and correct. Yep 

Alas a bit longer for some still a curates egg - good in parts bad in others! So no super screen gloss for me yet or have not found it overall more like this for me. Goran would appreciate this one he's been there!

27 minutes ago, coastaldriver said:

Well it was an impressive screenshot of XP12. Model, Sky and Scenery almost picture perfect and the light-shading balanced and correct. Yep 

Alas a bit longer for some still a curates egg - good in parts bad in others! So no super screen gloss for me yet or have not found it overall more like this for me. Goran would appreciate this one he's been there!

 

Unfortunately, satellite imagery isn't perfect in any flight sim.  My main take away was the overall environmental composition.  

That aircraft looks very familiar.  In the sim and IRL.  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1spuwXFR2bNxpXHQsr2wuZUz9dUTE7a7d/view?usp=sharing

6 hours ago, GoranM said:

That aircraft looks very familiar.  In the sim and IRL.  

OFT -  this one used to live at Hoxton Park and then later Camden. Flew once or twice IRL myself. As for XP12 this is an XP11 model yet to be upgraded to functionality in XP12 . That is XP's greatest issue to my mind! That and the need to revamp the drag/weight couple (the lift calcs are fine but there is no corresponding drag curve, so as to get inertia response correct  for all aircraft so the flight model is very very good but still a WIP (That would be a whole thread on its own). 

Edited April 8, 20242 yr by coastaldriver

I have VisualXP Basic Version, it looks fantastic, though I am struggling to get the right day light.

I consider XPL 12 lighting very good and often amazing, the only problem for me is overcast scenario with that yellowish tint

3 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

OFT -  this one used to live at Hoxton Park and then later Camden. Flew once or twice IRL myself. As for XP12 this is an XP11 model yet to be upgraded to functionality in XP12 . That is XP's greatest issue to my mind! That and the need to revamp the drag/weight couple (the lift calcs are fine but there is no corresponding drag curve, so as to get inertia response correct  for all aircraft so the flight model is very very good but still a WIP (That would be a whole thread on its own). 

I used to fly out of Hoxton Park.  The owner was Rene.  I think he owns Phoenix Flying School now at Camden.  The photo I linked was taken at Camden.  

The screenshot of the C23 you posted is the C23 I made with Ilias.  (In case you didn't know)

🙂

Edited April 8, 20242 yr by GoranM

1 hour ago, Skymaster9999 said:

I consider XPL 12 lighting very good and often amazing, the only problem for me is overcast scenario with that yellowish tint

There is a fix coming for how clouds affect ambience/scattering, can't remember if it's for 12.1.0 or will be part of the planned major lighting update slated for 12.3.0 this year.

Edited April 8, 20242 yr by Inu

On 4/7/2024 at 12:06 AM, mjrhealth said:

Only fly Xplane 12 and I dont know where the unenjoyable less reliable experience comes for, possibly usually just people who cant set it up properly.

MSFS ortho is global, where XP12's isn't, so I would think that is one area where it is 'unenjoyable less reliable'.  I downloaded ortho for the USA and UK, but the rest of the world looks less impressive.

On 4/9/2024 at 3:05 PM, MrBitstFlyer said:

MSFS ortho is global, where XP12's isn't, so I would think that is one area where it is 'unenjoyable less reliable'.  I downloaded ortho for the USA and UK, but the rest of the world looks less impressive.

Autoortho with the last version does a pretty amazing job. All Europe is of very good Quality for me. Below 5000ft MSFS still does a better job, mostly because of having the autogen and vegetation matching better with the orthos. But above 5000ft autoortho is more or les the same in my opinion. But you are right that some few areas are missing, like Iceland etc.

11 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Autoortho with the last version does a pretty amazing job. All Europe is of very good Quality for me. Below 5000ft MSFS still does a better job, mostly because of having the autogen and vegetation matching better with the orthos. But above 5000ft autoortho is more or les the same in my opinion. But you are right that some few areas are missing, like Iceland etc.

Absolutely tanked my frame rates though, ended up flying without it, wish I could get the same performance with AutoOrtho + SimHeaven that I get in MSFS.

G

11 minutes ago, Gazzareth said:

Absolutely tanked my frame rates though, ended up flying without it, wish I could get the same performance with AutoOrtho + SimHeaven that I get in MSFS.

G

I’m actually having better fps withAO than with default. And pretty aweswome performance in general.

On 4/11/2024 at 10:34 PM, Franz007 said:

I’m actually having better fps withAO than with default. And pretty aweswome performance in general.

This is my experience too. Default I get marginally less FPS.

On 4/11/2024 at 5:20 PM, Gazzareth said:

Absolutely tanked my frame rates though, ended up flying without it, wish I could get the same performance with AutoOrtho + SimHeaven that I get in MSFS.

G

This is one area where MS2020 BLOWS XP12 out of the water!!! PERFORMANCE

Edited April 14, 20242 yr by Mike_CFII_MEL

So cloud drift in front of the moon - XP12.09 - it does it! Yes this is insanely realistic!

and dawn in the New Mexico Area

Edited April 23, 20242 yr by coastaldriver