X-Plane users surpass Microsoft Flight Simulator...

[mjrhealth 820]

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

What? I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.😀 The trouble is you have so spend a small fortune on OrbX, additional drives for orthos, weather and cloud addons etc etc to get small pin pricks on the earth to look half decent and current in XP. And having done so, especially with volumetric clouds, performance plummets to the unbearable.

I am hoping that XP12 will bring big improvements to the visuals ( (and performance) even though some dismiss it as "eye candy".  The main advances in computer gaming over the last 30 years have all been mainly about more eye candy. Flight sims are no different.

I fly XPLANE because of the flight dynamics, though not perfect and me not being a "real" pilot it gave so much more than FSX. Yes the other looks pretty, thats because that is what sucks people in. I have being around long enough to know not to get sucked in. Not spending another cent on another sim. And teh way the economy is going, lots of people are going to have to decide where there money is going.

[GoranM 3,764]

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

And having done so, especially with volumetric clouds, performance plummets to the unbearable.

I used to keep seeing this from people, and never understood it.  I have a Windows and Mac PC.  On both, performance drastically improves when Vulkan/Metal is enabled.  The problem I noticed was most people throw in every plugin under the sun, not realizing it's dragging their sim to a crawl.  When I used to tell them this, they get angry and tell me, "Laminar should make X-Plane run smoother, regardless of the plugin".  This was the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in flight simming.  Laminar is expected to code X-Plane so when other, inefficient code is installed, it should STILL run smoothly?  Really??  I was told I should buy up all other 3rd party payware for X-Plane, and test it against the TBM and make sure it doesn't crash. Huh??!!

Anyway, I digress...so, instead of going to the author of the troublesome plugin, people expect Laminar to "fix" X-Plane.  I hope you can see how illogical this is.

Check your plugins.  Remove them if you have to, and test performance.  If one of them is causing issues, go to the author and tell them about it.  

Edited February 8, 2021 by GoranM

[Humpty 751]

Having great flight dynamics but not great visuals doesn't work for me , in fact I would bet quite a few flight dynamics seekers and RL pilots would surely want an upgraded look.  Especially when it comes to low and slow flying.  just like my Helicopter flying. 

Just a couple of days ago , repurchased the game pass to check MFS , even at low settings it destroys XP visuals. 

But at low altitude it looks rubbish , at least in areas where that photomadatory or whatever it's called is used. 

 was like WOW , this WOW is now needed in the coming versions of XP. 

XP still holds its ground where pure simulation is concerned. I didn't find that simulation thing in MFS in the two days that I have used it.

Does XP have great dynamics , don't know , does MFS have great dynamics even that I don't know.  But I know one thing that MFS literally slaughters XP graphically.

If the new versions of XP don't deliver or take too long to fix things then I am sure most of us dynamics seekers would really keep thinking of going MFS way. They should speed up the bug fixing and stuff.

The tech is available for the stunning visuals , though LR might not or can manage all of it and I do not expect them to , but I have always said it's the Wx  / Lighting that can be achieved and it will create the magic.

Other fixes like water / mesh / reflections can be done in the cycle of the new XP version. But Wx / lighting is the first thing that should be given with the new version.

I want a helicopter landing on a ship in a heavy storm , XP can't do that but DCS does that amazingly well. 

[GoranM 3,764]

1 minute ago, HumptyDumpty said:

this WOW is now needed in the coming versions of XP. 

Never going to happen unless Google work with LR.  You're talking about 2 petabytes of streamed scenery.  Not installed scenery.And streaming costs big money.  Especially at those data rates.

2 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

But I know one thing that MFS literally slaughters XP graphically.

No one disagrees with you.  No one ever has.

3 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

If the new versions of XP don't deliver or take too long to fix things then I am sure most of us dynamics seekers would really keep thinking of going MFS way. They should speed up the bug fixing and stuff.

People have been saying this to Austin for the past 25-30 years.  Even he said it's getting old.

4 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

The tech is available for the stunning visuals , though LR might not or can manage all of it and I do not expect them to , but I have always said it's the Wx  / Lighting that can be achieved and it will create the magic.

The tech used for MSFS is not proprietary.  It's available for use by any developer.  And LR has taken a look at it.  And that's all I'll say on that topic.

5 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

Other fixes like water / mesh / reflections can be done in the cycle of the new XP version. But Wx / lighting is the first thing that should be given with the new version.

Too much of an upgrade for a free update to the current run.

6 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

I want a helicopter landing on a ship in a heavy storm , XP can't do that but DCS does that amazingly well. 

X-Plane was never designed to do "scenario's" to that extent.  But if enough people want it, LR can easily implement it.

[Humpty 751]

18 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Never going to happen unless Google work with LR.  You're talking about 2 petabytes of streamed scenery.  Not installed scenery.And streaming costs big money.  Especially at those data rates.

No one disagrees with you.  No one ever has.

People have been saying this to Austin for the past 25-30 years.  Even he said it's getting old.

The tech used for MSFS is not proprietary.  It's available for use by any developer.  And LR has taken a look at it.  And that's all I'll say on that topic.

Too much of an upgrade for a free update to the current run.

X-Plane was never designed to do "scenario's" to that extent.  But if enough people want it, LR can easily implement it.

Nah , not talking about photomadatory or that AI thing. I am still ok with using the current scenery in XP , the WOW factor is the WX / lighting.

Well someone is saying XP graphics are perfect and in competition with MFS 😉

25-30 years is too long , then I do expect them to upgrade. 

Again the tech I am talking about is not what MFS uses to create scenery , I am again here pointing out to WX / Lighting , lighting is the factor that changes everything and I am sure LR can manage that.

If they start charging for fixing it , that would IMO would be a blunder. If am making something from ground up then surely would want minimum of bugs and a way out to fix them. will they be fixed in the cycle run don't think so. 

It's not the question of having a scenario , but having a way of creating one and I am sure its very much possible and most of us would want it. When DCS can have that option then why not XP. It's a part of a helicopter simulation.  

 

P.S.:  HOW DO YOU QUOTE SEPARETELY ?

 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by HumptyDumpty

[GoranM 3,764]

1 minute ago, HumptyDumpty said:

Well someone is saying XP graphics are perfect and in competition with MFS

I don't put too much faith into what mSparks says.  He likes my comments but then bashes X-Aviation.  So I never know what his intentions are.

2 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

Again the tech I am talking about is not what MFS uses to create scenery , I am again here pointing out to WX / Lighting

That's what I was referring to, also.  The lighting and graphics

 

4 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

If they start charging for fixing it , that would IMO would be a blunder.

XP12

5 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

It's not the question of having a scenario , but having a way of creating one and I am sure its very much possible and most of us would want it. When DCS can have that option then why not XP. It's a part of a helicopter simulation.

It's a question of the water physics.  A lot of dev's have wanted improved water physics for a while, but it wasn't as much of a priority as other items LR wanted to implement.  XP12 maybe(?)

 

[Humpty 751]

2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

I don't put too much faith into what mSparks says.  He likes my comments but then bashes X-Aviation.  So I never know what his intentions are.

That's what I was referring to, also.  The lighting and graphics

 

XP12

It's a question of the water physics.  A lot of dev's have wanted improved water physics for a while, but it wasn't as much of a priority as other items LR wanted to implement.  XP12 maybe(?)

 

Agreed , in a recent post at the blog Ben did mention that they have done the programming for the water physics but never bothered to implement or it was in a test phase something like that , but now its time that's done and implemented.   Ultimately we all want an experience of something like landing on a ship in bad weather / storm or even on rig , just an example. These kinda things also makes it very competitive. 

And yes all this is in reference to XP12 .

[mjrhealth 820]

22 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

Agreed , in a recent post at the blog Ben did mention that they have done the programming for the water physics but never bothered to implement or it was in a test phase something like that , but now its time that's done and implemented.   Ultimately we all want an experience of something like landing on a ship in bad weather / storm or even on rig , just an example. These kinda things also makes it very competitive. 

And yes all this is in reference to XP12 .

Depends on what you want, most people getting into MSFS will do so because it looks pretty and could care less for the rest, than there are those like me dont care much for the pretty just want planes that fly reasonably well. There are things i would like to see in xplane, like more naval aviation but that is a developer thing and I think people who want that go to DCS, Love there carrier ops, looks cool.

[Janov 2,383]

1 hour ago, HumptyDumpty said:

want a helicopter landing on a ship in a heavy storm , XP can't do that

I am not sure what version of X-Plane you are running, but on my end this has been possible in X-Plane since version 8...

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Janov

[GoranM 3,764]

I'm way too tired.  Even I knew you could land heli's on ships.  I was too focused on the water physics to process the info.

 

[Janov 2,383]

I believe that Humpty was talking about seeing realistic waves and water - but I wish he would state so instead of a blanket statement like "X-Plane can´t do helicopter ship landings in a storm" which deflates his argument because people think he doesn´t know much about X-Plane, appearantly.

Again this boils down to the difference between X-Plane and MSFS. X-Plane portrays the operational effects really well, the helicopter moving realistically, the ship rolling realistically...but you can´t see churning waves and spray whipping off their tops.

A smart guy said in another forum: "If you want to know what it is like to fly an airplane, fly X-Plane. If you want to know what it is like to fly IN an airplane, use MSFS."

Its a bit like riding jumpseat in a cockpit. You get to experience the sights and sounds, without the need to worry about actually keeping the airplane and occupants safe.

[akita 429]

Wait what? xplane has "water splashes" and water effects. there is a particle system for aircrafts, hopefully they will expose it for scenery so we can see other scenery element more "alive" and reactive. (ie. foliage on autumn, 3d snow, hail etc...)

xplane waves are also 3d but with no sufficient polygon count, tessellation is the step that will help with that.

really about the rendering pipe line that is currently re-built and more art assets, the harder job looks to be done honestly, all the foundations are mostly there.

Edited February 8, 2021 by akita

[Humpty 751]

1 hour ago, Janov said:

I am not sure what version of X-Plane you are running, but on my end this has been possible in X-Plane since version 8...

 

AHaha , was a typo , i meant landing in a stormy environment. I had put that up in the port earlier 

[Humpty 751]

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

Depends on what you want, most people getting into MSFS will do so because it looks pretty and could care less for the rest, than there are those like me dont care much for the pretty just want planes that fly reasonably well. There are things i would like to see in xplane, like more naval aviation but that is a developer thing and I think people who want that go to DCS, Love there carrier ops, looks cool.

First Carrier OPs ain't just naval , there are civilian ones  too .   I am sure ones who don't want or look at these things are small in number.

Development only will happen if LR changes a few things like Goranm mentioned about water physics , same goes with float planes.  

Is water Physics very complex to make ? I have no idea , not a programmer , but LR can and should do it.  not asking for the world like MFS , just a few things that need their attention...... , first fix the Wx / lighting. 

Wx

Lighting 

Water

the rest can be fixed as the cycle goes on. 

Don't think the above is asking for much

[Humpty 751]

55 minutes ago, Janov said:

I believe that Humpty was talking about seeing realistic waves and water - but I wish he would state so instead of a blanket statement like "X-Plane can´t do helicopter ship landings in a storm" which deflates his argument because people think he doesn´t know much about X-Plane, appearantly.

Again this boils down to the difference between X-Plane and MSFS. X-Plane portrays the operational effects really well, the helicopter moving realistically, the ship rolling realistically...but you can´t see churning waves and spray whipping off their tops.

A smart guy said in another forum: "If you want to know what it is like to fly an airplane, fly X-Plane. If you want to know what it is like to fly IN an airplane, use MSFS."

Its a bit like riding jumpseat in a cockpit. You get to experience the sights and sounds, without the need to worry about actually keeping the airplane and occupants safe.

Yes exactly what i meant landing with those dangerous situations . But i do not mean that i want to see the waves , but if possible then ofc 

The reason talked of DCS was the way the ship was unstable in the sea and it just too difficult to get the heli to land which i have tried in XP is not the case. 

Well just yesterday I tried to land on a ship , weather was stormy but the ship was stable ?  I have not said that the helicopter flight model is bad , I love XP for helis and I consider it on the level of DCS. 

But if there is a new variant of XP to be coming along i would ask LR to consider this too.