Upcoming X-Plane 12

[FlyBaby 659]

23 hours ago, GoranM said:

There is no reason for them to be ashamed.  They came out with 64bit.  P3D followed.  They came out with PBR.  Microsoft followed. They came out with HDR lighting.  Microsoft followed.  They've implemented Vulkan and Metal, AFAIK, Microsoft are still in the process of getting DX12 implemented.  LR were using blade element theory from day 1.  Now, after 30 years of using lookup tables, Asobo are claiming to use a better version of BET. (lol).  LR have never gone out of business.  Ever.  Microsoft pulled the FS line after the short lived MS Flight.  Then it was picked up by LM.  Then Dovetail games picked it up, and then dumped it.  And now they're attempting to revive it again.  As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of the scenery, Laminar have done the trailblazing, and MSFS is playing catch up.

 

With all their HDR lightning, Vulkan etc. LR can't even get clouds to extend to the horizon....and their clouds tank performance.

Even Austin admitted in his video review of X-enviro that XPs clouds are not that great. And what has he released since then to correct it??? Nothing. How many years / decades has it been for Austin to get clouds right??? Looks like everyone else has been able to get their "stock" clouds right...even combat sims. 

"with the exception of scenery"....2M+ pilots in MSFS seem to want "that" scenery. 

Edited April 18, 2021 by FlyBaby

[mSparks 2,086]

1 hour ago, FlyBaby said:

Looks like everyone else has been able to get their "stock" clouds right.

I recently went back to pure default XP clouds after some 3 years of modded ones in one way or another.

And, tbh, there isn't really anything substantially wrong with them. In actual fact, in VR, they even look significantly better than they do in 2D. Reasonably sure there have been improvements there that haven't been discussed/announced.

1 hour ago, FlyBaby said:

"with the exception of scenery"....2M+ pilots in MSFS seem to want "that" scenery. 

And 140 million players in GTA5 want weapons in their gaming. Unfortunately for them MSFS is a kids game so that kind of attraction is "toys not allowed", which is probably why a game like MSFS only has 5,000 Steam players a day compared to GTA 5's 100,000.

Edited April 18, 2021 by mSparks

[mjrhealth 820]

2 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

with the exception of scenery"....2M+ pilots in MSFS seem to want "that" scenery. 

Which scenery might that be, I dont... and I dont see you contributing to the enhancement of Xplane, at least @mSparks is.

[GoranM 3,764]

6 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

With all their HDR lightning, Vulkan etc. LR can't even get clouds to extend to the horizon....and their clouds tank performance.

And DX12 still isn't available for MSFS.  Even with trillion dollar microsoft and 200+ staff Asobo.  

6 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

Even Austin admitted in his video review of X-enviro that XPs clouds are not that great.

Honesty and an honest criticism of ones own product.  The man earns more and more of my respect every time I read comments like the one you just posted.

6 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

And what has he released since then to correct it??? Nothing. How many years / decades has it been for Austin to get clouds right???

Austin thinks the flight model is the most important element of a FLIGHT simulator.  Not...clouds.  I mean, if you like flying through clouds, and looking at clouds, but using something with a Walmart flight model, more power to you.  You're obviously more easily pleased with the more technical components of a flight sim.  If all it takes is clouds to put a smile on your face, and the flight model is at the bottom of the priority list, then I can tell you right now, X-Plane is not for you.

6 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

Looks like everyone else has been able to get their "stock" clouds right...even combat sims. 

Do you really want to get into comparisons?  Because I could write a book about MSFS and its problems.  Some that even a 1st year coder wouldn't make.

6 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

2M+ pilots in MSFS seem to want "that" scenery. 

Again with the 2 million pilots.  Just an FYI, I do remember each time you mention the 2 million (sim) pilots, because higher numbers are obviously more important to you.  But...are you sure it hasn't increased by now?  Feel free to add another million or 2.  Still doesn't change my mind about which is the better FLIGHT sim.  For a cloud sim, or a scenery sim, MSFS rocks the house!!  But the more popular product is not always the better product.  More than happy to provide examples, but I'm not sure you want to face the truth. 

The Bredock3D 737 is a very high seller on simmarket.  Does that mean it beats the PMDG 737?  I'll wait for your answer.

😉

[Paulvanuf 23]

Guys,

I am not a profi in flightsimulation and I didn't read all the pages of this thread, but I have a few questions regarding flying in MSFS and XP11.

I did several flights in both sims in the IconA5 and the a320ng both the modded ones in MSFS. In xp11 with the Vskylabs IconA5 and the Toliss a319.

I found the flying itself with little difference, though the system depth in the busses was noticable, although I must say that the mcdu in the modded MSFS bus has other 'depths' than the Toliss one.

With some downloads from flightsim.to I got to 'personalize' my surrounding in the SW of NL, even better after the latest MSFS update with Belgium, NL etc.

I feel that MSFS isn't such a 'game' like mentioned above, I think it has potential.

I like to understand the flaws in the flightmodel, but I have not found any.

Can somebody elaborate on that? What am I missing?

[Mike44 22]

FSX flightmodel was behind X-plane but not MSFS anymore. A quick google find:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE8LA55eTnI

Just look at these airflows etc. Personally I can't wait to do a soaring competition alike in FSX, hope this is coming soon.

[jcomm 5,918]

1 hour ago, Paulvanuf said:

I feel that MSFS isn't such a 'game' like mentioned above, I think it has potential.

I like to understand the flaws in the flightmodel, but I have not found any.

Can somebody elaborate on that? What am I missing?

Good question!

Well, both games ( that's what they are after all, although they can both be used to practice your rw flight skills in some areas, although for sure not the "hands on" stick & rudder stuff... ) have their flaws.

X-Plane is far from being "perfect", MFS is a "new kid in the block", claiming to use a "revolutionary" aproach to BeT, and actually having written wrong stuff about X-Plane FM in their original documents where they introduced the approach they follow.

For me one of the major flaws in MFS and the SDK at it's present state is the lack of liberty for developers to be able to fine tune their aircraf and propulsion systems to make them perform as close as possible to the real world counterparts.

In terms of ground physics, it's more than evident that MFS really needs some good attention. They're flwaed, every aircraft acts pretty much like a cart, they're too sensitive to wind ( even though ASOBO is clipping the wind intensity using a trick ). In the air and although in the twitches Sebastién claims no need to review their core engine, truth is it is more than evident that basic stuff like adverse yaw, static stability, yaw and roll stability have problems, and, since the SDK documentation leaves a lot to be desired developers other than probably those working more closely to the ASOBO team don't have a clue on how to touch in order to get performance right, as they were for instance able to do with fs9/s/p3d...

In their latest Q&A they say they're going to fine tune the C172 and just did it by editing the aircraft configuration files. I am looking fwd to read from my friends that are spending ( wasting ? ) their time trying to figure out how to get something acceptable out ofthose files, when they find that the aircraft performance falls short from even the POH figures for well within the envelope flight.

Is there potential - sure there is!

I could also spend some time pointing out flaws in X-Plane tough - really not that difficult either - but at least the SDK is a lot more easy to understand...

[Greazer 1,320]

X Plane weather and wind effects on flight model is absolutely terrible, and actually pretty decent in MSFS. 

[mSparks 2,086]

1 hour ago, Paulvanuf said:

I like to understand the flaws in the flightmodel, but I have not found any.

Well here's a couple of obvious glaring omissions atm

No glider support

No Helicopter support

No canard support

No computed flight model support (all aircraft development requires access to real world flight characteristics to model the real world flight characteristics, rather than imply them from the aircraft design, many real world flight characteristics not supported)

No IOS

very low fps minimums (so no realistic control response time guarantees)

No failure simulation support (especially flight model related like engine sep/losing flight surfaces, gear failure)

______

And that's just the simple flaws, well before you start getting into the kind of detail that takes decades for experienced engineers to argue over and resolve.

9 minutes ago, Greazer said:

X Plane weather and wind effects on flight model is absolutely terrible, and actually pretty decent in MSFS. 

If simulated nuclear winter is your idea of "pretty decent" weather and wind effects, I can safely say XP12 will have nothing for you. You might not like what terrible weather looks like when you get up in it, but I don't see Laminar reversing course and going with cartoon weather over what things actually look like from the cockpit.

[Mike44 22]

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

No computed flight model support (all aircraft development requires access to real world flight characteristics to model the real world flight characteristics, rather than imply them from the aircraft design, many real world flight characteristics not supported)

Not anymore, I've just had a look at the sdk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJERnwvEZQU

For the flightmodel you need to model accurate wings etc.

[mSparks 2,086]

9 minutes ago, Mike44 said:

Not anymore, I've just had a look at the sdk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJERnwvEZQU

For the flightmodel you need to model accurate wings etc.

Not even remotely close.

 

 

[Paraffin 2,197]

6 hours ago, GoranM said:

Austin thinks the flight model is the most important element of a FLIGHT simulator.  Not...clouds.  I mean, if you like flying through clouds, and looking at clouds, but using something with a Walmart flight model, more power to you.  You're obviously more easily pleased with the more technical components of a flight sim.  If all it takes is clouds to put a smile on your face, and the flight model is at the bottom of the priority list, then I can tell you right now, X-Plane is not for you.

C'mon Goran, I agree with everything else in that post, but clouds are more than eye candy. It's the environment we fly in. Maybe it doesn't matter that much to the airliner fans, zooming up into the flight levels and ignoring most weather. But for GA pilots, especially bush pilots, it's critical that clouds look and act realistically.

For example, I remember years ago when I was working as a photographer on a book about Mexico, the publisher hired a pilot to fly me to the Bonampak Mayan ruins in a light Cessna. This was when the site was just starting to be opened up, with a primitive airstrip nearby. We flew out of Mexico City, and spent a frustrating half hour or so circling over the site, which had been socked in with a cloud layer. Sometimes a hole in the clouds would open up, and the pilot would dive bomb into it, pulling up at the last minute when it looked like there wasn't enough room to recover before hitting the tree canopy.

Fun times! I was a lot younger and didn't scare as easily back then. Anyway, that's the kind of clouds I want, and it's not just eye candy. It's a functional part of flying. It shouldn't be a question of having to choose between flight model and cloud depiction. We should demand good quality in both parts of the sim. 

I've felt for a long time that the reason Austin hasn't prioritized weather in general, and not just cloud depiction, is that he's a private pilot and probably chooses to only fly in good weather. He's not the kind of GA pilot that has to fly in bad weather to get the job done.

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by Paraffin

[GoranM 3,764]

4 hours ago, Paraffin said:

I agree with everything else in that post, but clouds are more than eye candy.

You're misinterpreting what I said.  I said Austin puts a lot more importance on the flight model than a visual representation (ie. ultra realistic looking) of clouds.  Almost all updates for the V11 run, have been flight model or Vulkan related.

Certain people coming in and only picking clouds as X-Plane's sticking point, while making an example out of X-Plane, case in point,

17 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

Looks like everyone else has been able to get their "stock" clouds right...even combat sims. 

 is...laughable.  

It still boggles the mind at the hatred some people have for X-Plane.  And I keep asking myself, "Why are they in the X-Plane forums, trashing X-Plane, at almost every chance they get??"

Edited April 18, 2021 by GoranM

[mjrhealth 820]

Sadly some people just need serious help. I guess they use these forums for stress relief. People love to complain makes them feel better. More common than ever before.

[mSparks 2,086]

11 hours ago, GoranM said:

 is...laughable.

Now, I wouldn't go as far as calling it laughable.

I completely agree with this.

16 hours ago, Paraffin said:

and spent a frustrating half hour or so circling over the site, which had been socked in with a cloud layer. Sometimes a hole in the clouds would open up, and the pilot would dive bomb into it, pulling up at the last minute when it looked like there wasn't enough room to recover before hitting the tree canopy.

Wanting to simulate this kind of flight is exactly why I spent so much time with EC.

16 hours ago, Paraffin said:

it's critical that clouds look and act realistically.

look, not so much, nice to have, critical - not really. Act realistically- definitely.

However. At the same time.

On 4/18/2021 at 5:26 AM, FlyBaby said:

Looks like everyone else has been able to get their "stock" clouds right...even combat sims. 

 

Simply isn't true. NONE of the sims have their clouds acting realistically at the moment, Not the above "finding a hole", and I have yet to see anyone do realistic CB, decent cloud fronts, proper terrain interaction.

DCS is the first sim I've seen (since Ace Combat 7) that starts to get some of the look and feel of clouds (above 1000 feet) into their sim, and how it interacts with flight (combat or otherwise)

(I can still see bugs there btw)

MSFS clouds might be interesting if not for:

(lolz)

Volumetrics are a first step in this - they give the technical capability to start rendering clouds that behave realistically (e.g. have holes open up that you can descend through), but no one yet afaik has taken that the step further to actually get them behaving realistically.

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by mSparks