1 minute ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Probably best to pop over to the XP12 forum to further discuss this if you want to see what XP12 does better than MSFS.

An excellent suggestion 👍

2 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

indeed, and if I may add, the night lighting effects are just stunning, there is nothing that comes close, I just wish someday FS2024 will shine in this department as well as XP12 does.

There are many on this forum who criticise the night lighting in MSFS, yet get upset when somebody points out XP12 really shines in that area.  I didn't have a particular issue with night lighting in MSFS, but now I have seen how XP12 does it, MSFS is REALLY poor in comparison.  If night lighting is really important, why wouldn't you see it in XP12, rather than get tribal about an individual sim?

If I want some bush flying, I will fire up MSFS as it excels in this area - I wouldn't do it in XP12 because I'm an 'XP12 man' that is just silly to me.  Get the best of the products out there.

4 hours ago, Krakin said:

But then the sun (at least in this current beta) looks like Goku's charging up a big spirit bomb. It's like I said before, there's improvements but drawbacks. XP12 currently smokes 2024 when it comes to clouds on the horizon but once you get close, you start to see where they had to cut things back, most likely for performance. I kinda want them to borrow features from each other and both would have absolutely amazing weather depiction.

That’s what I’m seeing in videos too. Very pretty in screenshots of distant clouds, but very distracting in proximity. Undoubtedly a great step forwards anyway, and good that the hobby generally is pushing forwards at speed now.

Having said that, the XP cloud pictures in the MSFS forum are getting a bit much. I don’t have much time for simming or forums these days, but every time I do jump on to see feedback on the latest MSFS developments, I see XP pictures from @MrBitstFlyer. Sure, very pretty distant clouds, but not really doing anything for the topic at hand.

5 hours ago, Krakin said:

But then the sun (at least in this current beta) looks like Goku's charging up a big spirit bomb.

Sometimes yes, if the atmosphere is humid, but often not - I point to my previous picture.  Are you looking at a video of the current BETA version?

Edited June 11, 2025Jun 11 by MrBitstFlyer

25 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Probably best to pop over to the XP12 forum to further discuss this if you want to see what XP12 does better than MSFS.

Good suggestion!  Thanks 🙂

24 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Probably best to pop over to the XP12 forum to further discuss this if you want to see what XP12 does better than MSFS.

I have for sure already all that was missing was a first-hand look at visuals on the ground and in the air hence the DEMO.  My sense from what I've learned it's a great sim and beats some very key areas of MSFS that create at a minimum annoyances for some.  It's ATC is superior by a stretch, many or most believe its lighting, cloud depiction and visibility is significantly better, and the interface is more straightforward and logical, all due to its very mature state under one developer--that alone matters hugely especially with the commitment to aeronautical fidelity.  The big lacking piece, the lack of essentially worldwide very high quality ortho scenery, can at least be addressed in part, though even then what I read is it still does not compare favorably to what we already have in MSFS sims.  To me that has become a basic part of feeling like I'm really there at that specific location on the planet and I have a hard time overestimating that value.  All of the stated betters in XP really won't offset this for me, it's too important.  All this being said I'm super glad we have LR and Xplane it's obviously improving steadily and in the right direction.

 

19 minutes ago, Noel said:

I have for sure already all that was missing was a first-hand look at visuals on the ground and in the air hence the DEMO.  My sense from what I've learned it's a great sim and beats some very key areas of MSFS that create at a minimum annoyances for some.  It's ATC is superior by a stretch, many or most believe its lighting, cloud depiction and visibility is significantly better, and the interface is more straightforward and logical, all due to its very mature state under one developer--that alone matters hugely especially with the commitment to aeronautical fidelity.  The big lacking piece, the lack of essentially worldwide very high quality ortho scenery, can at least be addressed in part, though even then what I read is it still does not compare favorably to what we already have in MSFS sims.  To me that has become a basic part of feeling like I'm really there at that specific location on the planet and I have a hard time overestimating that value.  All of the stated betters in XP really won't offset this for me, it's too important.  All this being said I'm super glad we have LR and Xplane it's obviously improving steadily and in the right direction.

 

I flew for years in real life, If I was told that when I looked out the windscreen,, the ground would look really bad, when I began flying,  I doubt if I would have ever been interested in getting my license. 

(Voices from the kids in the back seat of the plane): Look at the bears! Look at the sheep! Look at the hippos!

It's why msfs is great compared to other sims.

Here are two shots from close to the same spot at LOWS.  In my brain the 2024 image looks so much more like what a photoreal image would look like, to me, over XP's handiwork.  XP image is very decent for sure, but the buildings look a little too canned to me and of course their placement is really much more of an approximation:

I looked at the touted superior night lighting and to me the primary problem is way too much light in 2024--the sky is literally gray, not black as is XP12's night sky.  I thought it was the backlight but no, it's just too bright primarily.  All of that I would think it down to adjustments in variables to tune in something better so no overhaul needed really.

On 6/9/2025 at 1:14 PM, jcomm said:

I find myself several times moving sideways between fs 2024 and xp12...

Come guys, lighten up...this was the third post in this thread, it was a light-hearted reference of not looking back but rather sideways.  Now its become, what, swear words.  

Then someone mentioned slewing in XP12, which is definitely off-topic, but again who cares.

My last words on this because it's also off-topic.  Just ignore comments about XP12, I don't think anyone had any malicious intent.

It's a great day to be alive.

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Are you looking at a video of the current BETA version?

that's correct.

10 hours ago, Noel said:

The big lacking piece, the lack of essentially worldwide very high quality ortho scenery, can at least be addressed in part, though even then what I read is it still does not compare favorably to what we already have in MSFS sims. 

One of the strengths of MSFS 2024 is how the MSFS team has managed to integrate satellite data and photogrammetry with vegetation, trees, rocks/boulders that we see on the ground.  They didn't just slap on the 2D satellite photos underneath and leave it at that.  They have convincingly created terrain that blends in with the 2D satellite data.  For example, look at how they identify and places the trees in MSFS:

Quote

It's impossible to place trillions of trees across the earth accurately as a manual process, for example. Sebastian Wloch, Co-founder and CEO of Asobo Studio, describes the process that Asobo used to render trees as an intelligent algorithm—machine learning. "Instead of finding an algorithm that is going to find trees [in satellite imagery],…you just train it." Asobo developed tools that use examples of tree imagery to render trees in 3D within the Microsoft Flight Simulator environment. You might suspect that identifying trees across the entire world would require a lot of computing power. It does—but Azure Compute (including Azure Cloud Services) can scale as needed to process vast amounts of data. "It's basically able to paint by itself and, well, it's just another computing job." Albeit a big one. "Azure is taking hundreds or tens of thousands of jobs and dispatching them on many computers," Wloch says, "in order to not wait two years until you get your trees." Detecting trees on a worldwide scale may take days of computing time—but once detected, the tree metadata is stored in Azure Storage, ready to stream to any number of players as needed.

The MSFS team is actually analyzing the satellite data, and based on the satellite data, they appropriately put trees, vegetation, rocks/boulders, streams, rivers, etc, to recreate the world of MSFS 2024 to match the satellite data.  Before with MSFS 2020 when they were cooperating with Blackshark AI, they were also analyzing the houses and buildings in the satellite data, and then they would pull a house or building from the MSFS library, that most closely resembled that house/building in the satellite data (since then, they have departed with Blackshark AI, so I am wondering if they are doing it in house now).

The result? Well, I think this Reddit post shows the result in MSFS 2024 of real life locations vs MSFS 2024 locations:

Look at all the real life photos, and compare them to the same location in MSFS 2024.  No flight simulator can match that!  That's another reason why MSFS 2024 is so amazing and from the ground, it's simply light years ahead of every other simulator.  And yes, this includes MSFS 2020, because if you go to those same locations in MSFS 2020, they won't look as near as accurate as the real life photos in that Reddit post (except for the in city photos, because the difference is not as large between MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 inside cities).

Edited June 12, 2025Jun 12 by abrams_tank

12 hours ago, Noel said:

XP image is very decent for sure, but the buildings look a little too canned to me and of course their placement is really much more of an approximation:

Default XP12 autogen is an approximation.  If you install SimHeaven Europe (free) then every building is placed correctly because it uses MSFS building footprints.  As I said to you, XP12 needs to be used over a period of time so you can get an overall impression, rather than focussing on individual items.  You have pointed out the superior night lighting in XP12, and I have pointed out other things that are better in XP12 - for me the biggest is real world traffic visible miles away.  Which sim has less annoyances?

MSFS is fantastic for its tree placement as images have been analysed, with each tree being placed accurately.  MSFS buildings look less 'canned' than XP12.  This is the big plus MSFS has, that initial wow factor.  XP12 needs some addons and some decent flying time to appreciate the whole. 

13 hours ago, Noel said:

In my brain the 2024 image looks so much more like what a photoreal image would look like, to me, over XP's handiwork

You need to install the XP Map Enhancement tool to get satellite imagery into XP12.  Yes, XP12 needs an addon for the satellite imagery, but it is there. Together with SimHeaven for accurate building placement/size, the two images will be much closer.

20 hours ago, Noel said:

road traffic is much better

Even more so if you install Better Road Traffic Cars