Well, after watching that video, if that's an example of a default sim having flaws and not quite accurate according to some, I'll take two of them thanks. 

5 hours ago, Nedo68 said:

With this res and the right GPU you will get super fluid stuff 😁

What was the Res? 1080p?

22 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

What was the Res? 1080p?

1440p

26 minutes ago, Nedo68 said:

1440p

ok, thx!

 

So please help me out here.  The panel in the DA40 is similar to the panel in the DA62, which as primarily a GA twins pilot is of great interest to me.  I have flown the Carenado DA62 in FSX and FSX SE at 1080.  From a normal eye position as in flight the panel, especially the instruments, are fuzzy and unreadable without using the 2D popups.  I recently snagged a GTX1070 TI 8GB from eBay at a great outlay, and just upgraded to a 4K Ultra monitor (3840 x 2160). Will live with those until my new system build in about 60 days. 

Looking at this video looks much like the panel in FSX at 1080.  Is this video limited to 1080 (NDA)?  And does the panel in a DA look more clear at 2560 by 1440, and especially at 3840 by 2160?  I was expecting to have the ability to execute from a realistic eye-point without popups.

Edited August 10, 20205 yr by fppilot

It could be the case that MS is deliberately creating an autogen only world without all the obvious landmarks so as to encourage 3PDs to stay involved with the market. Look at Orbx's announcement about London: a lot of those landmarks being added in were default scenery in FSX.

A 3PD who went through each country's AIP and offered DLC depicting each VRP and registered obstacle would probably make a killing.

Orbx already have a library of great buildings for Scotland as part of TE North GB. What I'm finding really interesting is that their London landmarks offering actually has new content. For example. Lambeth Palace doesn't exist in TE, but is clearly visible and nicely modelled in their MSFS addon. So it's more than just cut and paste - really pleasing.

13 hours ago, lambourne said:

It could be the case that MS is deliberately creating an autogen only world without all the obvious landmarks so as to encourage 3PDs to stay involved with the market. Look at Orbx's announcement about London: a lot of those landmarks being added in were default scenery in FSX.

That’s not entirely true. It looks like some cities have quite a few obvious landmarks in the sim, Panama City for example 

I wonder what their thought process for deciding which city gets more landmarks.

Edited August 11, 20205 yr by Tuskin38

Wow what a great video!  I am over-the-moon that they've included so many Diamond planes.  All of my training was in the DV-20.

Most importantly the runway lights look great (said with tongue firmly in cheek 😉 )

Dan

On 8/10/2020 at 11:43 AM, Christopher Low said:

The Dundee airport terminal is, er......interesting

How to put planes in prison!

On 8/10/2020 at 7:10 PM, 109Sqn said:

"There should be a very recognisable bridge..." There should be three - The Forth (rail) Bridge, The Forth Road Bridge and the newest: The Queensferry Crossing, 

...

Edinburgh needs a lot of work. ...The airport is similarly in need of the Orbx touch,... The tower is a landmark for the airport and the autogen one is entirely inaccurate. As mentioned above, runway 12/30 is decommissioned (2018) ...

In Fife, the autogen tower block outside Burntisland should actually be the Craigkelly TV Transmitter,...

Tay Road Bridge is generic and sinking into the sea, and the Tay Rail Bridge is entirely missing...

Having recreated the flight inn the release version, we now have 2 generic road bridges and still no rail bridge.

The airport now has a generic circular control tower of about the right height (so a better approximation of reality).

I didn't spot the incorrect 'tower block' or the transmitter but maybe I misjudged the location.

And there is now a Tay road bridge of sorts (again no rail bridge).

Probably as good as we can expect from top-down imagery until somebody creates an add-on package.

....and this is why I have no intention of buying the new MFS at the moment. There is a saying in the world of the unexplained......

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

In the case of flight simulation, it would be "Extraordinary graphics require extraordinary accuracy". In other words, the better you make the world look, the easier it is to see the flaws.

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by Christopher Low