2 hours ago, GoranM said:

mSparks posted specific images and/or video of MSFS, and had an opinion of it. You posted completely different images of MSFS to challenge his opinion. If you want the objective truth, post real world images of the location

I'm not even sure why he went off on one about the garbage thing, I used it once for

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, mSparks said:

afaict the vast majority of ms scenery at that altitude is hot garbage

That was generally a reference to this "spot the difference":

2 hours ago, efis007 said:

I don't consider stating that FS2020 is garbage an "opinion", it's just expressing contempt towards a product that is anything but "garbage".

I said hot garbage - the adjective of that metaphor is also important, since it portrays the pungent smell of male cow faeces I associate with anyone "bigging up" the screenshot of garbage a typical MSFS car park outside of custom scenery depicted above.

And even that seems like its giving it to much credit:

 

Edited July 21, 20241 yr by mSparks

Scenery wise, MSFS undoubtedly supersedes every other civil flight simulation tittle that I have used, including X-Plane 12, although I do prefer the airfields and their buildings and graphic details, colours and lighting + the way their lighting systems are represented, in X-Plane 12... If not for other reasons the amount of detail MSFS 2020 offers, for free!!!, is simply astounding.

Weather depiction has considerably evolved also in XP12 to the point that at times I do prefer the way XP12 paints the skies to the way MSFS 2020 does it.

I could probably add detail to the terrain in XP12 using ortho, but it's something I am really not up to, and in MSFS I even have graphic settings for MEDIUM and disable Photogrammetry (PG).

 

8 hours ago, efis007 said:

Mr. Franz, I would like to point out that I politely replied to the user 4df5 who opened the topic, also inviting him not to abandon XP completely.

Mr Efis, you are one of them who likes to make mocking comments about some things that are being seen as positive by the majority (see the FF777v2 thread). You like to take the confrontational/provocative course. I simply jumped on your attempts to deny that subjective opinions don’t exist. If someone calls something « garbage » this simply means that he doesn’t like it. By showing a picture of real « garbage » you already demonstrated that you didn’t get the core of the message. I don’t want to take position about what someone sees as garbage or not. I just wanted to point out that an opinion is not wrong. I personnally find XP sometimes looking beautiful, sometimes garbage. Same with MSFS or any other sim. That’s my opinion. An opinion cannot be wrong, you can simply have a different one. Discussion closed.

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

I could probably add detail to the terrain in XP12 using ortho, but it's something I am really not up to, and in MSFS I even have graphic settings for MEDIUM and disable Photogrammetry (PG).

I want my sim to look good at 1000ft and above and I personally don't care too much about having it look good at ground level as long as the airport looks correct. For low and slow flight, I really like how X-Plane looks and feels (or rather I should say 'can look and feel'), but the caveat is that it needs a lot of tweaking, whereas MFS just works out of the box for anywhere in the world.

e.g. Here are two shots, one around Berlin and the other is La Coruña in Spain both using custom made scenery

 

1 hour ago, tonywob said:

e.g. Here are two shots, one around Berlin and the other is La Coruña in Spain both using custom made scenery

Wow! I especially love the second one, it looks as good as MSFS, but with the much better light (and clouds too) of XP12. Except the antialiasing, which LR still is in the process of improving.

Now, if next gen scenery would produce results similar to this... Ok, I know it will not be orthoscenery, but being raster based instead of vector based will probably produce improved results compared to current scenery.

1 hour ago, tonywob said:

e.g. Here are two shots, one around Berlin and the other is La Coruña in Spain both using custom made scenery

OMG, I recognize that area. You're near Hönow, heading north, looking west.

By the way Tony!!! Portugal is finally getting freely available and at high resolution!!! You can finally build my playground for soaring!!!

1 hour ago, tonywob said:

I want my sim to look good at 1000ft and above and I personally don't care too much about having it look good at ground level as long as the airport looks correct. For low and slow flight, I really like how X-Plane looks and feels (or rather I should say 'can look and feel'), but the caveat is that it needs a lot of tweaking, whereas MFS just works out of the box for anywhere in the world.

e.g. Here are two shots, one around Berlin and the other is La Coruña in Spain both using custom made scenery

 

In that 2nd screenshot, are you using autoortho with simheaven ? Looks very good.

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

By the way Tony!!! Portugal is finally getting freely available and at high resolution!!! You can finally build my playground for soaring!!!

Most of Europe is now, it seems some sort of EU initiative to force member states to release their data

2 hours ago, Baber20 said:

In that 2nd screenshot, are you using autoortho with simheaven ? Looks very good.

No, it's completely custom made

14 hours ago, mSparks said:

I'm not even sure why he went off on one about the garbage thing, I used it once for

The hot garbage comment itself was the hot garbage. That is ironic.

14 hours ago, mSparks said:

I said hot garbage - the adjective of that metaphor is also important, since it portrays the pungent smell of male cow faeces I associate with anyone "bigging up" the screenshot of garbage a typical MSFS car park outside of custom scenery depicted above.

As you said, you've never flown MSFS, so you seem to scour the internet for the worse images you can find and then try to make a point. However, if you choose any random area of the world, you'll find MSFS scenery will be superior to xplane's. Laminar just does not have the resources to compete with Microsoft here. It is also looking like the scenery will improve even further with 2024. Xplane has many other strong points compared to MSFS, but scenery isn't one of them. Your comment would come across as more credible if you pointed to other areas. 

A more honest comparison would be to find the same location in both sim and compare them.  Secondly, I've seen you post the same photogrammetry images for years now. The early photogrammetry in MSFS was not the best. Microsoft has gone back and redone/improve the photogrammetry in many areas of the world. The latest is UK/Ireland coming out next week, so the PG images you post may not have even been relevant for years now. Thirdly and most importantly, as stated above by another user, if you don't want photogrammetry scenery, turn it off (hot garbage problem solved). I'm sure you'll ignore this part though.

You can also make scenery in xplane look good, but it takes effort and a lot of custom stuff. Outside of a few die-hard fans that only fly xplane; you are NOT convincing anyone with eyes flying both SIMs that MSFS' scenery is hot garbage. This is why you got called out.

Edited July 21, 20241 yr by brinx

6 hours ago, tonywob said:

Quiero que mi simulador se vea bien a 1000 pies o más y, personalmente, no me importa demasiado que se vea bien a nivel del suelo, siempre que el aeropuerto se vea bien. Para vuelos bajos y lentos, me gusta mucho cómo se ve y se siente X-Plane (o más bien debería decir "puede verse y sentirse"), pero la salvedad es que necesita muchos ajustes, mientras que MFS simplemente funciona de fábrica para cualquier parte del mundo.

Aquí hay dos tomas, una alrededor de Berlín y la otra en La Coruña en España, ambas con escenarios hechos a medida.

 

This is not correct. I use both simulators and I assure you that MFS only looks good in certain areas with photogrammetry coverage which unfortunately are not so many places. 

 

Then outside of those places xplane in general looks much better as without Heaven it does a much better job in general and if we leave places with good ortho coverage which is most of the planet, minus certain countries of the so called first world, mfs looks at a level of fsx here xplane does a much better job.

 

On 7/20/2024 at 7:04 AM, mSparks said:

So sure, if all you need for "decent" is "visually pleasing", then msfs has a lot to offer, but as far as I am concerned there are many, many more games I find both more "visually pleasing" and far more fun than msfs - or xplane, and when it comes to flight simulation msfs has nothing to offer I haven't already had for years, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty sure that isn't just confirmation bias.

 

I was gonna say about your screenshot that I thought it was pretty dang good for 2017 (and I mean that as a compliment). 🙂

I've said in many "but muh VFR!" debates that X-Plane has everything one needs for "serious" flight training (a loaded phrase, for sure) for years.

X-Plane is and has been a great flight simulator - hence its ongoing survival for the last quarter century, almost always laughing in the face of the many who have continually predicted its impending demise.

So, no, you surely do NOT have a case of confirmation bias, because your choice of sim is genuinely great! 👍

Buuuuuut...there are other flight simulators out there, from genuine arcade-level to legitimate "serious simmer" grade. And we should evaluate them for their Pros and not just their Cons when comparing to XP.

11 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

This is not correct. I use both simulators and I assure you that MFS only looks good in certain areas with photogrammetry coverage which unfortunately are not so many places. 

 

Then outside of those places xplane in general looks much better as without Heaven it does a much better job in general and if we leave places with good ortho coverage which is most of the planet, minus certain countries of the so called first world, mfs looks at a level of fsx here xplane does a much better job.

 

Please provide evidence.

I fly both on a regular basis.

Other than on-airport property (and even then...), I have yet to find a single out of the box area where X-Plane scenery is more authentic than MSFS.

X-Plane is great, and in terms of scenery & other visuals is significantly better than before, but its focus is on things that are important for aviation, not for sightseeing.

OK, we've descended back into yet another "my sim's better then your sim" food fight.  Let's color this one done.