1 hour ago, sloppysmusic said:

Correct. XP12 is undeniably LESS a game than those others. 

Not P3D but maybe MSFS more so.

 

41 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Incorrecto. XP 12 tiene una aviónica GA predeterminada muy inferior a la de MSFS 2024. MSFS 2024 tiene la mejor aviónica GA predeterminada para un simulador de vuelo, tiene los mejores G1000, G3000, G5000 y G3X predeterminados para un simulador de vuelo. Ni siquiera se puede comprar una versión de pago G1000, G3000, G5000 o G3X predeterminada mejor que la de MSFS 2020/2024. Y ahora Working Title ha añadido Honeywell Primus Epic 2 y Universal UNS-1 a MSFS 2024.

Además, algunos pilotos de la vida real sienten que MSFS 2024 tiene la mejor dinámica de vuelo ahora, mejor que XP 12. Puede consultar la página 9 de este hilo de dinámica de vuelo para ver varias comparaciones de dinámica de vuelo entre MSFS 2024 y XP 12:

XP 12 tiene datos terrestres muy falsos y utiliza generación automática en comparación con MSFS 2024, que intenta utilizar IA para escanear las imágenes satelitales reales y componer un edificio 3D o un objeto 3D a partir de ellas. Si bien no es perfecto, incluso utilizó IA para seleccionar las ubicaciones de los árboles que se representan en MSFS en comparación con la ubicación del árbol en el mundo real: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/games/articles/2021/07/microsoft-flight-simulator-the-future-of-game-development/

¿Los objetos 3D y las ubicaciones de los árboles en XP 12? Sí, todas son ubicaciones falsas y generadas de forma falsa.

Por último, se puede argumentar que XP 12 con el hardware correcto está certificado por la FAA (porque sin el hardware correcto, no está certificado por la FAA), pero la gran mayoría de los pilotos de la vida real están usando MSFS. MSFS domina la encuesta de Navigraph y algo así como el 25% del 30% de la encuesta de Navigraph son pilotos de la vida real. Además, Avsim está plagado de pilotos de la vida real y están usando abrumadoramente MSFS, ya sea MSFS 2020 o MSFS 2024. Una última cosa, Matt Nischan de Working Title ha dicho que MSFS podría intentar convertirse en certificado por la FAA, pero no es una prioridad para el equipo de MSFS en este momento (el comentario fue publicado aquí en Avsim, pero no tengo el enlace en este momento). ¡Incluso FSX fue certificado por la FAA, pero como simulador de vuelo, no es mejor que MSFS!

Podría decirse que XP 12 es más un "juego" que MSFS 2024.

No, MFS uses autogen outside of photogrammetry areas like x-plane does, outside of those areas it is very inaccurate and we are talking about most of the world map.

There are areas of the world like most of South America for example that in general looks even worse than fsx with some add-on.

We have to take off the blindfold of fanaticism, all these products at the domestic level are video games, there is no good or bad product, they all have their compromises, even professional simulators of millions of dollars have compromises.

 

To close to a single product is to miss great addons and a lot of fun, I am certainly not going to miss x-plane's CL650 or Leonardo's MD80 because of this nonsense to say two examples.

11 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

No, MFS uses autogen outside of photogrammetry areas like x-plane does, outside of those areas it is very inaccurate and we are talking about most of the world map.

There are areas of the world like most of South America for example that in general looks even worse than fsx with some add-on.

We have to take off the blindfold of fanaticism, all these products at the domestic level are video games, there is no good or bad product, they all have their compromises, even professional simulators of millions of dollars have compromises.

No, where there isn't photogrammetry, MSFS is using AI to scan the satellite imagery and determine the best 3D object to use in place of the 2D object that it scans on satellite, especially for buildings and houses.  Big difference!

MSFS is not making up a 3D object/building/house without any intelligence at all and placing the 3D object/building/house wherever it wants.  The AI scans the 2D object on satellite imagery, then it goes through and picks out the best 3D object in the library of MSFS that best matches the 2D object that was scanned.

It's not classic autogen that simply puts random objects anywhere it likes on the map.  Get your facts right.

Edited December 29, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

All the sims are having pro's and con's. I don't want to nitpick. But at the moment none are ticking enough boxes. So none are acceptable.

3 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

No, donde no hay fotogrametría, MSFS utiliza inteligencia artificial para escanear las imágenes satelitales y determinar el mejor objeto 3D para usar en lugar del objeto 2D que escanea en el satélite, especialmente para edificios y casas. ¡Qué gran diferencia!

MSFS no crea un objeto/edificio/casa en 3D sin ningún tipo de inteligencia. La IA escanea el objeto 2D en imágenes satelitales y luego selecciona el mejor objeto 3D en la biblioteca de MSFS que mejor se adapte al objeto 2D que se escaneó.

No se trata de la generación automática clásica que simplemente coloca objetos aleatorios en cualquier lugar del mapa. Asegúrate de que los datos sean correctos.

The source and tools to extract the data can be whatever you want but this is still auto generation and the results are bad in general if you compare them with the photogrammetric areas

The photogrammetric areas are not exempt of problems either, especially the trees.

In the end this is a flight simulator we are giving a lot of importance to these graphics issues when what is really important in 2024 is the remarkable progress in the flight model and physics. Logically to enjoy the latter the simulator must be reliable and stable and that is where Asobo has to work a lot right now.

5 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

The source and tools to extract the data can be whatever you want but this is still auto generation and the results are bad in general if you compare them with the photogrammetric areas

The photogrammetric areas are not exempt of problems either, especially the trees.

In the end this is a flight simulator we are giving a lot of importance to these graphics issues when what is really important in 2024 is the remarkable progress in the flight model and physics. Logically to enjoy the latter the simulator must be reliable and stable and that is where Asobo has to work a lot right now.

I disagree with you. While the 3D object/building placed doesn't perfectly match the building/house in real life,  the results are good for where I live in Western Canada where there isn't photogrammetry.

Maybe it's bad for your area, but don't take where you area is, and assume it's like that for the entire world.

Edited December 29, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

22 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

No estoy de acuerdo contigo. Si bien el objeto/edificio 3D colocado no coincide perfectamente con el edificio/casa en la vida real,   los resultados son buenos para el lugar donde vivo en el oeste de Canadá, donde no hay fotogrametría.

Quizás sea malo para tu zona, pero no tomes como base tu área y supongas que es así para todo el mundo.

I say in general it is bad because I fly all over the world not only in the so called first world where MFS works somewhat better. But even in the USA there are problems and it doesn't look good in many areas even with photogrammetry you have a couple of recent threads here in this forum as an example. 

But I insist in a flight simulator unless you want to do very low altitude operations these details are secondary.

17 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

I say in general it is bad because I fly all over the world not only in the so called first world where MFS works somewhat better. But even in the USA there are problems and it doesn't look good in many areas even with photogrammetry you have a couple of recent threads here in this forum as an example. 

But I insist in a flight simulator unless you want to do very low altitude operations these details are secondary.

So I disagree with you that it’s bad in general. 

Just look at these photos of MSFS 2024 vs real life photos:

The proof is in those photos. There is no other flight simulator, not even MSFS 2020, that can reproduce what MSFS 2024 can in those photos without custom scenery.

 

Edited December 29, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

...and around and around we go on the incredibly boring "my flight simulator is better than yours" carousel.

5 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Just look at these photos of MSFS 2024 vs real life photos:

Would you care to comment on this topic regarding the representation of Dallas which was poor in 2020 and appears no better in 2024 unless a third party addon is used.

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/660320-dallas-low-quality-scenery-tiles-even-worse-in-2024/

 

7 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

🤡

Oh look, the original MSFS from 1982 by Bruce Artwick doesn't have career mode and you can't fly through blue boxes.  It must be a better flight simulator than MSFS 2024 is and less of a game than MSFS 2024 is!

 

Seeing as YOU have mentioned this sim I'd like your opinion, oops sorry I mean a list of FACTS about the above sim that it gets right and it gets wrong or was not implemented yet properly. It would be easy from your comment to assume you've revealed that the ONLY fact that matters to you is how amazing it LOOKS. You must be knowledgeable for posting it so please enlighten me as to how MS 2024 gets core scientific/aviation flight sim attributes more accurate than the 1982 attempt. 

I'm being serious, unless you DID just post it to poke fun of 20th century gfx. 

On 28/12/2024 at 04:32, YukonPete said:

J'utilise également 64 Go de RAM, et FS2024 utilise entre 40 et 50 Go de cette mémoire pendant le jeu. Je pense donc que 64 Go sont importants. Mon 4090, en revanche, n'utilise que 14 Go. J'utilise tout en ultra et je joue en 1440p. Je prévois d'acheter bientôt un moniteur 4k.

I only use 32 GO. In 4k in ultra and that 19/21 GO maximum are only used in large scenarios with the Fenix, Beyondatc

This again?  Really?  How tedious.
They all have their strengths and weaknesses.  It is pointless saying one is better than the other. 
We have serious issues with 2024 at the moment that need addressing, never mind comparing it to another sim, so most people in this forum won't care about this fruitless argument.

I guess we all sim for different reasons. I certainly did not intend for my thoughts on 2024 to start all these old arguments.

I was just commenting on how I experience FS2024 and I mentioned 2 other sims I have used a lot. I have also helped set up a RedBird sim for a flight academy. And I have flown GA aircraft since 1978 in the real world. I also have about 40 radio controlled aircraft, fixed wing and helis.

I guess I had a Freudian slip mentioning XP12 and "playing". I consider just going out in a real GA plane and flying the circuit or a quick scenic around Mt Washington (when weather allows) playing as well. I did not intend to pass judgement on any sim.

My point was just I am enjoying learning this new sim and I do enjoy how real the scenery is at least on my new system.

And I wanted to wish everyone a happy new simming year. Enjoy what you like and be happy.

I like simming it really gives me the real flight experience (to a point) at a really low price. Of course I still love real flying and RC flying as well. And I think it is very good at maintaining IFR skills, that goes for all current sims.

I have next week some vacation day and there is a 14 days free offer in game pass I will surely install 2024 to see with my own eyes the improvements they comment in physics and flight model. I will not make the final purchase as long as they continue to insist that there is no offline mode, I already made that mistake by investing money and time in Google Stadia would be stupid of me to fall back into the same trap of cloud play.