X-Plane Technology Preview One

[Janov 2,383]

7 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

I though the whole point of a flight sim was to fly???

The purpose is different for every user. Even in my class in pilot school there was a divide, some wanted to become airline pilots to see the world, some for the money (yeah, it was back then), some for the social status and some to operate cool machinery like an airliner. And even then there was some disdain among groups, we (the pilot nerds) scoffed at those getting "just good enough" grades...while they thought we were crazy to study like we did. For what?

Its the same for people playing multiplayer shooters - some enjoy Quake Arena or Overwatch - others can only play Squad and complain when muzzle velocities don´t match up with real specs.

Flightsimulators are no different. I watched some "Crosswind landing tutorials" for MSFS last night on youtube...and while those people doing them sounded very knowledgable, I was amazed that they maintained that voice of "professional CFI" while flying a twitchy, bobbing, toy-looking airplane to a (great looking!) airport and then got flipped off the runway upon touchdown...? (Jump to 3:30 if you want to see what I am talking about).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__W7rMbxWeQ

Its like MSFS users have some blind spot that does not allow them to see these things - I can´t fathom how "real world CFI´s" can advocate using it for real training and still look at themselves in the mirror? Sure, they (cautiously, lest they provoke the anger of their bubble group) say that you should "limit" the training use (like to how to spot certain landmarks from the air 😁), but still?

Edited June 6, 2021 by Janov

[rka 916]

1 hour ago, Janov said:

Its like MSFS users have some blind spot that does not allow them to see these things - I can´t fathom how[...]

This somehow has a funny sound to me, if I may say so.

[Humpty 751]

Times has changed tech has changed simmer's  have changed , XP needs to change where it's needed to  period.   

Edited June 6, 2021 by HumptyDumpty

[mjrhealth 820]

1 hour ago, HumptyDumpty said:

Times has changed tech has changed simmer's  have changed , XP needs to change where it's needed to  period.   

We should go back to the original flight sim than it will all look good. People just got miserable and love to complain about every thing. Nothing is good enough anymore. Another 12 months you will all find something else to complain about, delay that, mid week, something else will pop up.

 

Such a miserable world we live inn no one happy anymore. Apple got it right, I pad, I pone, I pod, . I want.

[Humpty 751]

6 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

We should go back to the original flight sim than it will all look good. People just got miserable and love to complain about every thing. Nothing is good enough anymore. Another 12 months you will all find something else to complain about, delay that, mid week, something else will pop up.

 

Such a miserable world we live inn no one happy anymore. Apple got it right, I pad, I pone, I pod, . I want.

Yep , after a time we will all want to complain , but that's how it is , adapt or lose out.  

I am still good with XP11 using vkbasalt in linux but that again  an overlay with a  reshade  port , I don't want  anymore keep using addons or some fixes to make it look half decent, the tech is available to light up the sim and provided us with a much better wx visuals and effects. So i expect LR to move ahead.

I could have gone with MFS but for me it holds no interest as yet due to the lack of helis. XP provides me the fun i want but there is always an urge for a better lighting / Wx. I can live with Ortho4xp and the freeware scenery. 

 One thing i wanted to add about in this thread and a few others which as usual got blocked , some argue about what MFS is capable and what XP is not . ppl tend to forget the multiplatform capability of XP with an old Opengl graphics API which had limitations , opening up performance on that engine was not much possible , they have moved to vulkan  , m sure they will open up the performance further and enhance visuals.  

 

[mSparks 2,086]

On 6/5/2021 at 8:36 AM, rka said:

So, it's all great and fine and XP is ahead in so many areas that it actually doesn't even really need any catching up.

pretty much.

But it does need a fair bit of rationalization so that it:

1. Looks good out of the box from the moment its installed, rather than requiring an advanced computing degree and/or reshade to get it looking good.

2. can be overhauled in a couple of areas, such as lighting and scenery, so as to take "the edge" off places that typically lack detail, such as the edge of runways, and more natural vegetation. 

3. does a better job of guiding newcomers to aviation to the things they need to know, stick and rudder is ok, but there are far more important docs out there such as those provided by the FAA and ICAO.

4. gives more access under the hood to the 3PD weather people so they can concentrate on proving richer weather simulations rather than writing everything from scratch or just trying to get basics right like drawing clouds.

5. gives more access to 3PDs to the more advanced panel objects, rather than having to fall back on sasl/opengl for any kind of modern glass cockpit.

Thats's really about it, note how non of those things imply XP is behind, they all just make it much faster and easier to move even further ahead.

Edited June 6, 2021 by mSparks

[Janov 2,383]

3 hours ago, rka said:

This somehow has a funny sound to me, if I may say so.

Why? Because of "blind spot" in connection with "seeing"?

I did write "does NOT allow them to see". Oh and here is the definition of blind spot:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blind spot

Cheers, Jan

 

[Murmur 3,941]

8 minutes ago, Janov said:

Why? Because of "blind spot" in connection with "seeing"?

I did write "does NOT allow them to see". Oh and here is the definition of blind spot:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blind spot

Cheers, Jan

 

Think he's referring to us XP users not seeing things (visual deficiency) from his point of view.

[mjrhealth 820]

Something to do with, if it looks good it must be good, I can imagine all those people who enjoyed there last delicious meal that looked good, till that chicken bone got stuck in there throat. But than thats how most manufacturer work these days, its all about eye candy, gets people every time, just dont open the hood. And so they get away with It. Glad Austin sticking to his guns.

Edited June 6, 2021 by mjrhealth

[Janov 2,383]

35 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Think he's referring to us XP users not seeing things (visual deficiency) from his point of view.

Ah got it - well, I have made it a point to never doubt or question MSFS´ stunning advantage in the visual field in my past posts...so it can´t be me.

I think it is actually hard to grasp for some people that there are users that value other things MORE than visuals. You can explain it a million times...and will just get: "Yeah, I understand you. But can´t you see that MSFS looks so much better?" 🤣

[jcomm 5,922]

guys, really stick to your sim...

it is far from being perfect, the other is just as good or better in other aspects... certainly not so good in other...

each one is what it is... 

this great post today can make xp fans also gain space in their hearts for mfs... why not ?

i remember when, not far away, austin was confronted with crossflow modelling, aka 3d vs 2d airfoil theory...

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/developing-a-blade-element-theory/407516/2?u=jcommflight

@Janov, I agree with most of what you write, but a few posts above I read you post about ground physics in mfs and landing in a xwind.... well, we all know we shouldn't throw stones at our neighbours roofs when our's made of glass 😁

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by jcomm

[jarmstro 2,402]

Which BET flight model are we meant to choose? The standard or the experimental? Both can't be correct?  Or is BET just that. A theory with nothing but guesses and constant experimentation? It's a PC flight sim! Near enough is good enough.

[GoranM 3,764]

4 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

A theory with nothing but guesses and constant experimentation?

Austin never guesses.

[jcomm 5,922]

15 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Which BET flight model are we meant to choose? The standard or the experimental? Both can't be correct?  Or is BET just that. A theory with nothing but guesses and constant experimentation? It's a PC flight sim! Near enough is good enough.

well, i believe it certainly has it's advantages, otherwise asobo wouldn't have opted for a variant of it, but , just as the most rich in source data tabular methods it certainly also has it's limitations... 

Alexis has been using some really interesting programs - open source and / or free 2 use - CFD-based, and really enjoying it, but also being forced to recognize how far from a full coverage of all sorts of aerodynamic effects that come into play in a real aircraft flying, these desktop simulators have to be...

Austin is a skilful programmer, engineer, and designed x-plane all alone, using of course a technique not invented by him, but he has done a remarkable job. does xp have a lot of problems ? of course it does ! but so do mfs, p3d, fsx, il2, dcs, .... name it...

i am presently quite away from flight simulation, although i continue to follow forums like avsim, and sharing ideas with other long time users, developers, friends... my intent is to calmly wait, give time, to all of the platforms to step into a more stable state of affairs. maybe i'll return in a year or so, provided the inflated hw costs change course 😒 because i will surely not pay a fortune to be able to run a game... nah... been there, done that for many years.

---

Edited June 6, 2021 by jcomm

[jarmstro 2,402]

8 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Austin never guesses.

Ah! I see. Sorry for the blasphemy. Didn't mean to offend..😀

Edited June 6, 2021 by jarmstro