44 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

That landing though...

Agree 😅 There is some potential left for better landings…

52 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

From the same thread I posted...

'As I understand it, Laminar are indeed pushing forward - weather and lighting have seen major improvements in the latest version of XP12. Meanwhile, I’ve grown increasingly concerned about the direction MSFS seems to be heading. While MSFS currently does serve the needs of serious flight sim users very well, some recent decisions appear to prioritize a unified experience across PC and Xbox, possibly at the expense of PC-specific capabilities.

For example, seeing the Map Enhancement Tool now state that high-res textures are no longer supported feels like another step in that direction. I do enjoy MSFS 2024, there’s a lot to love, but it’s starting to feel like the platform’s future may be geared more toward the Xbox audience, rather than fully leveraging what modern PCs can offer.'

Praise for XP12 and praise for MSFS.

“Interestingly, MSFS2024 has just received some more negative news: according to the latest update, the Map Enhancement Tool now states that MSFS2020/2024 no longer supports high-resolution textures.

I’m glad I made the move to XP12 when I did, especially with all the downgraded features and restrictions showing up in MSFS lately. A lot of these changesseem to be aimed at maintaining compatibility with the Xbox — but disappointing for PC simmers looking for maximum realism.”

Above is what elicited my reply. 
it’s basically non sequitur. And rather inaccurate, to boot. 

I’ve no issue with directly comparing the sims, or even with speaking of ToS here or vice versa. 

I had an extremely immersive flight in XP with the AFL King Air over TE GB this a.m. And even tho the graphics aren’t as good as MSFS, the overall environmental effects of the sim combined with an extremely demanding Hi Fi addon balanced everything out quite nicely. 
 

i.e., I wasn’t thinking about  MSFS while I was flying XP. 

9 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Agree 😅 There is some potential left for better landings…

Yeah , it was strange that he blamed it on the wet runway. The way he was drifting left and right off the localizer makes it seem like the touchdown was more an issue of x-wind compensation or similar. 

9 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

it’s basically non sequitur

Just showing my intent is not to denigrate MSFS, even if I did a poor job ☺️

16 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

the overall environmental effects of the sim combined with an extremely demanding Hi Fi addon balanced everything out quite nicely.

Agreed - I'm over the NE USA at 8,000ft in the CIS Seneca.

Colours look really good / realistic!  Looks like RL shot from cockpit !!!

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

For example, seeing the Map Enhancement Tool now state that high-res textures are no longer supported feels like another step in that direction.

You are coming to your conclusion from things like this? You cannot draw any reasonable conclusion from what the author of this tool says. He is not using supported or SDK methods. The approach he is using are basically hacks so I'm not surprise.  He appears to be modifying the windows hosts file to update the DNS, then runs a local server. This tool can end up causing a lot of issues including server errors within MSFS. Bing maps are being updated, and this tool is totally unnecessary in MSFS.

12 minutes ago, brinx said:

and this tool is totally unnecessary in MSFS.

Maybe where you fly, but in some areas the colours of the terrain are not good.  The Map Enhancement tool allows different map providers to suit your personal requirements.  A week ago I could have hires terrain in MSFS 2024, now I can't.

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Agreed - I'm over the NE USA at 8,000ft in the CIS Seneca.

I meant to snap a pic, but the late anfternoon skies out of EGNT were breathtakingly beautiful today 🤙

I'm ignoring all the fighting about which sim will save the world, so please keep that in mind when reading my comment. 

I'm hoping someone from Toliss is reading this - I for one am very willing to pay for a "Texture Upgrade Pack" or something like that, which will make your amazing planes look even better.. as XP 12  continues to improve lighting and general graphical fidelity, it starts to show the limitations of the older textures. I fly the Fenix in MSFS, and today they released an update that makes it look even better than it did before. 

So yeah, I appreciate that it takes time and money to rework textures for the new XP 12 engine or lighting or whatever is required, but please do consider it. I personally will be happy to pay a fair price (for me, that would be around 25% of the full price of the aircraft, but of course you know your audience and pricing better than I do). 

That's all folks. Please don't tell me which sim is better, which plane is better, all of that. I agree with everything you say, whatever it is!

Wrong topic, sorry ha!

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by Ianrivaldosmith

Its funny, with the better real weather, lighting and clouds, I was saying to myself as the plane was climbing out "This darn haze doesn't let me see squat!". Who needs pretty land and textures when they are all 'whited out'.

14 hours ago, JonathanC said:

I'm ignoring all the fighting about which sim will save the world, so please keep that in mind when reading my comment. 

I'm hoping someone from Toliss is reading this - I for one am very willing to pay for a "Texture Upgrade Pack" or something like that, which will make your amazing planes look even better.. as XP 12  continues to improve lighting and general graphical fidelity, it starts to show the limitations of the older textures. I fly the Fenix in MSFS, and today they released an update that makes it look even better than it did before. 

So yeah, I appreciate that it takes time and money to rework textures for the new XP 12 engine or lighting or whatever is required, but please do consider it. I personally will be happy to pay a fair price (for me, that would be around 25% of the full price of the aircraft, but of course you know your audience and pricing better than I do). 

That's all folks. Please don't tell me which sim is better, which plane is better, all of that. I agree with everything you say, whatever it is!

I don’t think that Toliss reads this. But this has been a wish from quite a while that also got discussed quite a lot on the Toliss-discord. And unfortunately they said that they « are good at » systems and flightmodel and concentrate on that part. They didn’t seem willing to subcontract someone to do better textures-modelling. The facts are that they are not the best textures-modellers out there but are aware of that. For me the textures of the A320-series are quite ok to be honest. I would only wish a bit better ones for their A330 and A340, although it’s for me really not the most important.

I do also think that when Laminar will release better antialiasing like TAA, the textures in general will become better and sharper 🙂

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by Franz007

7 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

And unfortunately they said that they « are good at » systems and flightmodel and concentrate on that part.

Ah ok. Thanks for the update. I guess that’s that then, but I’m certain that eventually they will have to upgrade textures. The market will demand it. Maybe in a year or two. 
 

 

1 hour ago, VeryBumpy said:

Its funny, with the better real weather, lighting and clouds, I was saying to myself as the plane was climbing out "This darn haze doesn't let me see squat!". Who needs pretty land and textures when they are all 'whited out'.

Yeah, haze is a little bit overdone in my opinion. As far as I know LR is aware of it and we can expect some improvements. Apart from being a bit overdone I love having the haze simulated 🙂