6 minutes ago, StAgre said:

I am so, so excited for the FSL A330 is all I can say.

So am I... we are in need of a good 330 in P3D. And to be honest, I really wished Just Flight would release their 747 classic and their A300 as well. Those two with the FSL Concorde and I could stay in 5.3 as it is for a long, looooong time.

 

11 minutes ago, Nocturnal said:

It also looks like this in 2022 🤣

 

Funny, my New York didn't look like this arriving into LGA... perhaps you're purposefully choosing terrible screenshots to prove some silly point? Somehow I don't think you want to engage in a game of 'find the worst scenery in the world' with P3D as your sim choice 😉

19 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That’s beyond my control. Hi-Fi has always been my preferred Wx provider. What’s yours in the XP radar? I agree it doesn’t look natural but I can overlook such things.

 AS for X-Plane! But that is fine, I can also overlook many things in MSFS and still have fun. It is easier to be happy if you do not expect perfection.

Edited August 28, 20223 yr by GCBraun

3 minutes ago, StAgre said:

 

Funny, my New York didn't look like this arriving into LGA... perhaps you're purposefully choosing terrible screenshots to prove some silly point? Somehow I don't think you want to engage in a game of 'find the worst scenery in the world' with P3D as your sim choice 😉

What?? lol

What silly point am I trying to prove here when this issue persists in even the latest versions of the game?? Feel free to check out these links if you think am trying to make the "sim look bad".

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/photogrammetry-melted-issue/392526

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/melted-buildings/282136

 

1 minute ago, StAgre said:

 

Funny, my New York didn't look like this arriving into LGA...

Lovely shots. I don't know where he got that screenshot from, but I fly in California most of the time when I want to go low and slow., and the photogrammetry in many cases leaves a lot to be desired. Many times I just opt to turn it off and go with Autogen, it's unbearable to fly over melted buildings (though with climate change one never knows how our world will look in 30 years, maybe Asobo is getting us ready!)

3 minutes ago, evaamo said:

Lovely shots. I don't know where he got that screenshot from, but I fly in California most of the time when I want to go low and slow., and the photogrammetry in many cases leaves a lot to be desired. Many times I just opt to turn it off and go with Autogen, it's unbearable to fly over melted buildings (though with climate change one never knows how our world will look in 30 years, maybe Asobo is getting us ready!)

It's certainly worse when you're flying very low, but for airliner flying it's generally not an issue. That said, you can always turn it off and stick to the autogen anyway.

It's easy to overanalyze screenshots as well - they offer the luxury of time and zoom to look over every pixel. When you're actually flying I find that the smaller issues get lost in the details in both P3D and MSFS.

Edited August 28, 20223 yr by StAgre

2 minutes ago, StAgre said:

When you're actually flying I find that the smaller issues get lost in the details.

That's a good point. I noticed I only look outside during the cruise phase of the flight. Most of the time the instruments etc are too important.

44 minutes ago, Nocturnal said:

What?? lol

What silly point am I trying to prove here when this issue persists in even the latest versions of the game?? Feel free to check out these links if you think am trying to make the "sim look bad".

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/photogrammetry-melted-issue/392526

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/melted-buildings/282136

 

Yes, usually for people with a poor internet connection. If you have a fast internet connection, the photogrammetry in MSFS generally looks good from even 100 feet or 200 feet in the air.

And if the photogrammetry looks bad in MSFS, you can just use autogen and disable the photogrammetry.

45 minutes ago, d.tsakiris said:

That's a good point. I noticed I only look outside during the cruise phase of the flight. Most of the time the instruments etc are too important.

Precisely. And when I fly Concorde and also manage the fuel balancing the amount of free time I have is really restricted.

Whilst Concorde will be on autopilot for most of the time the job of monitoring 13 fuel tanks and keeping the CG at the optimum position is a job in itself. It’s almost more rewarding than flying her when you get it right.

When I do get a chance to look outside it’s invariably only ocean that will be visible plus a few fluffy cumulus 50,000ft below.

1 hour ago, evaamo said:

Funny, bad implemented photogrammetry is more detrimental to my immersion than anything else... I take a well-placed autogen + a photoreal base scenery over bad photogrammetry any day. A good example is the free SimHeaven project for X-Plane.

 

2 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

And this is how things 2022 looks like 🙂

Funny how people are now trying to find the crappiest and most problematic screenshots they can of the other sim.

Funny in that it takes only a simple checkbox selection: EA on in P3D to get vastly better* lighting and clouds (*YMMV) and Photogrammetry off in MSFS to avoid the 'melted' buildings (also fixed by having a superfast internet connection).

Neither sim is perfect. Who'd have thunk it?! 🤷‍♂️

1 hour ago, StAgre said:

It's certainly worse when you're flying very low, but for airliner flying it's generally not an issue. That said, you can always turn it off and stick to the autogen anyway.

It's easy to overanalyze screenshots as well - they offer the luxury of time and zoom to look over every pixel. When you're actually flying I find that the smaller issues get lost in the details in both P3D and MSFS.

Trust me. If there is an issue with graphics, I notice it. The question then becomes.....can I accept it? In the case of Nocturnal's screenshot of a post apocalyptic world, the answer would definitely be NO.

To be fair, I ask myself the same questions with respect to P3Dv4. Some of my airports have textures that are......less than optimal. I feel uncomfortable at times pulling up to a gate which is close to a terminal building that has relatively low resolution textures. One day, I may decide that those textures are no longer acceptable to my delicate eyes....and then I will have a decision to make.

Edited August 28, 20223 yr by Christopher Low

5 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Trust me. If there is an issue with graphics, I notice it. The question then becomes.....can I accept it? In the case of Nocturnal's screenshot of a post apocalyptic world, the answer would definitely be NO.

So then turn photogrammetry off and use autogen, if your internet connection is poor.

You can also use rolling cache, and even a manual cache function in MSFS, to cache photogrammetry areas. Then the quality of the photogrammetry doesn't rely as much on your internet connection (with the manual cache function, you can download the areas you want to manually cache before you fly).

 

Edited August 28, 20223 yr by abrams_tank

2 hours ago, StAgre said:

That said, you can always turn it off and stick to the autogen anyway.

That's what I did when I had MSFS.  All I really cared about was the photoreal terrain with accurately placed vegetation and buildings.

I wish we could have this in P3D.

Dave

Man, The whole point I was trying to make earlier was that if people are still with P3D then there is probably a reason why.  If they are with MSFS they recognize its shortcomings but also it's strengths and similarly made that choice. 

If you used P3D for years as I did and still do then you recognize the immense value it has brought and continues to bring.  To debate which is "better" is pointless.  To come into the P3D forum and show MSFS screenshots is not going to bring the community any closer.  To show horrid screenshots from MSFS and try to claim they are the norm is not going to bring the community any closer.  Neither are the P3D users talking about features MSFS doesn't have in the MSFS forum nor the MSFS users dismissing P3D to the bin so it goes both ways.  

Don't walk into someone else's house and call their sister ugly it's not polite (unless she is really really ugly) and don't walk into your neighbors brand new house and point out the things that took you 10 years to amass that they don't have and claim their house is unlivable as a result.  

Simple etiquette, respect of others opinions and recognition of each sim's strengths and positives would be wonderful without the constant comparisons and would help understand each other's perspective.  (perhaps)

Signed

A simmer trying to see both sides  

Just to follow up in my company we have two offerings.  Customers often ask which they should go with and I always ask: What is your desired outcome?  What is most important to you and then I ask some key qualifiers.

To put that in FS terms If your outcome is:  (Disclaimer, this is not every possible reason just examples)  

Home Cockpit builder

Scenario training

Historical Weather (See above) 

Add-ons not available for MSFS

Optimizing Sunk investment

Platform Stability (Non Cloud Updated version management)

Rock Solid AI

Mature ATC offerings

leveraging offline usage etc etc then your best "option" is P3D.  Clearly...

Now if you don't have those desired outcomes or requirements but have some other key desires and outcomes then you should probably consider the other offering.

Now if your key drivers are 

Streaming data and imagery

Rapid Dev Cycle and update cycle keeping the sim current

Massive Community support and development

Payware focus and development

Performance on lower end HW

PG or even just photoreal with accurate autogen

Great messaging and open communication from the developer with a committed roadmap 

Ability to use XBox etc etc then you would naturally choose MSFS. Clearly and understandably.  

 

Point being I can't tell my customers what is "right" for them, they have to tell me what their goals and desired outcomes are and I can make a recommendation based on what they want to achieve.  It doesn't make one solution "better" it makes it a "better fit"  

(BTW, one of our solutions IS better, it runs on better HW LOL )  😉  

 

 

Edited August 28, 20223 yr by psolk