Jump to content

tonywob

Moderator
  • Content Count

    4,309
  • Donations

    $100.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,985 Excellent

6 Followers

About tonywob

  • Rank
    Member - 3,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    EPZG

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

8,879 profile views
  1. A non-story.... he read somewhere on X-Plane.org about them getting aerial imagery from ESRI into WED. Such as Janov pointed out, it's low quality and not really suitable to be used in the sim. It's amazing how rumours can start from small misunderstandings 🙂
  2. I'm not sure how to take this topic, but it seems a bit "stuck-up" to me... If all Microsoft did was target current hardcore simmers then they probably wouldn't even break even on the costs of the simulator.. Call it what you will, but the sim is also a game and they want to attract as many people as possible. This also means making the game accessible to newcomers and also fun and enjoyable. The majority of these new-comers will likely be gamers who may only use it for a few days and move on to something else more shiny, but some may stick around and even get deep in to the hobby. We all started out like this at some point...so please stop with the elitist attitude.. For testing, it's just as important that anyone can use it, fly around, use multiplayer and not having great difficulties using the sim. I'm sure this is the aim of inviting a large and broad range of users. If people comment that they can't even get a plane started, then that's a problem. Newcomers won't want to study books just to get a plane started, they want to fly around over their own house etc. This should peak interest in enough people that they'll turn in to aviation-geeks, others will just move on. Reading many of the comments in this thread is enough to scare anyone off, the sim is meant for everyone, not just old-timers like is 🙂
  3. He could be talking about the deal that they got in WED to use imagery there as a base layer? It was a few months ago when WED got an imagery layer.
  4. Indeed, this one is real mystery to me 🙂
  5. The store will be full off products on release day by the lucky ones... this is pretty much a given 🙂 You had me excited there until I saw the wink 🙂
  6. It's pretty silly to compare the sims on many of these factors at this point... mainly because X-Plane 11 is a few years old and is well established and MFS isn't even out yet. Actually, I see that the majority of people outside of the hardcore simmer community care far more about visual eyecandy and how things look as opposed to how well the flap retraction is animated, taxiway numbers or if the stall speeds are correct. The few who do care about these things are often the most vocal on these forums, but pale in minority to the eye-candy (fly inverted under the Golden Gate bridge) crowd. This is likely why these things are given far more weight on most of the reviews we see on Youtube. As a game, the simple truth is that visually, side-by-side, MFS knocks the socks off X-Plane, and this is all that gamers and general majority will actually care about and likely where third-parties and MS will make most of their money from. What do you think the first thing people will be doing when they get the new sim? Likely flying over their home town 🙂 Time will tell in regards to the flight model, but I suspect the one in MFS is more than good enough for most users, and sooner or later there will be PMDG, A2A etc to cater for those who want more. When the NDA is lifted, we can all talk about this and compare.
  7. Almost guaranteed... they're also listed as an official partner
  8. I don't think LR should just try to copy what MS has done in regards to scenery, but rather look at it with a different approach.. Many users like orthos + autogen and can already do this in XP, but orthos have problems that can also clearly be seen in most MFS videos as well: Baked shadows and clouds... Clearly can be seen in mountain videos, and despite what Youtubers may tell you, the AI has not removed these and is no magic pill Not dynamic... Light never reacts correctly with the ground meaning it's fairly static. Grass should reflect light differently than asphalt, etc. Varying quality... Imagery is inconsistent. Sometimes the trees are coloured a lime green colour and then suddenly change seasons.... etc.. As Austin eluded to, you can still see squashed cars, roofs etc all frozen in time in a flattened world. Expensive and subject to availability... For now, orthos + autogen is seen as the best way to move forward and clearly populaar, but I'd say going down the procedural route would possibly give the sim a leg up in this department. Have a look at the worlds created by Unigine or Outerra to see how good such a world can look. Since everything is procedural, there are no baked shadows, lighting issues, inconsistent season changes etc...
  9. Sticking a new weather and atmospheric engine to X-Plane would completely transform how it looks, and I hope it will be higher priority than say bringing multiplayer across, which I think is somewhat of limited interested to the desktop users. After using MFS for some time, I really notice now how lifeless everything looks without proper atmospheric scattering, lighting and clouds. You can place the most stunning scenery ever made in to X-Plane, but if the atmosphere is absent it'll still lacking and lifeless. In short, I think if there is one thing that XP needs to stay relevant, it's this, as the rest of the sim is great IMO. This is what puts me off about xEnviro. It can make some pretty skies, but it's always real-world weather, with no ability to customise or do much at all. If it's cloudy and overcast in the area you want to do some helicopter flying in, tough luck, you have to fly somewhere else.
  10. I have all of the sims installed, P3D v5, X-Plane 11, AF2 and MFS. All are good at certain things, e.g. AF2 in unbeatable for VR for now (and seems to have found a niche in helicopters), P3D has some of the best aircraft, X-Plane is fantastic for developers who like to tweak, create addons, their own orthos etc, and MFS... well still under NDA 😛 I see no reason to uninstall any sim.... I've never bought a huge amount of addons either, (I'll purchase the odd plane/heli for XP).
  11. You seem pretty confident about this..... Outerra is from Bratisława, as is Wiedzmiń (The witcher) from Poland, but doesn't mean they have an army of similar developers who can make the sim look like this, it just means they found cheaper 3D modellers than they could in the US..... I'll believe it when I see it
  12. You say it's minor, then they should do it right now. If minor win = huge gains, why not?
  13. I agree that good procedural scenery generation from detailed data would beat the MFS approach and there are engines out there that can do it such as Outerra. Orthos always suffer from the same stuck in time approach as Austin has said, and Frank's approach in those mountains proves this further
  14. I hope it does, but I don't think X-Plane or P3D have moved a great deal over the past 10 years and I've used and developed on both. Neither visually or simulation wise have either done anything that's broken the mold outside of both going 64-bit and getting VR. I appreciate Asobo for bringing our hobby to today's standards graphically (Although even that will fall behind quickly). I can't believe anyone could look at shots of the clouds or lighting in MFS and then think that X-Plane or P3D is on-par with it, I find that crazy...
×
×
  • Create New...