3 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

Who knows what will happen in the future, its anyone's guess.

Nobody can predict the future exactly.  But when IPhone was released in 2007, the writing was on the wall for companies like Blackberry.  It's true that Blackberry didn't collapse overnight when the IPhone was released back in 2007, but within 5 years, that was the end of Blackberry.

The writing is on the wall for the flight sims in the consumer market.  The time is ticking for them and unless they close the gap significantly with MSFS, they will be in trouble a few years down the road.  Personally, I can see the dam breaking once MSFS gets a very, very, good airline.  The FBW A320 is already heading in that direction and I think a 3rd party will release a very, very, good airline within the next year (as discussed in another thread, the tools are there to make a "study level" airline if 3rd parties use the new API offered by MSFS, rather than depending on the SDK to port old code).

24 minutes ago, Janov said:

.They are in it for the money - not for passion, like Laminar is.

Cheers, Jan

Oh Jan....Really? Each version of XP is sold, and XP mobile has a subscription. Otherwise, Austin won't be able to fly his beautiful airplane.

  FYI: Only CFI fly for passion, because there is no much money in that! LOL 

14 minutes ago, Janov said:

X-Plane 12 will not surpass MSFS in realism of terrain and weather depiction. It will close the gap, but not surpass it. They won´t have streaming satellite scenery. No photogrammetry. Not your house. If those things are paramount for you, MSFS is your future.

I think the right term should be x-plane 12 will not follow msfs's scenery approach.

A procedural open world scenery with quality regional textures and autogen, dynamic seasons and 3d vegetation to me looks 100x better than photogrametry/orthos with their seams, artficats and baked lightning. Using x-plane library system you can already do it now. Use UHD meshes and it even looks like orthos. 

IMO, X-plane's terrain out of the box looks horrible due to missing stages at the pipeline, tessellation (so we won't need a full UHD mesh) and the ability to attach shaders to terrain (this can be used for seasons, 3d grass and much more). 

making a new procedural pipeline for scenery is one of their next main objectives,  as it is tagged as WIP on laminar's new features requests. 

11 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

 FYI: Only CFI fly for passion, because there is no much money in that! LOL 

Well where i come from cfi make nice money, way above average lol

4 hours ago, andrecarli737 said:

Where is this coming from? The default 152 is the best handling plane I've flown in flight sim, and I also fly it irl. 

Well I am glad you say that. But that is one plane out of how many? and you hand fly it. That does not make up for the rest! This is the point I am trying to make. The default planes need work. But this get's confused with people immediately jumping to the defence of the game screaming I am comparing to Pay ware. I am not, the TBM is the second most used plane I feel, why because it works. But the others, Biz Jets for example are a mess. Ok on the TBM the ITT values etc are messed up but that's ok we are not looking for perfection in all areas and no doubt our amazing mod community will and have tried to fix it, but the SDK would not allow. 

The state of most the planes is such that we just dont know, but what we have and I will admit there are exceptions but in general its a mess. If they just fixed up the default planes, stopped breaking stuff and spent a few patches working the core elements or hired some dev's who have been doing this for years honestly I think this whole debate would go away, 

5 hours ago, a321 said:

I am just astonished that people have been so blinded by the graphics that they are willing to over look the utterly woeful, woeful flight model and sub par flight dynamics of MSFS. Yes it looks great, but its solely riding on that one factor. The way X-Plane is discussed is completely  disingenuous. MSFS Can not hold a candle to X-Plane in terms of simulating flight, that's a fact that cant be dismissed. Its terrible, it does not simulate flight at all realistically. Yes it looks great, but everything is from the "Supposed mechanical turbulence of flying over mountain updrafts" is baked in. Look in the SDK, its a value not calculated based on current conditions.

If graphics mean this much then fine, but dont try to put MSFS that is sold a "simulator" on a pedestal of flight simulation especially after the latest patch. If you want to simulate flying then XPlane, P3D is the place to be, MSFS is little more that Tourist sim at the moment, You cant even say VFR at present, due to the bugs. VOR's are off, the Auto Pilot is a joke. There really needs to be some perspective here, and rather than arguing about what is better which is very clear if you break the argument up Graphics/Flight Dynamics and defending the indefensible we should be looking and communicating to ASOBO that we want this improved! 

They have gained many new simmers which is great, but a lot of these people dont have a clue, and they think pressing a few buttons and the plane "Seemingly" doing what they expect means it works, its must be a sim. One of the things I learnt when learning to fly was use every available tool to help you maintain a consistent and stable flight, this includes the AP if you are trained, the conditions are right. Some of the new simmers think hand flying an A320 for 1000NM is realistic, but why have they done that? because the AP does not work, and we all know that's not how it goes. But they defend it based the fact the flight was successful, when it clearly its broken form the start! and then you get well "I hand fly AP is for babies" this on the official forums! Its a mess.

I want this to be my go to sim, not just a way to see the world whilst in lock down. I am sorry but graphics mean squat, when the sim is in the sate it is.

 

Flame away, but what I am saying is true.

First things first, I have said that I would be more than happy to switch to XPlane if XPlane offers the comparable quality to MSFS, and the same price at MSFS.  For me, aside from airliners, MSFS offers better quality and the price is lower than XPlane.  For the flight model, many real life GA pilots have pointed out the flight model is very good for the Cessna 152 and Cessna 172 in MSFS.

But if you are a hardcore fan of XPlane (and I hope you aren't), what I will say next will be harsh, but it's the truth.  3rd parties are ultimately businesses.  If the sales of 3rd party companies start dwindling on XPlane, and they make a loss on producing new products for XPlane, they will stop making products for XPlane, because continuing to do so will drive them to bankruptcy.

Aerosoft was candid enough to tell us the sales of their products.  If the sales of Aerosoft products was so great with P3D, you bet Aerosoft would still continue to make products for P3D.  But Aerosoft has seen the drop in spending on P3D products and as per their calculations, they may make a loss if they make new products for P3D.  While Aerosoft has said their sales for XPlane is okay so far, the implication is there is an approaching tide coming in at XPlane as well.  At the moment, XPlane is positioned better than P3D for 3rd party developers like Aerosoft, but the insinuation is that XPlane is the next hurdle that may be toppled.  So none of us can see the future, but if I were a betting person, I would not place my bets on the future of XPlane.  XPlane's two biggest problems is that its engine is 10 years old, and it can't stream the world to user's desktop.  Even if XPlane can fix the first problem about its engine, how is it going to fix the second problem?  To solve the second problem, I can only think of one other company in the world that can solve it for XPlane and that's Google.  But until I see an announcement that XPlane has officially partnered with Google, I doubt they will solve the problem of streaming the entire world like MSFS is capable of.

Yes, there will always be a user base of XPlane, just as there will always be a user base for P3D.  But the key point isn't the user base as Aerosoft has mentioned, it the number of users in that user base that will spend enough money to make new products profitable for 3rd party companies.  The number of users in P3D that are willing to buy new products has dwindled and Aerosoft thinks any new products they make for P3D will make them a loss.  It's entirely conceivable that the number of users in XPlane that are willing to buy new products will also dwindle one day and if that happens, the remaining 3rd party companies that make new products for XPlane will eventually cease as well.

Lastly, don't forget the XBox version is coming for MSFS.  The XBox version will inject another wave of new revenue for 3rd party developers of MSFS and grow the user base of MSFS further, further enticing more 3rd party developers to prioritize MSFS.

 

 

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by abrams_tank

Sure, I stopped buying P3D addons this year, back when it looked like MSFS was going to be a well developed product with titles from PMDG to follow by end of this year.  I took a wait and see attitude, waiting to see what MSFS really had to offer.  Like so many things in 2020, reality was a far cry from expectations!  Reading Robert's latest missive on PMDG leads me to believe that it may well be 2022 before PMDG will be a player with MSFS.  In the interim, I am now considering a move to P3Dv5 

Let's also consider a few other things.  2020 has been a year of a major financial uncertainty for many of us.  Flight simulators are a hobby for some, an essential educational and professional tool for others.  Either way, it was difficult to spend discretionary money faced with the many uncertainties forced by COVID.  Aerosoft may be reading too much in this past year's tea leaves concerning sales of P3D products.  it will interesting to see how holiday sales pan out in view of coming out of a year of COVID and with the lackluster performance of MSFS.   

Another thing to consider is that P3D is not a hobby/entertainment simulator, but a professional simulator development platform for military and governmental use.  You don't think for one minute that LM has not looked at what Microsoft and Asobo have done and are looking at ways to emulate it?  I believe P3D will have something to challenge it, with graphics and mapping capability tied to the best available...and highly classified...photography.  They could drop you on a street in P3D and you would not be able to tell the difference if you were standing there for real.  That's what I see coming from LM.  We might not see that our world, but the government agencies buying it will.  As for who has more money to throw at something?  Just compare what LM has done with P3D in the years that they have had it verses the years Microsoft had it.  I would say product commitment is far greater from LM.  

I believe MSFS will eventually grow out of its teething pains.  After all, FSX did just appear over night.  But then again, I don't need to go back an experience all those growing years with the Microsoft BAO franchise while waiting for FS2004/FSX with the new MSFS.  When it reaches maturity, I'll be back.  Until then, I keep on with P3D and XP, and watch the progress of all platforms.  XP is beginning to impress. 

Rich Boll

Wichita KS 

 

 

Just curious what Austin LR will do if P3D LM will be first to signs agreement with Google! 😄

I don't know if I am a "typical simmer" or not but I have been using X-plane for years, decades actually. I have well over $1,000.00 in added SW. Not to mention my cockpit build many more thousands.

Since FS2020 came out I have spent less than 2 hrs in X-plane and about 250 in FS2020. It is that much more interesting to me.

The flight models are very similar to XP IMHO. Neither really simulates flying GA or ATP planes, but do a credible immersing job. I have 2000 hrs in real planes and have owned a few.

Since FS2020 came out all my money has gone towards FS2020 additions, except I did buy the XP Carenado 182 just to compare it to the ones in FS2020. I found them to be about the same.

I mostly fly the M20, AM339, 182 and the A320 FBW mod. They are all excellent in FS2020.

I find flying IFR approaches much more realistic in FS2020, because the frame rates and the weather depiction is way superior.

I may go back and check out XP when 12 comes out, but I now find it very uninteresting. This is just my take and I respect every one other opinion.

Bottom line is I will spend lots on additions to  FS2020 in the future, and that is what this thread was about.

BTW I also use P3D, a Redbird FAA approved BATD version that I maintain for a local flight academy. It is like a joke compared to the new FS2020. Aerosoft is right the future is FS2020 unless the others improve drastically. We all wrote best with our $$$.

Sim on and be safe.

As someone who uses both msfs and x-plane, don't underestimate x-plane's scenery approach and how accurate it is. somebody mentioned this before but the problem remains within the old art assets that should be updated with quality.

if i may, 2 pics that show that:

 

 

This is "park bertand" in geneva, checking osm, x-plane follows perfectly, including the walk paths on the park, even the exact spot where there are benches. the bugged roads, are also there in reality.

But those trees suck, no 3d grass, no shaders to generate more detail out of the already old looking textures, needs more types of buildings, the roads look "sharp" due to a low triangle mesh not an HD one.

So to fight back, x-plane has no problem with the current way they utilize real world terrain data. it's rather how they represent it in the simulator.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, SceneryFX said:

Do i think they will, probably not, but can it be done, yes (maybe in smaller area), but yes for certain. I had recreated 2 entire states in Xplane at a higher fidelity than MSFS (and better color), the problem is the file sizes, which is why I never released it. I did this with free imagery from the states (nothing to do with NAIP), I had imagery down to 6cm at some airports. I am only one single person, so yes it can be done.

Can they get it compressed as well as Microsoft did at the same fidelity, not for the entire WORLD, no, the coverage will have to be high-res only in a smaller area (but that is fine with me). It would still be missing Photogrammetry, but i think there is another way, but I won't go into it right now.

 

Yes, and the problem is the architecture. They cannot just model the entire planet to the degree MS has done without revamping everything needed to stream that data in. It would be a HUGE undertaking. And if it was just for a few regions I am not interested. The ability to fly anywhere in the world at high res realistic quality IS the killer feature. And then it would be missing photogrammetry. 

Game over. 

12 minutes ago, RobJC said:

Yes, and the problem is the architecture. They cannot just model the entire planet to the degree MS has done without revamping everything needed to stream that data in. It would be a HUGE undertaking. And if it was just for a few regions I am not interested. The ability to fly anywhere in the world at high res realistic quality IS the killer feature. And then it would be missing photogrammetry. 

Game over. 

This is a good point.  It's not enough for XPlane to have a few places that match the graphics of MSFS.  The whole world in XPlane has to have graphics that match MSFS, along with correct geographic markings and locations.  This can only be done by streaming this data to the XPlane client. And the only other company in the world that can do this is Google.  Short of a partnership with Google, XPlane cannot deliver what MSFS delivers.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by abrams_tank

3 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

This is a good point.  It's not enough for XPlane to have a few places that match the graphics of MSFS.  The whole world in XPlane has to have graphics that match MSFS, along with correct geographic markings and locations.  This can only be done by streaming this data to the XPlane client. And the only other company in the world that can do this is Google.  Short of a partnership with Google, XPlane cannot deliver what MSFS delivers.

This is just false.  

There are many hosting providers and CDNs that can stream data over the internet.

There are global DEMs and ortho data available from many sources, and building data comes from OpenStreetMaps.

There is no requirement that Google be involved for X-Plane to deliver a better visual experience.  

10 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

And the only other company in the world that can do this is Google.  Short of a partnership with Google, XPlane cannot deliver what MSFS delivers.

Austin hates orthoimages in the sim, so most likely Lockheed Martin will have partnership with Google.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by OSM

17 minutes ago, OSM said:

Austin hates orthoimages in the sim, so most likely Lockheed Martin will have partnership with Google.

Beautiful scenery is not a typical requirement of commercial simulation products not intended for entertainment purposes.