2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The demo looks awful against MSFS, but a configured XP12 with addons is better imho otherwise I would have gone back to MSFS.  The discussion on the MSFS forum confirmed the individual I was talking to agreed it looked good, but why bother with addons when MSFS has them already!

Yes, I agree that XP looks great with addon scenery. And I have spent a considerable amount of money/time acquiring scenery improvements.

Just to be clear, my main wish is for ground textures to be improved a la Map Enhancement.

(My secondary would be more accuracy in re certain building types. But that's just because I'm a rotor head and like making MedEvac runs to the local hospitals.)

Most everything else is fine.

The point of OP, however, is whether the XP demo is persuasive for prospective customers.

It must be at least adequate, because many indications seem to point to a growing user base for XP.

However, if you're a Noob looking for a flight sim and don't know about XP's essentially invisible advantages, it's not hard to imagine going with MSFS just because it looks more realistic.

We know LR are working on it because v12.2 is by far the best looking XP ever. But that's not OP's point.

Edited June 16, 2025Jun 16 by UrgentSiesta

4 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

It must be at least adequate, because many indications seem to point to a growing user base for XP.

I'm one of them, but it took a week of perseverance to realise just how good it was. I loaded up MSFS2024 today but didn't like it - I've been singing its praises since release!  The atmosphere looked a bit 'dead'  with perfect visibility and no haze at all. The clouds were sharper, but nowhere near as realistic as the XP12.02.RC1 clouds.

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

Maybe UrgentSiesta is on to Austin's Space Program

Surely they would use SpaceX?

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

it would seem there IS a way

Certainly. Be the beneficiary of government contracts to subsidize the ownership/acquisition of said imagery and cover subsequent server costs. When you're that rich, money does grow on wall street.

Or are you alluding to some other both legally unambiguous AND perpetually reliable network server (see NOAA weather servers as a case study) source for your coveted ground textures?

By all means, do tell! (Peer pressure doesn't count. It somehow feels like that needs to be clarified here.)

 

Also keep in mind Austin's recently-past battles with patent trolls:

https://www.thepatentscam.com/

which arise specifically because of legal ambiguity. It's not pretty and you're singing that very tune.

4 hours ago, Bjoern said:

1 Mbit connection

Well now you've gone and done it: cursed LR's grand entry into the public court system with the aura of azure's server coverage during asobo24's big release.

7 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

However, if you're a Noob looking for a flight sim and don't know about XP's essentially invisible advantages, it's not hard to imagine going with MSFS just because it looks more realistic.

I would not argue with that. It is a mostly undisputed fact that the visual experience "out of the box" is miles better in MSFS - the reasons have been discussed for many many years (different development focus, newer engine, better resources,...).

Previously X-Plane has "cheated" in their demo´s by placing the first-time user at a carefully crafted demo airport (LOWI), sitting in the most scenic spot they could find...and ultimately, purchasers felt cheated when they bought the program and found out that ALL other 39,999 airports were totally barren 😆.

A demo should be representative of the full program, I feel. Putting lipstick on a pig to sell it feels wrong to me - although there is considerable disagreement on this stance within Laminar, and there is a strong push to pimp up the demo areas with custom object, not representative of the final product (Red Bull hangars at LOWS, for example). The excuse here is "yeah, but we want to show what X-Plane COULD look like if you get custom add-ons...".

So is all fair to make a sale? I think disappointing a customer by showing your best side in the demo and then letting him down with the full purchase is not the way to build a long-lasting relationship, the current state of the scenery IS what X-Plane is like, and a prospective buyer should be aware of that. I would rather forego a sale than having someone ranting on YouTube about how he got tricked into making the purchase...

The XP12 demo is a bit like if Asobo launched a demo, dumped you at Frankfurt in a 737, and gave you 15 mins of stuttering hell. 

When XP12 is tuned properly, it looks better than MSFS and also performs better (it isn't just about FPS, but also smoothness, among other things). 

But getting to that point, sure takes a little while, nothing drastic. But I can certainly see why people would be put off when opening the demo, they must think they have gone back in time! 

19 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

hey must think they have gone back in time! 

Xplanes not that bad, I have no add on scenery and enjoy its as it is. 

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

Xplanes not that bad, I have no add on scenery and enjoy its as it is. 

Ok, well, you must be the 1 in a million then. There is always an exception to the rule 😉 

X-Plane can very easily compete with MSFS when auto ortho or map enhancement is used.  

When comparing the two using auto ortho in X-Plane, MSFS looks like someone turned the saturation and contrast up in Photoshop.

Obviously, that's a subjective opinion.

37 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Ok, well, you must be the 1 in a million then. There is always an exception to the rule 😉 

Not really, i just dont go around looking at what everyone else has, than wanting it, i just start it and fly. the first part is why so few can enjoy it, it will never be good enough.

Same here, no add-ons except a few aircraft/helicopters, missing nothing, totally happy with the way it looks.

MSFS scenery is like my car - looks great from a distance, but when you get up close it's best not to pay too much attention.

Even lightpoles in MSFS are completely fake - at night they're just floating orbs following a path.

 

 

2 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

Not really, i just dont go around looking at what everyone else has, than wanting it, i just start it and fly. the first part is why so few can enjoy it, it will never be good enough.

In a world where global satellite imagery and accurate building placement have existed in MSFS for years, users now expect that as the norm.  These things aren't shiny new things to desire, they are now expected.

In the absence of Satellite imagery, Laminar need to hook people in other ways.  The new clouds and lighting are an excellent start, but not enough.  Another bad initial impression are the trees and buildings which don't look part of the scene but just sit on top.  A modernised SimHeaven built into the sim will do the job - and have shadows visible from height, just like MSFS, to help anchor building and trees to the terrain.

Eh, I guess it's subjective.

I've been simming for years and I can do without satellite imagery. In a lot of cases it's more of a distraction than autogen, it puts the sim in the "uncanny valley".