1 hour ago, Richard Sennett said:

Glen do they make a version where you actually feel like your flying ? IL2 Sturmovich and Cliffs of Dover did not IMO

It is all somewhat relative.

Actually for me back in the day, the 109 in Il2 Forgotten battles felt more like flying in the local flying clubs 172 in real life then the default Cessna 172 in FSX even though a 109 is nothing like a 172 in terms of the numbers it felt more like actually flying.

However that said, nothing on a PC regardless of the game, actually feels like real life flying.  People get obsessed with the "numbers" matching the POH ( which is all very nice for getting that warm fuzzy feeling about flying a "real" simulation) but the way a spiral dive feels like a fairground ride and pushing the stick forward in one of those old 40 degree flap 152s gives you vertigo ( and is a cross between going over the top in a roller coaster and bungee jumping )  is simply totally missing in a PC simulation.

 

Edited June 16, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

17 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

It is all somewhat relative.

Thanks much Pal 

7 hours ago, conundrum said:

Combat is not modelled. If you really think they could add that and still have an acceptable user experience, I don’t know what else to tell you. But I think you do know what I mean.

Nobody said combat was modelled?  Also, you realize that they can use the base code and base engine of MSFS, to make a separate combat flight simulator that plays on a different server so that it doesn’t mix with the people that play MSFS for civilian planes?

On 6/15/2021 at 12:31 AM, VFXSimmer said:

Ok if that makes you feel better.  All the evidence and progress of the past month flies in the face of your theory.  Feel free to continue your outrage if you like.

Saner minds will keep enjoying the sim and be thankful that there are talented teams setting a new bar for our hobby that the others will be measured against.  It’s a pretty exciting time!

I enjoy MSFS but there is no doubt it has been dumbed down since release.  One benefit of this is rediscovering just how good X Plane is.

Default scenery in MSFS is better, as is default weather. However, install Orbx True earth and the scenery is equal. Flight modelling in X Plane is far superior.  I fly mostly on PilotEdge and the area covered by that service has Orbx TrueEarth.  A great combination.

Both flight sims are great, but X Plane has the benefit of a better flight model.

14 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I enjoy MSFS but there is no doubt it has been dumbed down since release.  One benefit of this is rediscovering just how good X Plane is.

Default scenery in MSFS is better, as is default weather. However, install Orbx True earth and the scenery is equal. Flight modelling in X Plane is far superior.  I fly mostly on PilotEdge and the area covered by that service has Orbx TrueEarth.  A great combination.

Both flight sims are great, but X Plane has the benefit of a better flight model.

Except X-Plane doesn't have a better flight model than MSFS. This was discussed in another thread here at AVSIM, and also in the MSFS forums.  Matt Mischan, the lead of Working Title, went into detail on why MSFS had a more advanced flight model than X-Plane:

Quote

Nobody at Asobo, Blackshark, or Working Title is running XP side by side with MSFS and trying to reverse engineer XP's BET (or frankly any other aspect). Is there an awareness of each platform's APIs and featureset? Absolutely. Do people load up another sim once in a blue moon to check some assumption that someone posted about a given feature in another sim? Totally. I think that's plenty fair.

Additionally, MSFS categorically _does not_ use Blade Element Theory. Blade element theory is the idea that you can slice an airfoil up into cross sections, evaluate those cross sections, and then come up with a single lift and drag component for each cross section. XP does this slicing across the defined lifting surfaces to generate a limited number of lift points. It is relatively coarse and doesn't generate different values across each individual surface cross-section, but nonetheless it is used to great effect and the work done with it is quite good, as I've said before.

MSFS also starts with a base geometrically defined lifting surface, but then goes a completely different direction and discretizes the lifting surface into a large number (comparatively) of grid samples. Each individual grid sample receives its own airflow simulation that gets input from the airflow model in true 3d space: i.e. the atmospheric model is also 3d and thus the air itself is not a just a single scalar contribution but instead a varying 3d contribution across each grid sample where the atmospheric model and grid intersect. This means that each grid sample on any lifting surface contributes its forces individually and is also affected by a 3d atmospheric model individually.

Whether or not one believes the current aircraft flight model configurations use this well or whether enough parameters are exposed, the base grid sampling of the MSFS flight model is of a much higher resolution and the atmospheric contribution in 3d is a consumer sim first (to my knowledge, anyway). It also has the benefit of generating different lift values across the surface from front to back, which can be critical value differences at the flight envelope edges.

 

You can see additional comments in my original post here, by people who have analyzed X-Plane's and MSFS's flight model, on why MSFS has the more advanced flight model (their analysis is pretty close to what Matt concluded):

 

Seems like everyone fell for the false information about X-Plane's flight model vs MSFS flight model.

If MSFS has the more advanced flight model, I don't know what X-Plane has going for it, aside from more high fidelity airliners (but that's expected because it will take time for 3rd party devs like PMDG to get their high fidelity airliners into MSFS).

 

Edited June 17, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

23 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Except X-Plane doesn't have a better flight model than MSFS. This was discussed in another thread here at AVSIM, and also in the MSFS forums.  Matt Mischan, the lead of Working Title, went into detail on why MSFS had a more advanced flight model than X-Plane:

 

You can see additional comments in my original post here, by people who have analyzed X-Plane's and MSFS's flight model, on why MSFS has the more advanced flight model (their analysis is pretty close to what Matt concluded):

 

Seems like everyone fell for the false information about X-Plane's flight model vs MSFS flight model.

If MSFS has the more advanced flight model, I don't know what X-Plane has going for it, aside from more high fidelity airliners (but that's expected because it will take time for 3rd party devs like PMDG to get their high fidelity airliners into MSFS).

 

I am more worried about how an aircraft feels to fly, rather than what a particular flight model may or may not be capable of.  I fly and like both simulators, but at the moment X Planes flight model feels superior to me.

I was using MSFS 100 percent of the time until I started flying on PilotEdge. They have great VFR and IFR training courses and recommend X Plane.  I agree with them the flight model in X Plane is better at this time.  I thought the default scenery was bland, but Orbx Tue Earth sorted that for the PilotEdge coverage area.

X Plane is no where near as poor as some make it out to be.  

23 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I am more worried about how an aircraft feels to fly, rather than what a particular flight model may or may not be capable of.  I fly and like both simulators, but at the moment X Planes flight model feels superior to me.

I was using MSFS 100 percent of the time until I started flying on PilotEdge. They have great VFR and IFR training courses and recommend X Plane.  I agree with them the flight model in X Plane is better at this time.  I thought the default scenery was bland, but Orbx Tue Earth sorted that for the PilotEdge coverage area.

X Plane is no where near as poor as some make it out to be.  

Well, if you read the thread I started about the discussion of MSFS's flight model, several real world pilots here at AVSIM have stated the flight model in MSFS feels better for them than X-Plane for the planes they fly in MSFS, given their real world flying experience flying those planes. 

How a flight model feels is subjective though, from pilot to pilot, and it may vary from plane to plane.  What is not subjective is the algorithm and math used for the flight model.  And if you read the analysis, MSFS's flight model has a much higher resolution than X-Plane's flight model.  

I don't think X-Plane flight model is really better than MSFS's flight model, at least not when people started to pick both flight models apart, including looking at the math and structure that both use. And some real life pilots are saying the MSFS flight model feels more accurate to them than X-Plane (there are also real life pilots that say X-Plane feels better so this is a wash).  However, it seems many people fell for some type of X-Plane marketing gimmick about the flight model but when knowledgeable people analyzed both flight models and got down to the details, MSFS has the more advanced flight model with a higher potential than X-Plane.

 

Edited June 17, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

3 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I enjoy MSFS but there is no doubt it has been dumbed down since release.  One benefit of this is rediscovering just how good X Plane is.

Default scenery in MSFS is better, as is default weather. However, install Orbx True earth and the scenery is equal. Flight modelling in X Plane is far superior.  I fly mostly on PilotEdge and the area covered by that service has Orbx TrueEarth.  A great combination.

Both flight sims are great, but X Plane has the benefit of a better flight model.

Why is is that so many XPlane-devotees constantly have to show up here and tell us how Xplane is superior to MSFS, this and that, and so on?

It's, like, I'm sitting in a restaurant enjoying my sirloin steak, when someone comes over and tells me, that I should eat his dish instead.

Sorry, pal, this sirloin is working quite nicely for me.

Ya gotta think the dude secretly wants your sirloin.

Too funny.😏

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

at the moment X Planes flight model feels superior to me.

I feel that someday soon, I will be able to make Khloe Kardashian my wife.

See what I did there?😉

20 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why is is that so many XPlane-devotees constantly have to show up here and tell us how Xplane is superior to MSFS, this and that, and so on?

It's, like, I'm sitting in a restaurant enjoying my sirloin steak, when someone comes over and tells me, that I should eat his dish instead.

Sorry, pal, this sirloin is working quite nicely for me.

Ya gotta think the dude secretly wants your sirloin.

Too funny.😏

Your analogy is odd because I stated I like my dish and the steak.  I fly both MSFS and X Plane, both are great simulators.  

22 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

I feel that someday soon, I will be able to make Khloe Kardashian my wife.

See what I did there?😉

I fly MSFS and X Plane.  Both are fantastic simulators. I choose which one to fly depending what I want to achieve.  I prefer the flight model in X Plane based on feel.

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Your analogy is odd 

 What is odd is that you come to a MFS forum to make the promotion of X-Plane.

Are you guys X-planers so insecure about the "superiority" of the XP FM that your need to parrot that again and again and again here ? Need to convince yourself ? Or is it only just a lack of decency ? A MFS forum is just that, a MFS forum. This is not a billboard for XP. Can't you guys understand that ? Read my lips M F S.

By the way, I would surmise that a majority of us came from P3D and the minority coming from XP  has given up on your darling. We are not interested by XP. 

Edited June 17, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I enjoy MSFS but there is no doubt it has been dumbed down since release.

Where has this dumbing down you see in MSFS taken place?

42 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

 

 

 What is odd is that you come to a MFS forum to make the promotion of X-Plane.

Are you guys X-planers so insecure about the "superiority" of the XP FM that your need to parrot that again and again and again here ? Need to convince yourself ? Or is it only just a lack of decency ? A MFS forum is just that, a MFS forum. This is not a billboard for XP. Can't you guys understand that ? Read my lips M F S.

By the way, I would surmise that a majority of us came from P3D and the minority coming from XP  has given up on your darling. We are not interested by XP. 

Did you miss my statement that I think MSFS is a great simulator and I use it?

35 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Where has this dumbing down you see in MSFS taken place?

Some visual aspects like draw distance of trees and buildings.  Apart from that it is a great simulator.