I would really like to have this video posted in here, and discuss it maturely.  I like Micah's content, as he is very objective, and gives his honest take.  I'm in the middle of watching it, and he's pretty much, objectively right so far with his talking points.

If moderators want to lock or delete, feel free.  

 

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by GoranM

FYI, this got locked earlier so likely to get locked again.

My hope is that this video will motivate Austin to embrace Photogrammetry … just don’t know how he will be able to pay for the servers and data to provide to users.  

On a technical level I know Austin and his development team are more than capable of implementation, just not  sure how they will be able to make Photogrammetry financially viable?

8 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

FYI, this got locked earlier so likely to get locked again.

My hope is that this video will motivate Austin to embrace Photogrammetry … just don’t know how he will be able to pay for the servers and data to provide to users.  

On a technical level I know Austin and his development team are more than capable of implementation, just not  sure how they will be able to make Photogrammetry financially viable?

I noticed.  But it got locked in a forum where things like this can't be discussed due to incredible bias and tribalism.  Many of us here, in the X-Plane forums, KNOW MSFS excels in some things, and not in others.  And we can be objectively fair about it.  

There are commercial developers who have looked into making add ons for MSFS, but can't, due to limitations.  (Yes, they exist, contrary to certain opinions)

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by GoranM

Fair enough, but my opinion is MSFS 2024 visually looks better in every aspect primarily due to streaming Sat imagery and photogrammetry.

The video is about “Visual and Audio” comparison, not about add-ons, flight models, etc.  So staying within that context.

Agree the MSFS 2024 does have limitations, so does XP, but that’s not what the video is about … focus is “Visual and Audio”.

Let's get it started, then.

5 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

but my opinion is MSFS 2024 visually looks better in every aspect primarily due to streaming Sat imagery and photogrammetry.

Disagree.  

For me, lighting is all X-Plane. It’s not even close. Environmental lighting is one of the most critical elements in a flight sim, and I know one of the two people behind X-Plane’s system.  We’ve had long discussions about the work that’s gone into it. MSFS simply falls short.

Scenery is trickier, so let me break it down. Out-of-the-box scenery in MSFS (without streaming) is actually pretty weak.  It’s just basic autogen. With photogrammetry, I won’t deny MSFS has the edge in many respects (though the infamous “molten buildings” are up for debate). But once you factor in AutoOrtho for X-Plane, I’d say X-Plane takes the win. AutoOrtho gives you customizable resolution, and from what I understand, it can even surpass MSFS in clarity. If we’re talking strictly default, MSFS wins that round.

As for audio, I’ll take X-Plane with FMOD.  No question.

Happy to branch into other areas if you want, but if we’re keeping it to those categories, that’s where I stand.

All good, we can disagree ... I've travelled this road many times.  I hope XP13 will bring Photogrammetry (an improved Photogrammetry).  Also like to see XP13 be on the bleeding edge of hardware leverage so that top tier CPUs with lots of cores and GPUs (more than one) are fully utilized.

One (of a few) things I don't like about MSFS 2024 is that UI (user interface) clearly compromises itself for XBOX users  ... no dropdown and select combo box ... instead we have to cycle thru every single option to get to the one we want (horrible UI and clearly design for XBOX users that don't have a mouse or keyboard).

An issue I have with XP/Austin wasting time on multi-platform and compromising limited resources that could be put to better use.  Focus on the OS where the most flight simmers exist (aka Windows DX12 Ultimate).  The GitHub open source for DX12 Ultimate is several orders of magnitude larger than OGL/Vulcan/Metal ... as are drivers and graphics development tools provided by nVidia and AMD and Intel.

4 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

All good, we can disagree

This is where the X-Plane forums and the MSFS forums vastly differ.  We can actually have conversations here without arguing over something as trivial as the color of the pebbles under the ocean.

5 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

I hope XP13 will bring Photogrammetry (an improved Photogrammetry).  Also like to see XP13 be on the bleeding edge of hardware leverage so that top tier CPUs with lots of cores and GPUs (more than one) are fully utilized.

I haven't gotten wind of anything to do with 13, but I do know that Laminar always use the current version of X-Plane as a test bed for some things for the next generation of X-Plane.  Example:  X-Plane 11 was the test bed for Vulkan and Metal.  Anyway, with scenery, I don't expect photogrammetry to be included any time soon (Unless Laminar strikes some deal with Google).  MSFS has the grip on that due to the scenery tiles being owned by its parent company.  So...costs would be basically zero for MSFS.  That's why Auto ortho is the way it is.  It uses Google scenery tiles, but doesn't generate a profit.  I know what's going on with the next gen scenery in X-Plane, but NDA's are in place.  

10 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

One (of a few) things I don't like about MSFS 2024 is that UI (user interface) clearly compromises itself for XBOX users  ... no dropdown and select combo box ... instead we have to cycle thru every single option to get to the one we want (horrible UI and clearly design for XBOX users that don't have a mouse or keyboard).

I've hated it ever since 2020.  Too gamified.  I can understand that Asobo want to appeal to the masses, but Austin will never go THAT far with the UI.

12 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

An issue I have with XP/Austin wasting time on multi-platform and compromising limited resources that could be put to better use.  Focus on the OS where the most flight simmers exist (aka Windows DX12 Ultimate).  The GitHub open source for DX12 Ultimate is several orders of magnitude larger than OGL/Vulcan/Metal ... as are drivers and graphics development tools provided by nVidia and AMD and Intel.

Austin has made it no secret that he is an Apple fan all the way.  He hates Windows.  Always has.  In saying that, allocating resources is a touchy subject.  Austin has always said he'll take suggestions from people, but he needs to see the data to back them up.  He gets emails every day from people with suggestions on fixes, and if there's nothing to back them up, he simply deletes them.

Also, the Laminar team have a direct line to nvidia and AMD.  Ben Supnik has lost his patience with AMD on several occasions with their bug riddled drivers.  With regard to things of that nature, I just let Laminar do their thing.

 

We all want X-Plane to be a great simulator, which is why there's an open line to Austin ([email protected]) available for suggestions and fixes.  

Photogrammetry in MFS still has a long way to go. I don't think it's a strong point worth highlighting. Global coverage is ridiculously small, and while it's true that it works spectacularly well in most places, it's actually quite faulty, especially in 2024, which is much worse than the photogrammetry in 2020. Many of us have it disabled because it worsens our flight experience.

 

 

I actually dont understand what the big deal is, Unless you are flying GA at 200FT, it really doesnt matter, and i very rarely care to look. Just cant understand all the arguing and contention. If you like the other way, go for it. I have seeing some videos of the other and colors look blagggh.

Edited September 13, 2025Sep 13 by mjrhealth

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

I hope XP13 will bring Photogrammetry

XP11 already had this capability. 12 does as well. I'm not sure when that capability was introduced. I suppose it would be the current .obj methodology? I believe that's before v9 even. It's obviously not streaming in from a network source but that data can be  manually compiled together and injected as a scenery object.

LR has set the record straight many times that they won't be offering or controlling any network-based ortho texture or photogrammetry servers. Here's one recent example: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/674423-map-enhancement-or-ortho4xp/page/3/#findComment-5509097

The next gen scenery engine will change much of how that data is injected into the sim. It's a forgone conclusion that there will be notable performance and delivery mechanism changes arriving along with it: multi core rendering and I'd wager the option for 3rd party network streaming, respectively. There's lots of questions wrapped up in the latter.

 

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

The GitHub open source for DX12 Ultimate is several orders of magnitude larger than OGL/Vulcan/Metal ... as are drivers and graphics development tools provided by nVidia and AMD and Intel.

And yet both APIs trade blows when it comes to performance. They are actually very similar capability-wise with the exception that DX12 is entirely closed source. Vulkan held open the door for the mobile market too. That's been very lucrative in the past. Very worth the effort that went into those conversions and they aren't slowing down there either.

4 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Vulkan held open the door for the mobile market too. That's been very lucrative in the past. Very worth the effort that went into those conversions and they aren't slowing down there either.

Fun fact:  X-Plane mobile financed X-Plane 10.  There were question marks over X-Plane's future as a viable commercial sim during X-Plane 9's run.  Someone on Austin's staff had the idea of a mobile version.  Austin tried it out.  The rest is history.

2 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

La verdad es que no entiendo por qué tanto alboroto. A menos que vueles en avión general a 200 pies, da igual, y casi nunca me preocupo por mirar. Simplemente no entiendo todas las discusiones y disputas. Si te gusta la otra opción, adelante. He visto algunos videos de la otra y los colores se ven blaa ...

That is the key, except for virtual tourism, bush flying, or flying helicopters at altitudes above three thousand feet, photogrammetry ceases to be useful in a flight simulator.

I have insisted that MFS has many virtues, but photogrammetry is not one of them: very limited coverage and very poorly implemented in most cases.

 

Excellent video, which I couldn't watch entirely , latter today I will.

Thank you so much for sharing, and I really don't think this thread should be locked!!! It's perfectly valid and important to talk, in a positive way, about both pros and cons in both sims, just as the video author does so well !!!

Why do so many comparison videos default to stock XP scenery? Doing so gives the misleading impression that X-Plane is graphically inferior, when in fact it only takes a few widely available enhancements to achieve visuals on par with, and in many cases superior to, MSFS. This creates an unnecessary barrier for MSFS users who assume XP “looks bad” based only on default footage.

From my perspective, Laminar would be better served by continuing to refine the autogen system rather than adopting photogrammetry. Photogrammetry in MSFS can look excellent in some areas but is inconsistent and often poor elsewhere. Autogen, when varied in type, footprint, colour and placed accurately using regional data, provides more consistent visual quality worldwide. It also scales better with rendering performance and avoids many of the immersion-breaking artifacts photogrammetry can introduce.