17 hours ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

I'd prefer the buildings from MS (lower pic) with the clarity of XP12.

Diplomatic response 😉.

40 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

I prefer the MSFS one. I like the ground textures and trees better, although there seem to be too many of them.

Nothing else was to be expected 😉 

 

Here comes the resolution/explanation: first picture is indeed XP12 with Simheaven, the third (below) MSFS 2024 and the one in the middle (below) Google Earth. I deliberately put "better" in inverted commas above, because: what criteria are used to judge that? The MSFS buildings outside of photgrammetry areas (i.e. the largest part of the world) have this brownish tint. The colors in the MSFS picture are generally warmer and thus we humans like that. But is it realistic? Apart from that, in XP we have trains, whereas ... 😉 

 

As more than 2 pictures per post aren't welcome in this forum, I will show further comparisons in separate posts.

Very close to my house. Filling station, cars parking at the side of the road. 

No filling station, no (3D) cars parking at the side of the road.

 

Train station with platform and platform roof. The house a bit left of the center (with the glass front) is in reality a shop. 

No train station, no platform, no roof, no shop building but only a very generic one.

 

Supermarket and shops with parking lot. Cars on the parking lot. McDonalds (in reality there's indeed a McD). 

No supermarket, no shops, no parking lot. No (3D) cars on the parking lot. No McDonalds. Only generic brownish buildings.

 

Kindergarden building. 

No kindergarden building, not even a (brownish 🙂) building.

Market garden with glass houses. Cars on the parking lot. 

No glass houses at all, no cars.

 

I could continue endlessly ...

All in all, the scenery in XP is much more varied with Simheaven.

 

20 hours ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Hi,

Just off of John F. Kennedy in Queens New York. The cookie cutter view just doesn't look good.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mrLlovwmgvw23kHJWNKsVD0gwy1W1kBN/view?usp=sharing

Looks authentic enough to me. The US just loves soulless, cookie cutter suburbian hellscapes.

Edited August 2, 2025Aug 2 by Bjoern

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

I could continue endlessly ...

All in all, the scenery in XP is much more varied with Simheaven.

You’re correct that SimHeaven does a better job with base autogen buildings than MSFS, for the reasons you pointed out. However, MSFS handles tree coverage better due to the way it analyses the ground for tree placement. SimHeaven often misses trees, especially hedgerows in countries like the UK.

That said, as I mentioned in a previous post, XP12 has FAR more life: many more vehicles are visible at greater distances. Trains make a big difference in GA flying, as their movement is often visible before the railway itself is. I’d welcome higher-quality autogen, but not at the expense of the ground-level activity we currently enjoy in XP12.

  

3 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Here comes the resolution/explanation: first picture is indeed XP12 with Simheaven

A pity the XP shots don't have better ortho, because that would go a long way to warming up the screen shots. The ortho used has a very cold look.

 

3 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Apart from that, in XP we have trains, whereas ... 😉

I wouldn't use MSFS in preference to XP for supposedly better autogen, because the loss of life in XP12 would be too much to lose.  

17 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

I could continue endlessly ...

All in all, the scenery in XP is much more varied with Simheaven.

 

I get your point, but MSFS just looks way more realistic to me personally.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but even though Simheaven arguably has more accurately and detailed placed buildings in these shots, the general engine and ambience of MSFS makes it look better, it just seems to blend everything together in a way where the total is better than the sum of it's parts 😆

It's like Austin will need to let go of his binary, accuracy approach and just apply a general graphical brushstroke that just makes things look more lifelike.

I'm not a devloper of course and appreciate this is gibberish, but as a customer and user XP just looks like a generation behind MSFS in those screenshots, more like P3D - cartoonish as someone else said.

But I also appreciate that the value of XP is not in skimming rooftops at 50 feet, whereas MSFS could almost use their engine for a multitude of uses/games beyond flightsimming due to how good it looks at ground level.

From the ground or close to the ground (let's say around 2-4'000ft) I do also think that MSFS-scenery is unbeattable and looks more balanced. That was the only reason for me to purchase 2024, because I wanted to do bush-flying 🙂 If they could add weather effects when passing "dangerous" clouds and improve their camera-system to make it as easy and good as in XP (no limitation when moving around in the cockpit for example), I would use it in future for bush flying

15 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

You’re correct that SimHeaven does a better job with base autogen buildings than MSFS, for the reasons you pointed out. However, MSFS handles tree coverage better due to the way it analyses the ground for tree placement. SimHeaven often misses trees, especially hedgerows in countries like the UK.

Not necessarily - and that's also a known fact that in MSFS 2024 there are too many trees - as Rimshot wrote that above. I have posted some time ago another comparison.

1 hour ago, EGLD said:

I get your point, but MSFS just looks way more realistic to me personally.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but even though Simheaven arguably has more accurately and detailed placed buildings in these shots, the general engine and ambience of MSFS makes it look better, it just seems to blend everything together in a way where the total is better than the sum of it's parts 😆

It's like Austin will need to let go of his binary, accuracy approach and just apply a general graphical brushstroke that just makes things look more lifelike.

I'm not a devloper of course and appreciate this is gibberish, but as a customer and user XP just looks like a generation behind MSFS in those screenshots, more like P3D - cartoonish as someone else said.

But I also appreciate that the value of XP is not in skimming rooftops at 50 feet, whereas MSFS could almost use their engine for a multitude of uses/games beyond flightsimming due to how good it looks at ground level.

Coincidentally I just watched a video (which BTW hadn't anything to do with flight simming, but with AI, social media, influencers, clicks, coverage, etc.) where it was said that the majority of the people isn't interested any more in deep/correct information, science, long texts, sources, ... but fast and easy information, even if it is superficial. You just let yourself be lulled by superficiality. In other words, if something feels good, it will be clicked, regardless of whether it is clickbait and superficial. The main thing is that it brings range (and thus money).
I just like the engineering approach more - that's probably because I am an engineer.

1 hour ago, EGLD said:

but as a customer and user XP just looks like a generation behind MSFS in those screenshots, more like P3D - cartoonish as someone else said.

 

I actually find that the other way around, I find msfs cartoonish, or rather like a big oil painting. I find Xplane sharp. That’s probably not the best way to describe it… 

15 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

A pity the XP shots don't have better ortho, because that would go a long way to warming up the screen shots. The ortho used has a very cold look.

I don't even remember which ortho-provider I chose, for me not the look is the primary factor but, as written above, the correct engineering approach. Apart from that it's possible to change the orthos without much effort, if required.

13 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

... or rather like a big oil painting.

That is somehow well described 😉.

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by flying_carpet

2 hours ago, EGLD said:

I get your point, but MSFS just looks way more realistic to me personally.

Realism can mean different things to different people, whether it’s the weather engine, lighting, atmospheric effects, autogen detail, or dynamic elements like road traffic and trains. For example, in XP12, ground vehicles are more numerous and visible from greater distances, which contributes to a stronger sense of realism in that area.

It’s also worth noting that MSFS often looks more visually striking right out of the box, which can leave a strong first impression. But XP12 tends to reveal its strengths over time — its depth and realism become more apparent the more you use it and explore what it has to offer.

Interestingly, moving from XP12 to MSFS can also highlight some of MSFS’s weaknesses, such as reduced draw distances for both ground and airborne traffic. These differences may not stand out at first, but they become more noticeable when coming from a sim like XP12 that models them more extensively.

3 hours ago, EGLD said:

It's like Austin will need to let go of his binary, accuracy approach and just apply a general graphical brushstroke that just makes things look more lifelike.

MSFS goes for a more stylized visual appeal that feels lifelike at first glance, but XP12’s focus on accuracy brings a different kind of realism. It may not impress immediately, but over time, features like dynamic traffic, longer draw distances, and arguably more realistic weather and atmosphere make it deeply immersive.

 

3 hours ago, EGLD said:

I'm not a devloper of course and appreciate this is gibberish, but as a customer and user XP just looks like a generation behind MSFS in those screenshots, more like P3D - cartoonish as someone else said.

I understand the initial impression from screenshots.  While XP12 might seem less flashy at first glance, its depth and simulation accuracy make it feel more immersive once you spend more time with it. It’s less about a quick visual wow and more about sustained realism.