2 hours ago, jarmstro said:

It's $60 for the standard edition which includes the streamed scenery.

standard edition is little more than a demo tho, but if you want to break it up like that

msfs is $10 to $70 for the base sim and $50 for the streamed scenery.

Obviously it doesnt divide that simply and its not like they are really priced separately. 

Also DCS world base sim is free (and better graphics). So you could just as easily say MSFS standard edition is free and $60 for the streamed scenery - depends how critical you feel like being of the underlying sim - how much is it worth without the streamed scenery?

More than this?

 

Edited July 24, 20214 yr by mSparks

11 hours ago, jcomm said:

MS FS and X-Plane are just the same regarding this model of updates.

That was one of the aspects that attracted me in War Thunder, IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad and also, somehow, DCS World...

All but the last have seamless upgrades and in WT and IL-2 you don't even have to install anything - just push the update.  In DCS all of your add-ons are also automatically upwards compatible.

Beauty !

That's due to the release model applied by the developers. Back in the day, you had a main platform with major releases every couple of years, but nowadays, it's a more gradual process, with continuous development and improvements. This also makes it easier for third party developers to keep their products updated.

I wouldn't mind a subscription based distribution model (~5 €/month or so) for X-Plane with continuous updates, even across major version jumps so I can get new features earlier than having to wait for them as part of an isolated, major release.

20 hours ago, jcomm said:

MS FS and X-Plane are just the same regarding this model of updates.

That was one of the aspects that attracted me in War Thunder, IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad and also, somehow, DCS World...

All but the last have seamless upgrades and in WT and IL-2 you don't even have to install anything - just push the update.  In DCS all of your add-ons are also automatically upwards compatible.

Beauty !

That is great for the combat and competition flyer. Me, I just want to operate Study level aircraft simulation IRL as possible in a realistic looking environment. I don't need to be able to see my actual house represented just long as the street footprint of my town is close. I'm in the sims for learning and also procedural practice between lessons.

4 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

That is great for the combat and competition flyer. Me, I just want to operate Study level aircraft simulation IRL as possible in a realistic looking environment. I don't need to be able to see my actual house represented just long as the street footprint of my town is close. I'm in the sims for learning and also procedural practice between lessons.

But I agree, and the reason why I derailled into combat sims was not the combat, quite on the contrary. I did find on those sims much closer to real "feel of flight", and in IL2 and DCS also details of systems / engine / aerodynamics modelling that were much more tempting than those I get from either XP or MS FS... eeven with the most detailled ever addons I tried with either (*)  Regarding detailled systems, and scenery display, I couldn't agree more either, although I surender to a very nice scenery in XP or the AMAZING looks of MFS, but for me the basic representation of scenery outside of airport areas is perfectly acceptable.

Anyway, point here was how much I would like to see X-Plane becomming more compatible regarding new versions and stuff I bought for the previous ones....

 

(*) I should add that the "Experimental FM" in XP11 was an important step ahead towards a better flight dynamics model, and MFS brings also some potentially interesting ways of modelling the flihght dynamics and overall physics characteristics of aircraft although it needs a LOT of attention from ASOBO 😕 because it comes with several bugs and limitations... ( too many for my liking 😞   )

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by jcomm

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

But I agree, and the reason why I derailled into combat sims was not the combat, quite on the contrary. I did find on those sims much closer to real "feel of flight", and in IL2 and DCS also details of systems / engine / aerodynamics modelling that were much more tempting than those I get from either XP or MS FS... eeven with the most detailled ever addons I tried with either (*)  Regarding detailled systems, and scenery display, I couldn't agree more either, although I surender to a very nice scenery in XP or the AMAZING looks of MFS, but for me the basic representation of scenery outside of airport areas is perfectly acceptable.

Anyway, point here was how much I would like to see X-Plane becomming more compatible regarding new versions and stuff I bought for the previous ones....

 

(*) I should add that the "Experimental FM" in XP11 was an important step ahead towards a better flight dynamics model, and MFS brings also some potentially interesting ways of modelling the flihght dynamics and overall physics characteristics of aircraft although it needs a LOT of attention from ASOBO 😕 because it comes with several bugs and limitations... ( too many for my liking 😞   )

You should concentrate on the bikinis right now where you are currently  

Flight dynamics mean much as a student. And systems. If I would have known how good A2A is when I returned to simming a year ago I would never have wasted money on any Carenado birds. My hanger would have been

All 5 A2A GA singles.

Just Flight Duchess

Just Flight Arrow

Flight 1 B200 Version II

Flight 1 Cessna Mustang

Aerosoft CRJ

Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25

Accufeel for sure.

I wouldn't have wasted time on many freeware planes either.

Just those best quality payware planes.

Gary, maybe one of these days A2A can try their luck with X-Plane...

 

I believe they may have to create for MFS too, because that is always a good source of funds for their projects, but if they could specialize on X-Plane too I believe we could have yet another source of quality add-ons.

Well, in X-Plane's world there are actually much more choices of good add-ons than in ms fs an derivatives world... That's inherent to the characteristics of the base flight dynamics and development model available for X-Plane. Not saying there can't be good add-on aircraft for MFS, specially if modeled outside of the core fm ( problematic as it is right now... ).

And why not have LES, Toliss, Trident, Vskylabs, ...., developing for MFS too ?

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by jcomm

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

And why not have LES, Toliss, Trident, Vskylabs, ...., developing for MFS too ?

I used to think that too. But they haven't got the resources to excel in both sims. So it's better that they stick with the sim they know so that when XP12 is released we can hope for more superb planes from them.

6 hours ago, jcomm said:

And why not have LES, Toliss, Trident, Vskylabs, ...., developing for MFS too ?

FS20 and X-Plane are fundamentally differently working sims under the hood. Unless you have specialized teams catering to different platforms (see JustFlight), cross-platform development just isn't worth it.

You also need to consider this horrifying thought: Those X-Plane add-on developers may not do it for the money and - worse - may not even be interested in other platforms!

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by Bjoern

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

And why not have LES, Toliss, Trident, Vskylabs, ...., developing for MFS too ?

The only really FSX/P3D developers that developed for XP11 too was JustFlight and Carenado/Alabeo. And most of their XP11 products weren't even ported by them, they were mostly helped by Thranda to help take their ESP products to X-Plane. Of course Carenado had stopped working with Thranda in 2019, but i certainly do think that Carenado would not have been interested in XP11 development if it weren't in part done by Thranda.

You should also consider the fact that most P3D developers are developing for MSFS as well, so if you have Aerosoft, FENIXSim, FlightSimLabs, JARDesigns, FlightFactor, and ToLiss ALL making airbuses for MSFS, well it would just be oversaturated at that point. Aerosoft, FSL (and supposedly FENIX) are really the ones who have more experience in this sim, and unless something big in MSFS makes X-Plane developers want to develop for it, well I just think it won't happen at all. 

In my opinion, if the ToLiss and the FENIX were both on MSFS right now, well there wouldn't really be any reason (for me) to choose the ToLiss over the FENIXSim.

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by arwasairl

There was an mildly interesting graph put up by aerosoft on their FSA webinar for xbox comparing their perspective on P3D/XP/MSFS sales over the last 12 months that put XP at about 30% of MSFS, P3D at about 2 or 3% - but no numbers because they didnt want to share them.

I'd put XP at no more than 3 or 400 - which puts MSFS at no more than a few thousand.... (so I can imagine why they didnt want to share them).

Arguing the detail of that deserves its own thread. But the basic message was "there is hope in xbox" which isnt quite so contentious.

But it made me think a lot more on the XP situation.

They just need to get it right, and price it right. At this point the past doesnt matter, other than providing the (very long) list of how to do it wrong.

Anything that isnt 100% ready for mass market should be kept off xp12 until it is 100% ready for mass market, its time to give up on these soul destroying grinding iterations of slightly better than before but still not ready - unless clearly marked as beta.

11 minutes ago, mSparks said:

There was an mildly interesting graph put up by aerosoft on their FSA webinar for xbox comparing their perspective on P3D/XP/MSFS sales over the last 12 months that put XP at about 30% of MSFS

Indeed, that's consistent with the relative users number of the two sims on Steam.

On 7/19/2021 at 9:04 PM, Greazer said:

XP12 must support all current scenery and aircraft addons.

XP12 may have new and improved features but current addons must work "as is".

XP12 must not create additional installation or maintenance issues.

XP12 must be coded to be flexible unlike original Vulkan release which threw errors even just for "incompatible" objects.

XP12 runtime errors, if any, should not popup an annoying dialog in the main sim view.

There is a website for feature requests (it might be a bit more effective than Avsim...):

https://feedback.x-plane.com/posts/485/compatibility-for-xp11-addons-if-xp12-is-the-plan

16 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Indeed, that's consistent with the relative users number of the two sims on Steam.

what blew my mind (and what I'm still grappling with) is those numbers are an absolute disaster for all three.

like i knew pc was struggling (most windows pcs are laptops with no gpu of note), but holy mary, the refunds for msfs must have put cyberpunk to shame to hit net sales that low - checks - omg, even cyberpunk 2077 is demolishing them on steam......

It almost leaves me thinking that xp12 should have lower minimum specs than xp11 (alongside higher recommended), but I'm really not sure what can be done to improve the situation, I guess we'll know more after the Q&A in a few days.

 

6 hours ago, jarmstro said:

I used to think that too. But they haven't got the resources to excel in both sims. So it's better that they stick with the sim they know so that when XP12 is released we can hope for more superb planes from them.

It's a little more complicated than that.

A 3D model is a 3D model in any sim.  Textures are textures in any sim.  Code is code in any sim.  There are different workflows for each, but certainly nothing that will delay progress.

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by GoranM