42 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Here I would disagree, have you seen this video using google maps and earth molder for blender. This looks amazing and if included into XP12 would completely change the playing field.

I agree with you. That looks impressive. Photogrammetry will continue to get better. The manpower to model a city with this level of detail would be astronomical. I recently learned of a few games using this for their terrains.

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Without picking sides, the Default GPS systems in MSFS have been (re)built to a higher degree of fidelity to the IRL units upon which they're based.

Thanks for the explanations. Does that mean the whole satellite-system is being simulated based on the actual position? Like in the CL650?

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I'm not at all sure how necessary that level of fidelity is for default aircraft and such, as, again, I've been getting around just fine with the default XP nav systems for years. BUT, NGL, it's nice to know it's there. 🤙

One thing I would be interested to know is how many people have run into problems with XP's default nav systems...? I bet the number is relatively low.

Yes, I still struggle to understand what that changes. Perhaps with an example I would understand better. I never had any issue with any GPS and never noticed any differences. But if it was what I said in the first paragraph, that all satelitte-positions are simulated and the signal-accuracy being impacted by it like in reality, then this would be something nice as default feature. As far as I know, this has only been simulated by some addons, like the CL650 or if I am not mistaken the FF320 as well.

Edited April 14, 20251 yr by Franz007

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Wait...really? They did?

Yes, they did. Really! It seems to go more into the direction of a 'sightseeing sim'. So be it. 😉 

1 hour ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Hi,

 

Here I would disagree, have you seen this video using google maps and earth molder for blender. This looks amazing and if included into XP12 would completely change the playing field.
 

 

Not for me. It looks pretty bad when approaching it from the distance and seeing it building up. In comparison to that, a consistent good quality of a default autogen (like in MSFS without PG or with simheaven) its way better for the fluidity of the eyes. As I said it really only looks good when it has finishing loading up and from very close. Since I don’t do helicopter flights over big cities I have no interests into that at all.

42 minutes ago, brinx said:

harddrive. 2024 definitely had a rough start with the streaming, but it seems to be working really well right now.

Sure it’s smooth and all that, but the LOD levels are atrocious. 
I don’t know, I just think that XP is sharper, FS24 seems like an oil paining? That’s the best way I can describe it.

 

But if MS pull the plug, then it’s left stranded. (Again). They pulled it on FSX, and on flight. No reason why they won’t again. (And they just shut down Skype too, sometimes Microsoft don’t half mis manage things). 
For all Laminars faults, they produce. Albeit slowly. They are still a small company, and I actually think that helps them. Too many cooks spoil the broth and all of that. 

XP is the longest-running flight sim franchise out there.

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

Thanks for the explanations. Does that mean the whole satellite-system is being simulated based on the actual position? Like in the CL650?

Yes, I still struggle to understand what that changes. Perhaps with an example I would understand better. I never had any issue with any GPS and never noticed any differences. But if it was what I said in the first paragraph, that all satelitte-positions are simulated and the signal-accuracy being impacted by it like in reality, then this would be something nice as default feature. As far as I know, this has only been simulated by some addons, like the CL650 or if I am not mistaken the FF320 as well.

Good question, and based on a quick search, the answer is, (perhaps surprisingly) "yes" (!).

At the moment it seems to be tied to the avionics produced by Working Title rather than the base sim itself.

But that also means that all the Default add-ons using WT avionics (which is IIRC, most of them), and any others that use the Default avionics should be automatically using it, as well.

I also believe WT has or is expanding their avionics work beyond the Garmin units to the airliner avionics, too.

And from a brief search, it seems the API makes it available to 3rd party devs who are custom coding their own avionics, as well.

Now, like you say, how big a deal is that in practicality...? Probably pretty marginal for most sim users, but it is still an increased level of fidelity and we must give credit where it's due 🤙

But again, does that mean X-Plane's avionics are "no good"...? I'd say based on the relative lack of complaints over the years, they're fine for the vast majority of users.

It does present an interesting juxtaposition, though: 

X-Plane is billed as a predictive engineering tool for serious use (and I firmly believe it is!).

So it would be reasonable to consider that at least the most common nav systems in the sim like the Garmin 430/530 & G1000 should receive ongoing updates making them more technically and features accurate ...? I.e., an extension of Austin's First Principles strategy..?

I don't know if that means we "need" simulated satellites, or whether the time would be better spent on simulating the interface/functions of the Garmins more deeply.

An interesting consideration...

Edited April 14, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta
"Grammer"

16 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

XP is the longest-running flight sim franchise out there.

They must be doing SOMETHING right!!! 😁👍

Regardless of drama over clouds and ground textures (and the ground is more important for immersion - to me, personally), it's undeniably a great simulator that's constantly being improved.

Just comparing early v11 to where we are now can show some simply astounding advancements for a 30-year old code base, plus all the invisible work that went into Vulkan, etc.

This version of XP12 is a breath of fresh air compared to what I expected from a simulator. Oh my God, it's awesome! I tested Google Map Enhancement (PRO) with XP12's default Airbus. I fly only with real weather. The sensations are incredible. I felt like I was watching a video on my YouTube account and was in the cockpit with them. The vibrations of the cockpit XP12 camera bring a new dose of realism. Going through the clouds and admiring the crisp landscape of Google Maps in natural colors is incredible. Landing while flying over and crossing the highway with these cars at a constant speed is an attention to detail that really hits the mark! Tomorrow I'm going to pick up the ToLiss A319

The new clouds and lighting in the 12.2 beta are fantastic.  The layering and realism of cloud shapes are way better than anything I’ve seen elsewhere.  There are still some weird shadows and artifacts especially noticeable in VR, but they are definitely on the right track.  Really looking forward to their next gen scenery.

@UrgentSiesta

Thanks for your explanations. I quickly took a look at what working title was and which default aircrafts are using it. I haven’t found any mention of the satelitte-system acuracy, do you perhaps have a source? Because that is indeed a pretty cool thing if you’re right and in that case I would absolutely love to see that in XP as well. Because then we could expect some distorted signals when flying beetween high mountains etc. The part I love the most about flightsims is how to deal with non-normal situations and learn how to implement those in our flight planning. If you had a link that would be great 👍

I'm not sure WT / MSFS is up to that level of detail ?

I do know what Totoro did for the Felis 747 Calssic and his CL 650, and what Aerowinx offers too, but I never saw anything mnentioned about that regarding MSFS ?

35 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I'm not sure WT / MSFS is up to that level of detail ?

According to WT:

"...It uses NASA orbital ephemeris data along with actual orbital mechanics solutions to place all of the real GPS satellites currently in orbit into their real 3D positions in space at the current time, and correlates those locations into an actual sight picture for the GPS receiver of the currently viewable satellite constellation. GPS signal strength based on angular horizon distance is simulated and each satellite is tracked separately by the receiver up to the number of available receiver channels.

In addition, the system is loaded with the geostationary positions of the regional SBAS satellites (WAAS, EGNOS, GAGAN, and MSAS) as well as the coverage areas of the ground portions of those systems. As such, it also computes your SBAS availability based on the geostationary SBAS constellation...."

And why this is cool for instrument flying for us in northern Europe

Due to the SBAS satellites being geostationary over the equator, they will drop too low on the horizon at very northern latitudes - such as Icelands Isafjordur Airport - making LPV-approaches impossible here. Despite Iceland having at least two monitoring/range stations, so accuracy is absolutely fine but the availability is atrocious.

Full message for posterity by WT Matt Nischan:

 

59 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I'm not sure WT / MSFS is up to that level of detail ?

🤣 😄 😃

33 minutes ago, turbomax said:

🤣 😄 😃

😜