6 hours ago, Franz007 said:

So I would prefer having more true aviation-fans in XP rather than the millions of users more casual-game-oriented, absolutely.

I want it all, that will gain market share.  You nor I shouldn’t need to ‘prefer’ our options.

8 hours ago, blingthinger said:

comments like these is that they don't actually matter

But I have all the sims, I’m not your average user.  I’d dare suggest most users pick one and only one sim as it’s expensive and time consuming to keep multiple sims updated and working efficiently as possible.  

They matter because more market share = more content providers and more developers adding to the XP world and more revenue for LR allowing them to hire more developers and expand the product … and who knows, maybe make a better Photogrammetry than MSFS.

9 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

And they told you that?????

Yes, just read the threads here and on other forums.  Perhaps not directly or those posts don’t understand how their desires doesn’t improve market share … example:

• I don’t want photogrammetry (even though 70-90% of MSFS user do).
• I don’t want pebbles under the water, ok but what about those that do (Bush flight folks love that).
• It’s for serious enthusiasts.

All of these are market share reducing comments.  

I get that implementation of photogrammetry IS going to be expensive and I’m still hoping LR can find a way to make it affordable … I would happily pay a subscription for a good quality photogrammetry stream of data into XP.  Heck I pay other subscriptions (NaviGraph and real traffic etc.) so I’m more than willing to pay for photogrammetry streamed into XP.  I still feel, that LR can come up with something better, Austin may have to sell a plane or two to afford the resources/investment, but I have confidence they can deliver eventually.

Please keep in mind when folks say they don’t like XYZ in XP12 or would like to see a feature in XP, there is NO NEED to get defensive about it … we’re just expressing our desires that would improve XP for ourselves and a wider audience.  This IS not a bad thing, it’s a good thing.

Edited September 15, 2025Sep 15 by SayAgain

18 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

I’m still hoping LR can find a way to make it affordable

I'm sure they're all ears. What leads to you have? Otherwise they wouldn't be making public statements such as the ones I've linked. LR isn't the one who "make(s) it affordable" and certainly the new scenery engine will open the doors here which you are no doubt aware of, so why the faux concern? Though you also don't seem to care about affordability given:

 

20 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

I’m more than willing to pay for photogrammetry streamed into XP

Congratulations on having plentiful financial resources. You also don't represent the rest of the hobby user base, certainly not at the prices that it would actually cost. Those products are heavily subsidized by microsoft's commercial ventures which makes for a relatively modest one-time price to the flightsim community. 

@SayAgain

I understand what you want. But I sincerely do not want that. I do seriously prefer XP staying exclusively for people with a true passion for aviation over those searching for eye-candies like photogrammetry. This will attract mostly "casual gamers" anyway and most of them will leave after a few weeks anyway (as we can see when looking at the steam numbers of MSFS with user-numbers droping to 1/6th of the numbers at release, after less than 6 months). As long as LR can keep the market alive and allow devs to make good money with their work, I really don't need to have thousands of addons with 5-6 different A320 and 3 or 4x the same airport being modelled and sold as a payware. I have almost all aircrafts I want already covered in XP. Yet I understand that a bit more variety is good. When I was playing MSFS, I tried 3-4 different aircrafts out...well...i sticked with the Fenix and the PMDG 737 at the end. You have to understand that Laminar won't get succesfull just because it copies what MSFS does. One of the reason (not the only one) I abandonned MSFS was because of that nonstop hype and that there was also way too much products/addons being released nonstop. And people still being unhappy. I don't speak for everyon; I speak on behalf of myself alone 🙂

39 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

I want it all, that will gain market share.  You nor I shouldn’t need to ‘prefer’ our options.

clipped

Text wall. I want to address your whole point. 

I get where you’re coming from, and I don’t think anyone is saying photogrammetry, “pebbles under water,” or mass-appeal features are bad. The real distinction is in Austin’s philosophy.  X-Plane has never been about chasing the biggest market share at all costs. His priority, since the very first version, has been physics, flight model accuracy, and long-term stability. That’s why airframers, training orgs, and even professional pilots rely on it.

Photogrammetry looks impressive in screenshots, but it comes with trade-offs: melted buildings, heavy bandwidth demands, inconsistent quality depending on region, and ultimately very little impact on the flying. For Austin, realism in the cockpit and the atmosphere matters more than whether a random rooftop looks perfect when you zoom in at 200 feet AGL.

And here’s the thing.  If broader appeal features are a must, nothing stops 3rd-party developers from filling that gap. In fact, that’s always been X-Plane’s strength.  Laminar focuses on the core flight model and systems, while the ecosystem of 3rd parties builds out whatever niche or mass-market features people want. That way, the simmer who craves photogrammetry-style visuals or casual-friendly additions can still have them, while the pro-training side of XP remains rock-solid.

As for “market share”, Austin himself has said he’s not competing with Microsoft’s wallet. Laminar is a small, tight team by design, and they move faster in the areas they choose to focus on. Streaming scenery could come one day (he’s not blind to the appeal), but X-Plane’s user base isn’t suffering because it lacks a melted-autogen cityscape. In fact, many XP users stick around because Laminar doesn’t turn the sim into a subscription-based streaming service that risks being shut down if the business model changes.

So sure, voice the features you want. That’s always welcome. But just remember, Austin’s goal isn’t to make X-Plane a clone of MSFS. His goal is to build the best flight simulator from an aerodynamics and systems standpoint. That’s why, even if XP never matches MSFS in raw user numbers, it keeps a loyal following of developers, simmers, and professionals who care about how the aircraft fly, not just how the world looks out the window.

Well, X-Plane has supported Photogrammetry for a while now it's just that it's time-consuming to produce. 

After a half year break with X-plane I am hooked again with 12.3 now.

Flew the zibo from VTCC to VTBD and was pleasantly surprised by the improvements in light, clouds, weather and performance. Flying this same route in MSFS looses it on each point when using AutoOrtho. VR has still shimmering trees and buildings but it is way better than a year ago.

I also want to stress that X-plane excels on other items.

- traffic is way better and visible at higher altitutes like in real life. In MSFS one has to fly below 3000 feet and usually wait for it to appear. road traffice is also true in size relative to the other autogen buildings etc. This is not always the case in MSFS where busses or road trucks appear 2 stories high sometimes.

- Still don't know how and why,  but X-plane's world scale strikes me as much more real and plausible than MSFS's.

 

Edited September 15, 2025Sep 15 by avhpilot

Or in other words - we've already had the analogy: why don't Porsche or Ferrari build a Volkswagen Golf or Toyota Corolla? That's what attracts the masses and they could sell so many more cars. And for those who are bothered by the fact that I chose Porsche and Ferrari as examples - let's make it a little easier and “just” take a Toyota MR2 instead. Some people simply have different preferences. Shouldn't be too difficult to understand ... Why do some people prefer pears? I can't understand that ... 🙂, as the majority of the people eat apples (just as an example). Different preferences? Strawberry ice cream, licorice anyone? 🙂. Blue polo shirts, white polo shirts? Airbus, Boeing? Cessna, Piper? Sneaker, patent shoe?

I think everyone understands it - it's just that on a forum, it's almost a universal law that you'll have someone taking up a contrarian position whether they believe what they're saying or not 😂

Market share and profit margin are two different animals.  Microsoft could rake in $10 million per year, and spend $9 million to do so.  On the other hand Laminar could make $2 million on a $1 million budget.  Now who is better off financially.  The answer of course in this example, is they both made $1 million.

 

5 hours ago, GoranM said:

This might interest you.

With a video demo... (It's an old video, but it gives you a guide of what to expect.  They have updated it numerous times throughout the years.)

 

REP is The Bomb!

Not really sure what this thread is about anymore … the video gave MSFS the win.  I posted data that the majority of flight simmers what photogrammetry.  I never suggested XP should be exactly like MSFS … I was pretty clear in suggesting a “better photogrammetry”.

If Austin didn’t care about visuals, then why improve the lighting and weather?

Perhaps a better question … Does Austin want any feedback at all?  Or does he only want selective feedback from specific people?  

I think at the end of the day, I want a better XP.  Is that a “contrarian” position?

 

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

@GoranM, 

thx for your suggestion for REP, because I own that expansion since 2017 but wasn't even aware it was compatible with X-Plane 12.

Will surely give it a try, although I find the default C172 good enough already 🙂

SimCoders keep REP up to date on a seemingly continuous basis. 

IIRC, the various REP’s were compatible with v12 more or less when it first released into the paid Beta 😁👍

IMHO, the Default C172 is too easy to land (in particular). The REP does exactly what it says on the tin, adds a bunch of finesse to the FM, and at only $20 is probably one of the best Bang for the Buck deals available in XP. (THE Best, IMHO, going to the REP for the Default Baron 😎)

In fact, I like the REP upgraded Thranda Kodiak for XP 11 so much that I haven’t even bothered to buy the new one for v12 (as there is no REP for the v12 version ). 

17 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Not really sure what this thread is about anymore … the video gave MSFS the win.  I posted data that the majority of flight simmers what photogrammetry.  I never suggested XP should be exactly like MSFS … I was pretty clear in suggesting a “better photogrammetry”.

If Austin didn’t care about visuals, then why improve the lighting and weather?

Perhaps a better question … Does Austin want any feedback at all?  Or does he only want selective feedback from specific people?  

I think at the end of the day, I want a better XP.  Is that a “contrarian” position?

 

I don’t think anyone here is calling your position “contrarian.” Wanting a better XP is the one thing we all agree on. Where opinions diverge is over what “better” actually means.

Austin absolutely does care about visuals, but his approach is incremental and within the context of flight simulation first. That’s why you’ve seen big pushes in lighting, weather, seasons, trees, and atmospheric effects. They directly impact immersion while flying, not just while sightseeing.

Photogrammetry, on the other hand, is a whole different beast. It’s not just “better visuals”.  It’s a streaming infrastructure, licensing costs, bandwidth demands, and a business model that could fundamentally reshape how XP is sold and supported. That’s not something Laminar can bolt on lightly, or without compromising the very independence that’s kept XP alive through three decades.

And feedback? Austin’s on record as saying he loves feedback, even if he doesn’t always act on it right away. He’s one of the rare leads who actually answers emails directly and shows up to forums, expos, and YouTube channels to explain what he’s doing. He just has to filter feedback through his philosophy…physics and flight realism first, visuals and eye candy in support of that, not as the core product.

Edited September 15, 2025Sep 15 by GoranM

26 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

IMHO, the Default C172 is too easy to land (in particular)

Hmm…I personnally find it more difficult than in real to be honest. Not sure if that is a yoke-setting or simething else 🤷‍♂️

4 hours ago, SayAgain said:

• I don’t want photogrammetry (even though 70-90% of MSFS user do).
• I don’t want pebbles under the water, ok but what about those that do (Bush flight folks love that).
• It’s for serious enthusiasts.

Your putting words into peoples mouths. Show me where anyone said they dont want. But when does the stupidty end. With ants nests and flies. Or wasps making nests on pitot tubes. Most are happy with what they have, and content with whatever they get. Ill just let laminar determine how and when, im no expert.