Daube

I hope you are right. I really enjoyed flying the Bell-412 in VR over that area. The small hospital heliport in Darrington Mun. was my favorite starting location 🙂 However in XP11 I always had to fly with clear skies, since clouds would create flickering shadows on ground... Hopefully the new cloud tech in XP12 will prevent that.

In any case we should be able to check by ourselves once the demo version becomes available.

I bought the OrbX True Earth PNW for XPlane 11 when it was released, and that scenery was already looking quite good in XPlane 11. I would really love to see how it would look like in XPlane 12 with the new clouds, autogen and lighting. But I'm not sure OrbX will be willing to update such products to full XP12 compatibility for free... I might be pessimistic here, I know...

Not being a native speaker, I'm wondering if the sentence "- Few preliminary changes for an upcoming P3D version" couldn't just mean "an upcoming P3D version of that tool/product" ? Sorry if this was discussed already, I might have read the 4 previous pages a bit fast...

Thanks for explaining, I have edited my previous message 🙂

If my understanding is correct, you can summarize a comparison between these two as follows: - both will modify the aspect of the trees, including their size and colors, in accordance with the season and the geographic location - REX has a program that can update the trees automatically, while Bijan's product requires a manual file (folder?) transfer. EDIT: Bijan's also has an automation program now, thanks for the notification 🙂 - Bijan's seasons will also bring some additional kind of trees, with 3D models - Bijan's seasons will also alter the rendering ground textures (terrain masks or something like that) in order to avoir pure green fields in full summer or full winter, for example.

I have the same problem. Yesterday I did a short flight from Sitka to Juneau, and the ground textures were quite disappointing, just like the mountain mesh. Additionally, there were large patches of generic textures (which means the ground textures originally had clouds on them). And of course, from Juneau to the north/west, everything was still under snow, including the sea water surface...

Wow yes it does indeed. Quite impressive in fact !

Ah ok you switched to XP10... well, that was a good move I think, since P3D wasn't really worth the migration effort before the v3 at least... (I wanted to write v4 because of the 64 bits transition, but I didn't want to look down the effort made in v3 for the performance and the lighting system). That being said, you haven't replied to the other question 😕

That's interesting, I still have FSX in my Steam library so it might be a good opportunity to reinstall it. (EDIT: now that read again, you didn't mention P3D... is there something wrong in P3Dv4 or v5 compared to FSX?). Can you elaborate on which "basics" it had pinned down that MSFS or XPlane doesn't ? It's been a while since I last used that sim, but as far as I remember, the flight model was lacking acceptable ground contacts, navaids were not 3D objects, and there was no native support for things like SID and STARS. From a pure flight model perspective, the lookup tables were very good to get accurate performances/numbers, but for helicopters it was quite a different story (especially comparing to XPlane...).

Only 6 months left of budget ? Why is that so ? And concerning the navaids, while the lack of 3D building is a fact, I'm not sure we can really draw any conclusion out of this. Isn't the lack of precise OSM-based autogen in XP11 a similar problem, after all ? Without addons like XEurope, the amount of VFR POIs is quite low as well: missing villages, missing roads, and much more. Aren't these just as important as 3D antennas for VORs ?

So MSFS is not a serious simulator because the VOR antennas are not in 3D ? Then, when an addon appears adding 3D antennas for VORs everywhere in the world, it will be a serious sim ?

I suppose the point of your message is to tell people that without a 3D object for the VOR antennas, it's impossible to find it on the ground and then you will get lost ? I understand some VORs might be harder to spot than others, yes. OBR seems to be a good example, as it doesn't stand out as much as VAL does. But are you supposed to perform such a navigation exercise without tunning the VOR frequencies in your instruments ? Finally, I also searched for the R44 for MSFS on google and the first result is from flightsim.to. If your first result was a pirate site, there's something wrong in your computer or your browser history 😄

You raised the doubt pretty nicely: Asobo has already demonstrated many times they often tend to focus on content instead of features (or fixes...). I don't want to be too harsh with them, but sometimes I wish I could tell them "will you focus on these word not allowed things instead of these useless ones... !!??" or something like that 😄 We're fortunate to have such a prolific addon community, really.

Hmm, I see what you mean. I don't remember very well but I think somebody did something like that for Japan, right ? I would not underestimate how important these are, though. Photogrammetry is not available everywhere in the world for the moment, so it's quite nice, when flying VFR, to be able to enjoy a plausible world anywhere. For example, I did some flights in middle east countries (Afghanistan and such) and I was pleasantly surprised at the result in MSFS by default. The autogen houses/buildings were not european style, and the general colors were in accordance with the rest of the scenery. Of course VFR obstacles and point of interests are critical. But I feel like it's much easier to add missing VOR antennas than adding realistic local autogen.