1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

they are now expected

They are? DCS fans must be in a perpetual revolt. Oh wait...

5 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

Not really, i just dont go around looking at what everyone else has, than wanting it, i just start it and fly. the first part is why so few can enjoy it, it will never be good enough.

If I were training for IRL, then I wouldn't care. But those days are past me now. So I want to see in the sim more or less what I see when I fly.

Great add-ons have been available for awhile now across many sims. Great scenery not so much.

1 hour ago, FPVSteve said:

Eh, I guess it's subjective.

I've been simming for years and I can do without satellite imagery. In a lot of cases it's more of a distraction than autogen, it puts the sim in the "uncanny valley".

For accurate VFR navigation, default XP12 is missing a lot of landmarks which Satellite imagery supplies. One can't get away from the fact that worldwide satellite imagery and accurate building location & size have been with us for years - it can't be unseen.

You may fly in such a way that Ortho and buildings are not important, but I suggest you are in the minority.

6 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

They are? DCS fans must be in a perpetual revolt. Oh wait...

I am obviously comparing to MSFS. 🤔😒

4 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

They are? DCS fans must be in a perpetual revolt. Oh wait...

I'd happily take the newer DCS scenery over X-Plane's default scenery any day.

But there are many other tradeoffs to be made, which I why I keep XP in regular use.

FWIW, DCS players are perpetually in revolt mainly because they lack imagination and need their plane sets to match the history books they never read.

Makes me feel like their mommies bought them Garanimals clothes so they could match an outfit when they went out for lunch.

5 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

For accurate VFR navigation, default XP12 is missing a lot of landmarks which Satellite imagery supplies. One can't get away from the fact that worldwide satellite imagery and accurate building location & size have been with us for years - it can't be unseen.

So - ironically, here's an area where I DO think XP default scenery is perfectly adequate..

I've never had an issue using Pilotage & Dead Reckoning in XP. All the requisite landmarks are there in the areas I've flown, and it's far more detailed than aero charts, sea charts or even road maps.

The way I learned it, you're not looking for buildings, because they're frequently invisible. You're looking for major landmarks & guides like rivers, lakes, coastlines, cities/towns, highways/roads, and of course, hills/mountains.

12 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I am obviously comparing to MSFS

I wasn't alluding to you comparing to anything else. The point is that there is another product out there that flourishes even without ortho candy. This repeated muck about XP including it by default is absurd. Now...if ground clutter (even rocks in streams) is what you're looking for, it is safe to hold breath as LR develops a system that will enable that more effectively.

 

12 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

they lack imagination

So poetic...

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

In the absence of Satellite imagery, Laminar need to hook people in other ways.  The new clouds and lighting are an excellent start, but not enough.

But that is the path LR is on, coming up with other ways that I believe will have more of a long lasting effect as it does with the new clouds and lighting from the new graphic system they are working on, as well as why they chose not the go the photogrammetric route in the first place. We have yet to see it in its full glory and it take time as it does with all the other things that have impress us. But I can't wait to see results of what it will be and reaction from the experience of it all.   

36 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

So - ironically, here's an area where I DO think XP default scenery is perfectly adequate..

It maybe adequate, but not perfectly adequate.  There is much to see in Ortho that isn't in default XP12 that is useful, especially in the circuit/traffic pattern, some of it referenced in airfield charts.  

In all the discussions I've had in forums, people will not consider XP12 because of the lack of Ortho and accurate building placement and size, despite this being available in addons.

7 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

We have yet to see it in its full glory and it take time as it does with all the other things that have impress us. But I can't wait to see results of what it will be and reaction from the experience of it all.   

Absolutely, I am excited to see what is down the road.

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

It maybe adequate, but not perfectly adequate.  There is much to see in Ortho that isn't in default XP12 that is useful, especially in the circuit/traffic pattern, some of it referenced in airfield charts.  

In all the discussions I've had in forums, people will not consider XP12 because of the lack of Ortho and accurate building placement and size, despite this being available in addons.

There's nothing missing from X-Plane that's necessary for pattern work and such.

Like, what do people do when they fly to a different airport...?

21 hours ago, DeltaWho said:

Sir don't mock my British internet. These are trying times until my government decides to lay down fibre optic in my area!

18 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Well now you've gone and done it: cursed LR's grand entry into the public court system with the aura of azure's server coverage during asobo24's big release.

The "1 MBit" was a jab at the client side. I'm pretty sure that Laminar could provide adequate funding for at least a 2 MBit connection.

 

20 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Surely they would use SpaceX?

Too easy, where would be the fun in that?

 

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

FWIW, DCS players are perpetually in revolt mainly because they lack imagination and need their plane sets to match the history books they never read.

Meanwhile, the Falcon 4 crowd has been flying the same airframe for the past 25 years.

3 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Meanwhile, the Falcon 4 crowd has been flying the same airframe for the past 25 years.

And a fine one it (still) is, thanks to BMS!

If only it would've been Hornet 4.0, I might have been there for a long time. I'm just addicted to CV ops.

Someday I might branch out into the Viper and see what all the fuss is about 😊

3 hours ago, blingthinger said:

And you hope achieve exactly what by repeating this here? Knowing full well it's not an option, or maybe even worse, keeping whatever secret source you are carrying, hidden in your cloak.

I think I have been clear with my thoughts that XP12 would benefit from its own unique selling points that mitigates the lack of ortho. The new clouds and lighting have taken a big step forward as would a new 'SimHeaven' type product built in. I think that would get a lot more people using XP12.  I am excited to see what Laminar have in the works for the terrain and autogen.

I am not sure what you are hinting at with the rest of your post.  I have been nothing but positive about XP12 in the last few weeks since moving over from MSFS.  Multiple screen shots showing how good I have found XP12 to be.  A long discussion on the MSFS forum on how much better XP12 is than what many think, describing an easy route to get XP12 to its best (from information gleaned here from helpful people).

MSFS forum can be brutal at times, but I didn't think a comment like yours would be seen so soon over here.

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

There's nothing missing from X-Plane that's necessary for pattern work and such.

Like, what do people do when they fly to a different airport...?

There are things missing from default XP12 scenery, that are not missing from MSFS.  Hey, I have loaded MSFS once since I installed XP12 so yes it is adequate for VFR navigation and pattern work, but it isn't perfect.  I flew my second copy of XP12 which is default into a UK airfield.  The AFE plate says not to fly over the church when turning base - the church isn't there in XP12 but it is there in MSFS.  Many airfield plates mention details like this.

All I saying is, from the perspective of an MSFS user, this detail may stop them from considering XP12.   It doesn't affect me because I'm not worried about installing some ortho and addons so I do see the church in XP12.