1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

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.

I see your point that the look isn’t the primary factor and that engineering accuracy is what really matters. But if the visuals don’t catch people’s attention initially, they might skip over the product and never get to experience the deeper realism and solid engineering behind it.

4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

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.

how incredibly arrogant 😆

another for the blocklist

1 hour ago, EGLD said:

how incredibly arrogant 😆

???
Do you feel like you've been caught out somehow? What I wrote didn't come from me, but was thematised in the video. Many people react most to emotions and clickbait (as you can see also here on avsim, isn't it?) - and they don't even realise it. Perhaps you are even a victim of this yourself? 🤷‍♂️ Are you trying to deny that they only move around in their echo chambers and no longer question things? So be it.
After all, I have made numerous scrutineering videos on the subject of flight simulation (myself) and don't just regurgitate empty words that others say.

 

1 hour ago, EGLD said:

another for the blocklist

So be it 🤷‍♂️.

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by flying_carpet

On 8/2/2025 at 10:58 AM, flying_carpet said:

Diplomatic response 😉.

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 ... 😉 

 

 

 

 

This photo marked Google Earth. is that XP?

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I see your point that the look isn’t the primary factor and that engineering accuracy is what really matters. But if the visuals don’t catch people’s attention initially, they might skip over the product and never get to experience the deeper realism and solid engineering behind it.

But that is also in the nature of things. An in-depth scientific/technical text is simply more difficult to read than, say, the yellow press with colorful pictures. If I have the choice of either/or, then the decision is clear. If I can have both together - why not? 😉 

5 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

This photo marked Google Earth. is that XP?

No, the photo marked Google Earth is ... (for good reasons) Google Earth 😁.

18 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

No, the photo marked Google Earth is ... (for good reasons) Google Earth 😁.

Yeah, misread that that, thought it was the Map Enhancement with Google Map.

40 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Yeah, misread that that, thought it was the Map Enhancement with Google Map.

You're showing up in these forums more often.  Better be careful, Bob.  The other side might think you'll be switching to betamax.

😜

6 minutes ago, GoranM said:

You're showing up in these forums more often.  Better be careful, Bob.  The other side might think you'll be switching to betamax.

😜

Wasn't it VHS tapes (instead of betamax)? But these are only minor details ... 😁

It all comes down to Suspension of DISbelief rather than "realism." And it's quite a subjective standard...

The only time I care about stuff like whether a kindergarten or McDonald's or train station is modeled is if I happen to be rotorwinging around an area I personally know well enough to realize it. But at that point, all the rest of the stuff is so INaccurate that it doesn't even matter to me.

Things that bother the heck out of me is like running a MedEvac to a local hospital and having it be represented as a 30-story office tower rather than as a 5 story building. And then looking around the rest of the downtown area and seeing the exact same office towers just with different total heights.

And not being able to get enough performance out of XP to run with World Objects set to High only exacerbates the issue.

I guess it's fine if you mainly fly airliners, or if your primary goal is cockpit switchology and a very good flight model.

But if I can't fly around a major US metropolitan area and have accurate building types (and by "accurate", I mean "is the County hospital with a helipad that's been there for the last 40 years actually there...?), and if I fly over an area of the city that's entirely industrialized but X-Plane shows it looking exactly like an empty cow pasture (with the cow trails and all...), I mean, c'mon guys...who are we trying to fool...?

 

34 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

The only time I care about stuff like whether a kindergarten or McDonald's or train station is modeled

"Totally get that, but for GA flying, being able to visually spot a station can actually be really valuable. It helps with VFR navigation and adds an extra layer of realism and orientation when flying low and slow.

36 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

But at that point, all the rest of the stuff is so INaccurate that it doesn't even matter to me.

Out of curiosity, do you use SimHeaven? The vehicle and building footprints are actually pretty accurate — they even pull from MSFS data, so stations and other landmarks line up really well for VFR.

39 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

But if I can't fly around a major US metropolitan area and have accurate building types (and by "accurate", I mean "is the County hospital with a helipad that's been there for the last 40 years actually there...?), and if I fly over an area of the city that's entirely industrialized but X-Plane shows it looking exactly like an empty cow pasture (with the cow trails and all...), I mean, c'mon guys...who are we trying to fool...?

It sounds like you are just describing default XP scenery, which is not ideal for the reasons you describe. For more accuracy SimHeaven will do nicely until Laminar stun us with the next scenery update 

 

2 hours ago, uwespeed said:

Wasn't it VHS tapes (instead of betamax)? But these are only minor details ... 😁

Betamax was arguably better quality, but VHS won out in the end.

3 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Betamax was arguably better quality, but VHS won out in the end.

I was actually referring to the fact that Bobsk8 usually wrote kind of 'XP looks like VHS tapes' and not 'XP looks like betamax tapes'.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

The only time I care about stuff like whether a kindergarten or McDonald's or train station is modeled

"Totally get that, but for GA flying, being able to visually spot a station can actually be really valuable. It helps with VFR navigation and adds an extra layer of realism and orientation when flying low and slow.

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

But at that point, all the rest of the stuff is so INaccurate that it doesn't even matter to me.

Out of curiosity, do you use SimHeaven? The vehicle and building footprints are actually pretty accurate — they even pull from MSFS data, so stations and other landmarks line up really well for VFR.

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

But if I can't fly around a major US metropolitan area and have accurate building types (and by "accurate", I mean "is the County hospital with a helipad that's been there for the last 40 years actually there...?), and if I fly over an area of the city that's entirely industrialized but X-Plane shows it looking exactly like an empty cow pasture (with the cow trails and all...), I mean, c'mon guys...who are we trying to fool...?

It sounds like you are just describing default XP scenery, which is not ideal for the reasons you describe. For more accuracy SimHeaven will do nicely until Laminar stun us with the next scenery update 

I'm perfectly capable of VFR'ing around in plain vanilla XP with zero addons. Everything that's needed to get from one place to another is there, with the exception of obstacles like radio towers and windmills, etc.

I do use SimHeaven, and in some places it helps, but some places it hurts. E.g., the downtown office buildings are too generic & repetitive. I actually like the Default XP office buildings far better as there is much more variety.

There's also quite a bit of spillover in terms of continental building style - lot's of EU-looking buildings, and/or apartments where office buildings should be. Or vice versa. Hopefully Mr X, with his experience in his past Global scenery, will help with this in the near-ish future.

At least the County Hospital appears with SimHeaven instead of a single family home with a couple of trees. But it's a generic apartment building and there's no HeliPad at all. And again, this is within 3-4-ish miles of a major international airport and US state capital.

When you combine it with a set of decent ortho photos, it's fine-ish for fixed wing corporate/commercial flights.

If I'm flying over an Orbx TrueEarth Scenery, esp one that's been re-worked for XP12 like the 3 Great Britains, then i'm in a very good place regardless of aircraft or type of flight.

But as shocked as I find myself to say it, for VFR helicopter flights, the best experience at the moment by far is something like Taog's OH-6/H500 over MSFS v2024.

6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

At least the County Hospital appears with SimHeaven instead of a single family home with a couple of trees. But it's a generic apartment building and there's no HeliPad at all. And again, this is within 3-4-ish miles of a major international airport and US state capital.

It´s a job that takes an afternoon to create a nice rendition of your local hospital in WED, then you can also upload it to the Scenery Gateway and have it appear for everyone in X-Plane. 

There are literally thousands of such hospitals (and other helicopter landing sites) already fleshed out like that in X-Plane. Granted, they don´t sport the name of the hospital on the front of the building and the buildings and pads are generic, but they are often a fairly accurate representation of the actual buildings and settings. 

Here is one example:

https://gateway.x-plane.com/airports/AZ24/show

Edited August 4, 2025Aug 4 by Litjan