3 hours ago, blingthinger said:

"At this time, Lockheed Martin is selling Prepar3D Fuse as part of Lockheed Martin integrated simulators and simulation applications and with select strategic partners. Customers should contact their POC through their program’s standard sustainment channels for support in using Prepar3D Fuse."

https://www.prepar3d.com/fuse/fuse_faq/#is-prepar3d-fuse-supported-via-the-prepar3d-forums

That's not smelling like consumer market competition. Nor did their YT video make a jaw drop.

Correct - Fuse is not at all aimed at consumers, nor would it sell well even if it were (there’s only 3% of the worlds airports present, and it seems as if they’re all military).

the point at bringing it into this conversation is that visual fidelity matters, even for Big Boy Real World training. 

the good news is that LR have long accepted this (Exhibit One being the stunning First Principal visuals of XP 12.3 👍).

So, the scenery luddites will also have to get on board and realize that XP can’t stick with its current scenery and remain commercially viable for the consumer market. 

LR is packed with smart people - we just need to see what they come up with that isn’t photoreal AND is on par with today’s entertainment standards. 

the progress so far is promising 🤙

Edited December 9, 2025Dec 9 by UrgentSiesta

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

can’t stick with its current scenery and remain commercially viable

DCS disagrees!

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

scenery luddites will also have to get on board

We have a say? I didn't know I have that much leverage on what LR does in the future.

I remember when 10 broke the flight sim mold by using OSM for the streets instead of 100% RNG-placed roads/buildings. It was amazing. It will be interesting to see how their "plausible" ground clutter and building "busyness" looks in the future. If that even makes an appearance in the default scenery.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

DCS disagrees!

Putting aside fundamental business model differences (e.g., DCSW is 100% free), the newer maps are much closer to MSFS quality than XP quality. E.g., I enjoy pure free flight in most DCS maps. Whereas the same can’t be said for XP Default. 

But yours is really just another catty apples-oranges comparo….

hey, since it works so well for ED in DCS, perhaps LR should get into the TrueEarth addon biz, too…?

But seriously, ive long been a supporter of an LR MarketPlace, where a significant portion of my ongoing XP addon purchases will help fund the sim itself. That way I can give Laminar more money than $12-ish a year. 

and if they do come out with First Party content like regional scenery enhancements or other stuff, I’d be happy to buy the ones that are right for me. 
 

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

We have a say? I didn't know I have that much leverage on what LR does in the future.

We’re the customers, and LR is run and staffed by smart business people.

I’m positive they pay attention to our desires and other market pressures (again, Exhibit 1 being the excellent v12.3).

whatever’s coming will be good and maybe great. But it’s not going to be what many folks are expecting. 🤙

 

3 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

catty apples-oranges

Silly you. Hardly apples-oranges. Their ground clutter is about the same as XP. Always has been. Placement is more accurate in DCS, yes, but simheaven addresses that just fine. The reality is that you keep ramming that poor ortho bee up your bonnet. DCS is a wildly popular sim that gives very very little attention to ground scenery other than ortho textures. Or in other words, there will always be a market for XP even if it continued as is, just like DCS.

 

6 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

We’re the customers

Over your head there, my bad...I'm your luddite. "get on board" is rather...silly. Again.

Your "luddites" don't have a choice. The loud majority spoke loudly and that's where LR is headed. What makes your "luddite" label funny is that I don't see anyone screaming about that resource allocation. Rather, I hear folks saying 'meh current default is just fine in my view' when someone like you starts making the repeated stink about the native ortho that will never be. I use ortho all the time and somehow that makes me a luddite in your eyes. Silly feline.

2 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Silly you. Hardly apples-oranges. Their ground clutter is about the same as XP. Always has been. Placement is more accurate in DCS, yes, but simheaven addresses that just fine. The reality is that you keep ramming that poor ortho bee up your bonnet. DCS is a wildly popular sim that gives very very little attention to ground scenery other than ortho textures. Or in other words, there will always be a market for XP even if it continued as is, just like DCS.

 

Over your head there, my bad...I'm your luddite. "get on board" is rather...silly. Again.

Your "luddites" don't have a choice. The loud majority spoke loudly and that's where LR is headed. What makes your "luddite" label funny is that I don't see anyone screaming about that resource allocation. Rather, I hear folks saying 'meh current default is just fine in my view' when someone like you starts making the repeated stink about the native ortho that will never be. I use ortho all the time and somehow that makes me a luddite in your eyes. Silly feline.

Do you honestly believe that if Austin just jammed the FM and physics improvements into XP 11 and called it good that XP would be growing like it is…? 🤣

“The reality is that you keep ramming that poor ortho bee up your bonnet.”

Silly me - I thought XP was a Simulator. Yknow - like “reality”…?

Orthos are rather as close as we can simulate reality as they are literally image based facsimiles thereof.

again, since visual fidelity is an important part of simulation even for Big Boy IRL commercial training, then it’s important for XP to (continue) advancing in that realm, as well.

“DCS is a wildly popular sim that gives very very little attention to ground scenery other than ortho textures. Or in other words, there will always be a market for XP even if it continued as is, just like DCS.”

you’re obviously not current on the DCSW state of the art. It’s come a long, long way in a few short years. 
and if ED hadn’t have invested as heavily as they have in terrain dev, they’d be rapidly falling behind. Same would happen to XP if LR left us with XP 11s dreary visuals.

same thing with LM Fuse, Metrea NOR, ED MCS, et al.

Case in point has been the death of Prepar3D in the consumer market - took less than a year after the MSFS launch.

and what’s the very next thing Lockheed Martin launches? That’s right: Fuse. Which is highly focused on visual fidelity  

heck, even sim-lite games like VTOL VR and War Thunder understand the inherent value of constantly improving realistic visuals.

its almost like you might be out of touch with what’s actually important to business…? 😂

“Your "luddites" don't have a choice. The loud majority spoke loudly and that's where LR is headed.”

Yep - see above. We have the money, so Austin listens to us.
The brilliant thing is that he’s delivering BOTH simulation fidelity AND visual fidelity. Smart guy. 👍

“someone like you starts making the repeated stink about the native ortho that will never be.”

It’s obviously a “few” more customers than just me, because it seems like they’re burning the midnight oil to come up with something as good as ortho without all the costs. Because “as good as” is going to be pretty much what it takes to grow the customer base. 

even Lockheed Martin, who demonstrably don’t care about their consumer customers, have gotten on board the visuals train. 

so yeah, anyone like you who says scenery fidelity doesn’t matter is indeed an out of touch Luddite. 😎
 

Edited December 9, 2025Dec 9 by UrgentSiesta

3 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Rather, I hear folks saying 'meh current default is just fine in my view

Speaking personally, I only begrudgingly say the default ground scenery is “fine” because Laminar have delivered some genuinely impressive features elsewhere. XP12’s lighting, weather, and flight modelling are strong enough that they make the weaker ground scenery much easier to overlook. Without those atmospheric and aerodynamic improvements, I don’t think XP12 would hold my interest as much as it does today.

Coming from MSFS 2024, it was an adjustment to accept XP’s ground scenery, but the overall atmosphere and flight feel in XP12 still draw me in. And now, with Sim Update 4 bringing improvements to MSFS’s 2024 night lighting, traditionally one of XP12’s standout qualities, the comparison is tightening.

I’m not suggesting I’m thinking of stepping away from XP12; it continues to offer a flight experience I really value. But if MSFS keeps advancing its atmosphere and flight modelling to approach what XP12 already does well, and Laminar don’t move forward with ground scenery enhancements, it’s reasonable to wonder how the average simmer will weigh the two platforms. XP12 has clear strengths, but it just needs to shore up the areas where it’s at a disadvantage.

 

Edited December 10, 2025Dec 10 by MrBitstFlyer

39 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

begrudgingly say the default ground scenery is “fine”

Well howdy doody. You've landed on "fine". A couple months ago I could swear you were using words that alluded to a physiological revulsion.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

comparison is tightening

*Chuckle*... yeah I'm sure it is. As if free-and-easy ortho and photogrammetry had somehow made the sales revenue race a close one...

 

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

DCSW state of the art

Still looks like XP's autogen. Nearly zero ground clutter. Just cubes plopped on an ortho tile. And there's still an appetite for what it offers otherwise. Same story with XP. It's nice that you distinguish 11 from 12 here. I've heard folks claim that the scenery engine looks the same. They're generally untrained eyes though. And even in light of that comparison, xp12 has blown doors off past sales records.

So just to be clear here: you 100% don't count yourself as one of the aesthetic luddites? Correct? Just want to make sure I'm understanding your words accurately.

 

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

because it seems like they’re burning the midnight oil

Do tell! Whom have you been stalking and what have you observed??

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Well howdy doody. You've landed on "fine". A couple months ago I could swear you were using words that alluded to a physiological revulsion.

*Chuckle*... yeah I'm sure it is. As if free-and-easy ortho and photogrammetry had somehow made the sales revenue race a close one...

 

Still looks like XP's autogen. Nearly zero ground clutter. Just cubes plopped on an ortho tile. And there's still an appetite for what it offers otherwise. Same story with XP. It's nice that you distinguish 11 from 12 here. I've heard folks claim that the scenery engine looks the same. They're generally untrained eyes though. And even in light of that comparison, xp12 has blown doors off past sales records.

So just to be clear here: you 100% don't count yourself as one of the aesthetic luddites? Correct? Just want to make sure I'm understanding your words accurately.

 

Do tell! Whom have you been stalking and what have you observed??

Weak sauce, bro. Sad that you’ve gassed out this early. 🤣

XP is gonna continue to get better and all the smart folks who fly it will continue to enjoy it. 🤙

Edited December 10, 2025Dec 10 by UrgentSiesta

6 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

gassed out

How to confess that you're actually an instigator.... Or do you have more words that still need to come out?

8 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Orthos are rather as close as we can simulate reality as they are literally image based facsimiles thereof.

Yes, despite their limitations such as fixed seasons and baked-in shadows, I still think orthos combined with autogen are the best we currently have. While they can look rough at ground level, the scenery becomes quite convincing from a thousand feet up, especially with good lighting.

The long-standing drawback of ortho imagery is that it’s not truly orthographic, building and bridge roofs are often displaced from their actual positions, and large shadows are permanently baked into mountainous terrain. You can suspend disbelief to a point, but the issues can become obvious, e.g., a mountainside covered with trees while the underlying ortho shows the ground completely black due to a shadow stands out like a sore thumb.

 

23 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Yes, despite their limitations such as fixed seasons and baked-in shadows, I still think orthos combined with autogen are the best we currently have. While they can look rough at ground level, the scenery becomes quite convincing from a thousand feet up, especially with good lighting.

The long-standing drawback of ortho imagery is that it’s not truly orthographic, building and bridge roofs are often displaced from their actual positions, and large shadows are permanently baked into mountainous terrain. You can suspend disbelief to a point, but the issues can become obvious, e.g., a mountainside covered with trees while the underlying ortho shows the ground completely black due to a shadow stands out like a sore thumb.

 

Thx for the explanation Tony.

I guess OpenAI did the massage of orthos for MSFS, trying to cope with those limitations and not only creating closer to reality rendering of buildings / roofs / gardens / roads... but also elimibnating as far as possible shadow effects.

That's why MSFS scenery looks so amazing, at least for my liking...

4 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

XP is gonna continue to get better and all the smart folks who fly it will continue to enjoy it.

I think you have found out by now why the individual you are arguing with is on my ignore list...and when I can read his replies when other people cite him, my decision is validated again and again 😆.

There is no argument at all at Laminar Research and not a single person working for LR believes that the current scenery is "good enough to keep X-Plane economically viable". So rest assured that the "next gen scenery" is pursued with everyone at LR fully committed to it.

There can be an argument "if the old scenery is good enough to enjoy X-Plane 12 today" - you will find a lot of people easily (myself included) that say "Yes, for me it is fine, I fly with default scenery and I do not miss anything". But even most of those (except for those who fear that their Pentium 4 will not run a better scenery) will not oppose the drive towards better scenery.

17 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

the point at bringing it into this conversation is that visual fidelity matters, even for Big Boy Real World training. 

 

Kinda. But also not and a lot.

https://benchmark.unigine.com/valley

I think the remaining issues are simply far more practical.

"The best that can be achieved" right now has a minimum system requirement of dual RTX5090s, Linux exclusive, obviously that isn't commercially viable for any market.

Most of what is left to complain about in xplane dates back to compromises made for XPlane 10 prior to its release in 2014 that hasnt yet been overhauled (not least dsf and ortho photo support). The fact that they still stand up today in any way is nothing short of astounding.

LR is tight lipped only because no one is sure what compromises will need to be made now they are being overhauled, and over promise and under deliver isn't their style. They mostly let their work speak for itself.

 

Edited December 10, 2025Dec 10 by mSparks

I’m just three months into XPlane12 now from primarily using P3DV5.4. I ventured over because I wanted the most realistic flight model available and have been delighted with everything else this platform offers in spite of underwhelming default ground scenery. I determined to keep performance outstanding by not burdening down with loads of scenery addons but just to buy interesting study level aircraft. A couple days ago I was landing my new Tollis A321 on runway 4 at KLGA at dusk and my jaw dropped at the beauty and realism of everything from the NYC ground scenery to the sky textures. And the quality and detail of default airports impresses me with a can this be true notion. 
So to me , sure better world scenery would be welcome but if not I’m still well pleased and plan on expanding my hanger in XPlane 12 in the months ahead. So as far as streaming or anything else that might effect performance or break addon aircraft I’m not so enthusiastic for. Can always use the MS sims if I have a yen for that. 
To me simming is about airplane flying and that’s where XP seems to shine.

4 hours ago, Litjan said:

I think you have found out by now why the individual you are arguing with is on my ignore list

@UrgentSiesta You should follow his example. You seem to consistently misinterpret my comments and blow them out of proportion just as he does internally (and hilariously sees the need to publicly announce his decision which is a behavior I last saw in elementary school).

All I said earlier was effectively that DCS scenery is still rather similar in appearance to current xp12. And it is. Look at any YT video out there now for their upcoming Balkan map. They have grass now at airports? yay. Downtown cities are still literally cubes on ortho tiles. Oh they have air-conditioners on the roofs now? yay. Hardly signs of a scenery engine overhaul. And who knows...maybe they don't even need to overhaul it. Maybe they're simply under-utilizing it.

I never once suggested that LR shouldn't overhaul theirs. In fact, I stated rather the opposite: that nobody is screaming that LR is wasting their resources. Yet you somehow saw fit to dump a wall of luddite accusations. So bizarre. In the past you scream about native ortho and I merely quote LR responses to that demand and you respond with luddite accusations. So bizarre.