Microsoft Flight Simulator returns to the skies

[wlbragg]

I think I am back up to high detail level.

[wlbragg]

Can the J-3 Cub really fly that high?

Not by half. This is the Savage Cub. I know nothing about it except its ceiling is only 14000. That would be a good reality test, start it on the ground and see if I could get to the same location. I started this session in the air and I don't know what the sim does. If it dummy downed the FDM because I started that way. I leave my settings on the hard level (most realistic FDM level) so I really don't know. The flight characteristics were indicative of being at the limit of the aircraft, maybe? There is no mixture control in the cockpit.

[wlbragg]

Ok, I took off from VNLK - Tenzing - Hillary Airport Airport 9337 ft. I've been flying for about an hour trying to get to 29,000. I'm almost to 20,000. I'll post about 4 videos when I am finished. I had to break it up due to real life getting in the way, I had to pause a couple times. The trim is way too course and is making it difficult, but I am able to achieve a consistent 1 to 2 hundred fpm at about 120 kts. It feels like it's getting harder though this last 9k. It's slowed to about 110 kts . to achieve the 100 to 200 fpm.
I'm closing in on 21,000 (20,600), but I am able to circle the mountain now. Considerable turbulence on the back side.

[wlbragg]

MSFS2020 Mt. Everest Attempt from VNLK.
I got to about 21,600 and got tired of looking for uplift. I think I could have got there if I quit circling and set a straight course and slowly let it gain altitude. But what does that say for an aircraft that is supposed to have a ceiling of 14,000 ft? Is that realistic? A couple of the videos may not be completely done processing.

1 of 4

2 of 4

3 of 4

4 of 4

[erik]

Is it just my imagination or are the trees really always growing perpendicular to the terrain?

Erik

[wlbragg]

This is somewhat a duplicate of some images I posted to another post, but it is directly related to MSFS VS FGFS capabilities and current state of the technologies of both programs. Here is a comparison between MSFS and FGFS using the newly introduced patch available for FGFS2020. I think it is interesting so say the least, You can decide for yourself how they compare.

See
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=38057#p374163
and
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=38057#p374177
For larger images.

[wlbragg]

In the comparison images above I felt the FGFS trees looked artoonish becasue of the hue of the color pallet. A quick adjustment and now I feel it looks considerably more natural. Over all this isn't bad and for this area of the country, as good or better than the $160 MSFS scenery.

[Johan G]

Over all this isn't bad and for this area of the country, as good or better than the $160 MSFS scenery.

If settings was "maxed out" on both, I would have to agree. It seems like photoscenery or good procedural textures, OSM buildings and perhaps a bit better models (like the trees you tweaked) would beat the photoscenery of MSFS2020 even at a bit of altitude. Not bad, not bad at all.

[erik]

My first thought was that the top-right picture was unpatched FlightGear without custom scenery..
From that altitude FlightGear sure looks more appealing with photo-scenery.

[wlbragg]

That top image with the 6 shots is FG2020.2 (left) compared to MSFS2020 (right), FG on the left (AirCrane) and Microsoft FS on the right (Cub).

[erik]

But the quality of MSFS is so bad in that one that I thought it was default FlightGear scenery.

[wlbragg]

Yeah, I know, right!
Yet the first time I flew that same area without something to compare to I thought it was good.

[Johan G]

So what's going on there? I thought MSFS was using photoscenery everywhere, or is that not the case?

[Hooray]

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ ... index.html
Big scary chasm opens up in Microsoft Flight Simulator reboot

[Johan G]

That is kind of creepy.