17 minutes ago, RXP said:

The former is compressing the HDR render too much and doesn't fully use the LDR display range.

Here are the histograms on your screenshots (I've just cropped to save space but the histogram is on the entire picture):

And here is the XP11 image corrected with:

+1 exposure, WB -18% blue, +10% black level -10% white level (clipping in this example but wouldn't clip like this if in the pixel shader tone mapper)

1 hour ago, F737NG said:

You can navigate VFR using freeware or payware scenery when it looks like this

It depends: If the resolution is high enough to show roads/rivers/railways/buildings even from 1.000 ft. and these are accurate to the real world, then yes. I don't know about X-plane, but I tried to navigate VFR through the german/austrian Alps between LOWS and LOWI in both P3D (full Orbx galore) and MSFS (stock). And while in P3D the sim remotely resembled the environment I know pretty well, MSFS made me believe I was there. However, real life still is different - because if you can't spot the road that's on your chart in the narrow valley you have just flown into at low altitude, you simply go "ooops" and reset the sim. Try that irl. "True" VFR-flying is "IFR (I follow railways)", just using your chart and compass (and knowing its flaws while turning/climbing/descending) or Gyro (if you're lucky and your FI permits its use) and your outside vision. And the latter is where MSFS exceeds its competitors by far.

5 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

So I tried. I modded the word not allowed out of XP11. I got CYVR payware, tons of orthos, mesh UltraHD,  tree hd, hd runway, skymaxx cloud,  you named It I tried. this is the result. You guys be the judge. 

 

 

You heard wrong.

3 minutes ago, Tom_L said:

It depends: If the resolution is high enough to show roads/rivers/railways/buildings even from 1.000 ft. and these are accurate to the real world, then yes. I don't know about X-plane, but I tried to navigate VFR through the german/austrian Alps between LOWS and LOWI in both P3D (full Orbx galore) and MSFS (stock). And while in P3D the sim remotely resembled the environment I know pretty well, MSFS made me believe I was there. However, real life still is different - because if you can't spot the road that's on your chart in the narrow valley you have just flown into at low altitude, you simply go "ooops" and reset the sim. Try that irl. "True" VFR-flying is "IFR (I follow railways)", just using your chart and compass (and knowing its flaws while turning/climbing/descending) or Gyro (if you're lucky and your FI permits its use) and your outside vision. And the latter is where MSFS exceeds its competitors by far.

I flew VFR in MSFS following roads I new well in both upper New York State and Long Island, and had no trouble at all figuring out where I was. With P3D that wouldn't be possible. 

1 hour ago, Janov said:

In a way that is why I like study level aircraft 😁. You don´t need a study level C-172 to buzz your house, but you need a study level C-172 if you want to learn how to fly a real C-172.

Just need to mention that learning how to fly an aircraft has multiple aspects - I assume in the future people who want procedural realism (systems management, failures, ...) will prefer MSFS as it will have overall better airliners (PMDG 737, 747, 777, FSLabs A320 etc.) and people who want flight model realism will prefer X-Plane.

This is not so different than the status quo with P3D and X-Plane, except now flight model gap is a lot less significant. Combined with better visuals, I think MSFS is an overall better option for me, unless new Boeings & Airbuses come out for X-Plane.

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

28 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Are those P3D screenshots? Enhanced Atmospherics mode indeed looks beautiful, which is one of the main reasons I (mostly) switched to P3D from X-Plane. Obviously the other one is airliners.

XP11.

@filou those are excellent pics. You have always found a way to make XP11 look amazing. It doesn't look like that on my monitor. 😀

2 minutes ago, DJJose said:

XP11.

Aircraft lighting and aerial perspective looks like P3D v5 with EA, are you sure?

Just now, BiologicalNanobot said:

Aircraft lighting and aerial perspective looks like P3D v5 with EA, are you sure?

He says what it is at the top.

4 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Just need to mention that learning how to fly an aircraft has multiple aspects - I assume in the future people who want procedural realism (systems management, failures, ...) will prefer MSFS as it will have overall better airliners (PMDG 737, 747, 777, FSLabs A320 etc.) and people who want flight model realism will prefer X-Plane.

Do you honestly think that the 172 in XP flies like a real 172???

1 minute ago, DJJose said:

@filou those are excellent pics. You have always found a way to make XP11 look amazing. It doesn't look like that on my monitor. 😀

Or any Monitor i have seen either. 

1 minute ago, DJJose said:

He says what it is at the top.

I'm talking about @F737NG's screenshots, I think you confused it with @filou's screenshots.

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

Or any Monitor i have seen either. 

He showcases many pics for ORBX.

2 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

I'm talking about @F737NG's screenshots, I think you confused it with @filou's screenshots.

Ohhhhh. LOL

The top pic looks like P3D v5 and the bottom 2 look like XP. They can all be P3D v5.

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by DJJose

sure you can do some photoshop afterward and make it look better but it's not how it looks when I fly. I was not trying to make one look worse than the other. I hope this is clear