VFR Toronto - Real and Simulated Flight Comparison - 4K

A visual comparison of Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS) with a real world flight over downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Video recorded with the belly camera on the TBM 930 in the sim. GoPro (Hero 9) camera mounted to the upper wing of my Van's RV-9A plane. Both videos recorded at 2,500' ASL and flying at 135 -140 knots following a ForeFlight flight plan.

Default MSFS program used with no altered files or added modifications.

 

Amazing on how close the two really are.

Just my opinion, but I think the Sim is a very good replication of the real thing.

 

Great video to watch I think.

 

Thanks for the look.

 

Hal

To put some perspective on this I would just like to remind folks that the same excellent result was reproduced in FS9 15 years ago with Ultimate Terrain 1.2 and Flight Ontario's Toronto scenery. And come to think of it, MSFS is actually a better Ultimate Terrain and not a better simulator, as it falls short where both FS9 and FSX did before which was (and is) the scenery at ground level.

To put some perspective on this I would just like to remind folks that the same excellent result was reproduced in FS9 15 years ago with Ultimate Terrain 1.2 and Flight Ontario's Toronto scenery. And come to think of it, MSFS is actually a better Ultimate Terrain and not a better simulator, as it falls short where both FS9 and FSX did before which was (and is) the scenery at ground level.

 

Please post a video comparing MSFS default and FS9/FSX tricked out scenery of this same flight. Or screenshots would work too!

Remind me how I post a pic on here?

To put some perspective on this I would just like to remind folks that the same excellent result was reproduced in FS9 15 years ago with Ultimate Terrain 1.2 and Flight Ontario's Toronto scenery. And come to think of it, MSFS is actually a better Ultimate Terrain and not a better simulator, as it falls short where both FS9 and FSX did before which was (and is) the scenery at ground level.

 

Ultimate Terrain is an excellent product that I used for years with FSX, but it is landclass scenery, which designates urban, rural, suburban, desert, tundra, etc. landscape -- and only roughly so, as it does not accurately model actual fields, farms, forests, and towns, for example. UT itself does not contain information on the locations of real buildings or street layouts in cities, and therefore cannot accurately model cities and towns without hand-crafted addon scenery, which is rare (most of the buildings shown in UT are generic autogen, randomly placed). Therefore, good as it is, UT cannot be used for VFR navigation. This is in sharp contrast to MSFS with its satellite-based worldwide imagery. It is therefore incorrect to describe MSFS as merely a "better Ultimate Terrain". It is far more than that.

Rivers and lakes stand out more than a street layout from 10,000 feet, and that was what UT gave to FS9 to be matched against the chart on a pilot's lap. For sure it could be used for VFR navigation and it was exactly like flying the Cessna 150 that I trained on in real life. Of course, MSFS has a more accurate coverage and is far better than UT, but when it comes down to landing at Rockcliffe CYRO and looking at the clubhouse.....

I live in Toronto. It's amazing how accurate MSFS is. I can fly over my favourite neighborhoods and recognize everything !

Of course, MSFS has a more accurate coverage and is far better than UT.....

My point exactly.

 

"...but when it comes down to landing at Rockcliffe CYRO and looking at the clubhouse..." Good to know. I will keep this in mind next time I'm in that area. And thanks.

Edited December 7, 2020 by cobalt