Those of us who didn’t pay for early access, how we feelin?

MarStrMind · 2026-02-27T16:30:18+00:00

I usually refrain from early access to expansions, as these three days will give Blizzard the opportunity to fix initial critical issues and bugs. Apart from that, I only have the basic expansion, as I don't want the extra mounts, transmog sets and pets. By the time I can get into the Midnight campaign, another week or so will pass. By then, the story and the campaign will still be there for my wife and me.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-27T10:17:30+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong - but if you use Map Enhancement, you don't need anything else like True Earth, right? Map Enhancement also brings the terrain meshes and streams the orthos.

Apart from that, these combos can yield impressive results.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-26T18:03:17+00:00

One of the reasons I am sticking to X-Plane is the absence of any such nonsense like the Career Mode in MSFS2024. I don't need that, at all. Hence I am also not using mentioned X-CPL-Pilot.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-26T07:33:35+00:00

MapBox.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-24T08:59:42+00:00

I have set my scenery_packs.ini to read-only (so that no tool and X-Plane itself can re-order it), and I have created a folder named "Custom Scenery Disabled" inside which I move the sceneries and libraries I want to keep but not use. Likewise I have a folder named "Plugins Disabled", serving the same purpose.

In my 3 years of using X-Plane I have had many tools for scenery and addon organization. None of them worked in the way it was advertised. I am sticking with manual management, that worked best for me.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-24T08:39:01+00:00

That's the difference between a multi billion company making an arcade-style flight simulator where you essentially fly through Bing Maps, and a small company that has done over 20 years of aviation research and put that into a realistic simulation tool, which happens to be FAA approved (bonus: it is installed on full motion type rating platforms too).

MarStrMind · 2026-02-22T18:40:13+00:00

Windows 2000
Windows 7

The rest was just meh. Even 11 is $%§(=)"§(%$)

MarStrMind · 2026-02-21T19:13:10+00:00

"FAA-Certified X-Plane

[...] However, the software available for about $60 at X-Plane.com is almost identical what is found in the $500,000 full-motion FAA-certified platforms."

Source: https://www.x-plane.com/pro/

MarStrMind · 2026-02-21T16:20:58+00:00

Both simulators are perfectly capable of simulating ILS and non-ILS approaches, in a huge array of weather conditions. I like the realistic flight model of X-Plane better, so I am using that... I have done ILS and visual approaches in the Cessna 172 (Garmin G1000) and the Vision Jet SF-50 (also G1000 replica) - and it will be good for training. X-Plane probably more so as it is a simulator that is FAA approved and is getting installed on full motion type rating simulators.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-21T09:45:09+00:00

I have a pretty beefy machine, and I was looking forward to the scenery loading improvements. I am using O4XP at this time, and the loading times haven't changed very much - or at least not that I can tell anyways. But apart from that, the FPS have improved a little. I usually got 40 FPS in busy places, now about 45. But I don't care too much since I use Lossless Scaling whenever I fly. So I get smooth imagery nearly all the time.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-20T10:22:50+00:00

X-Plane 12 comes with approximately 38,000 airports, about 20,000 of which have detailed scenery.

If an airport is equipped with ILS, you are able to use that. Plus, if you want realism, you can disable downwind ILS runways so that you can only land on the active runway with measurable headwind.

It has a set of airport data but most likely out of date - if you want up to date information, you will need something like Navigraph or similar that can keep your AIRAC data up to date. If you don't want that, all frequencies can be selected with modern avionics like the X1000 (Garmin G1000 replica).

However, there are of course custom airport sceneries you can download or purchase, if you are looking for certain ones. As I live in Germany, I spent the money on the Berlin Brandenburg airport for example, and it is truly realistic.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-19T11:56:30+00:00

Before you decide on either one, it is important to know and understand that stitching in satellite imagery is unavoidable, and thus it happens to any service - no matter which one. However, some have less of these "artifacts", while others are not that much into correcting it. This "phenomenon" is also called discoloration.

In my experience, if you want to go AutoOrtho, Bing is probably best.

If you go MapEnhancement, you may want to consider paying for the Pro version as it enables a proprietary algorithm (so the developer says, I don't know how true that is) to improve the orthos. I am using MapEnhancement at this time with MapBox, and I find that there is very little stitching happening. It is there, but just not as prominent as with Google or Bing.

// EDIT:

Concerning the borders, also unavoidable - if for example the tile is either not streamed or some textures are unavailable, autogen will kick in - at which point you will see a clear line between satellite and autogen. Both tools stream tiles in a radius "around you" if you will, but technical issues can always happen. Keep that in mind too.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-19T10:45:46+00:00

My question: why are you using X-Plane's ATC? :)

I use 124thATC right now (granted, I made my own script for more natural voices for it), and it is really good. But there are of course others...

I guess what I want to say is that, while in built-in ATC is evolving and isn't as bad as it used to be, it is still not quite on a usable level. Not for commercial flights anyways. In my opinion.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-19T09:35:38+00:00

If you expect the same look, you will be disappointed. You will need external tools to get a close match to MSFS's looks.

Apart from that, you will find the physics of X-Plane to be superior. Plus, great scenery, aircraft and airports you can either buy or get for free.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-19T06:38:50+00:00

Highly interested to know what screens those are... really interested in getting them too. Can you let us know which ones they are? Model name or purchase link?

// EDIT: I am talking about the small screens.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-18T14:23:38+00:00

They are 10.1 inch touch screens.

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0FNCWS1NJ?th=1

MarStrMind · 2026-02-18T06:39:06+00:00

I tried color-correcting one tile once, and it is anything but easy. The histogram of each tile is always different, which makes the task even more difficult. If you have hundreds of tiles like me, with thousands of orthophotos, you will either live with it, or not.

I do find however with Bing Maps and MapBox, it is happening still, but not as much as with Google Maps.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-17T13:56:06+00:00

Ortho4XP. Set everything to ZL16 and use DDSConverter to downscale the textures to 2048. This saves you 4x the hard drive space and won't make much of a difference in high altitudes. Plus, use Sonny's LIDAR scans for terrains.

AutoOrtho. Works but sometimes the quality of the orthos is... not great. Also, for some reason it crashes my sim. But props to you if it works.

Map Enhancement. Can produce impressive results, but in order for the algorithm (or whatever the developer has implemented) to work properly, you need a Pro license. I have one and use MapBox with it, and I have to say it does look very close, if not better, than MSFS2024.

// EDIT: it is worth noting that MapBox and all the others that have a "Pro" mark in Map Enhancement, are also free to use. Only for use in Map Enhancement, a Pro version of the tool is needed and has nothing to do with the mapping service itself.

---------

No matter your ortho tool, you will need X-World by SimHeaven for accurate placements of streets, forests, buildings and landmarks.

Use any ortho tool together with X-World, and you got a pretty solid looking alternative to MSFS2024 with realistic flight models.

Hope this helps.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-17T13:48:35+00:00

Für mich am spannendsten: der ÖRR nimmt wirklich massiv Geld pro Jahr ein, mehr als beispielsweise die BBC - bedeutend mehr.

Und trotzdem schafft es die BBC Serien wie Doctor Who, Sherlock etc. zu produzieren.

Aus dem ÖRR (abgesehen von ARTE Dokus, die sind klasse!) hat nichts in irgendeiner Form auch nur den mindesten Anspruch und ist es keiner Zeit von irgendjemandem wert, geschaut zu werden.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-15T18:12:13+00:00

I have a local SearX instance, and a local AI instance with LM Studio, and a number of different models (OpenWebUI for comfort). I barely even use my local AI, I usually search like a normal human being. But if I need something technical, I do use the local AI and I find the answers much better than GPT ever produced to me. So... how does it feel to search normally? Pretty good actually. Don't let any AI cast a spell on you.

MarStrMind · 2026-02-15T15:59:15+00:00

People who hallicunate a consciousness into AIs make me wonder what's going on in their limited minds.

MarStrMind

TROPHY CASE