32 minutes ago, jcomm said:

eheh, I believe jarmstro meant the sounds in the Toliss Airbus, not the FFA320, and that in that respect the FBWA320 won hands down.

I agree, although I can easily accept not top sounds an even graphics, specially external, in exchange for detailed system, aerodynamics and overall performance.

 😂 You're probably right. Now my brain hurts a little.

7 minutes ago, rka said:

 😂 You're probably right. Now my brain hurts a little.

I meant the FBW. Even though it makes your brain hurt for some reason in fact the sounds are superb.

From a software engineering perspective, I am still keeping an eye on this space.

But I can't recall anything coming "out of the blue" like this (with MSFS2020) and overnight moving all benchmark deltas forward so far.

If I was a competitor I am not sure what sales pitch to even go with.

I don't like monopoly's so hopefully some good comes of it (besides the argument about FS2020 being "good", that's not really the point).

I'd love to know what heads-up Laminar got about this new platform.  I can only imagine it being met with "oh you're back again?" only to now realize they were very, very serious.

EDIT:  To summarize, as strange as it may sound, I'm watching how a true software competitor with limited resources will approach this incredible $200M+ storm.

 

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by Gulfstream

40 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

From a software engineering perspective, I am still keeping an eye on this space.

But I can't recall anything coming "out of the blue" like this (with MSFS2020) and overnight moving all benchmark deltas forward so far.

If I was a competitor I am not sure what sales pitch to even go with.

I don't like monopoly's so hopefully some good comes of it (besides the argument about FS2020 being "good", that's not really the point).

I'd love to know what heads-up Laminar got about this new platform.  I can only imagine it being met with "oh you're back again?" only to now realize they were very, very serious.

EDIT:  To summarize, as strange as it may sound, I'm watching how a true software competitor with limited resources will approach this incredible $200M+ storm.

 

It's for sure a much smaller market, but over time I believe most of the X-Plane users will continue to use X-Plane even if they have also started to use and enjoy MFS.

There's actually no form of exclusivity from either platform regarding the other.

I use X-Plane 11 now because as much as MFS can look great scenery wise, and even weather-depiction wise ( not consistency ... ) I still prefer the way I interact with the cockpits of my preferred XP addons, I still prefer by far the flight dynamics and ground physics in XP, I even still prefer ( graphics / visuals not taken into consideration ) XP's default weather over MFS's default weather...

I prefer my Toliss A319 to the FBW A320N. I don't have an helicopter worth the comparison in MFS ( and I don't count the Bell 47 as a serious competitor although I agree it's a nice interim solution for a total lack of rotary aerodynamics in MFS ), so I use XP to be able to play my Bell 412 or the Nimbus UH-1h.

I also by far prefer any taildragger in XP to whatever I have in MFS, and not only in the ground... also airborne... The MDLAG Bf 109 series are some of my preferred taildraggers / ww2 fighters available for XP and already "Experimental-FM-ready".

I know and want to believe ASOBO's dynamism and budget can do a lot and probably continue to work towards a better FM, Weather model integration, etc... but so far, MFS is mostly "the looks"... not the "feels"... 

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by jcomm

 

In other news this week, we had sonic booms in AZ and DC!!! "Rig For RED"

6 hours ago, strider1 said:

 

In other news this week, we had sonic booms in AZ and DC!!! "Rig For RED"

BTW: How were those reproduced in XP's weather skies 😁

Ehehehe, in the past if I correctly recall, Austin allowed for some meteor effects to be represented randomly ( ? )

Virgin Galactic and t's competitors is, nonetheless, what I really would like to be able to model in XP12.

Austin could also add some UFO Easter eggs...

Edited September 9, 20214 yr by jcomm

12 hours ago, jarmstro said:

I meant the FBW. Even though it makes your brain hurt for some reason in fact the sounds are superb.

Yeah sorry. I completely misread and misunderstood everything. I had a to take a strong medication yesterday and looking back, this had some funny effects 😄

19 hours ago, jcomm said:

BTW: How were those reproduced in XP's weather skies 😁

Ehehehe, in the past if I correctly recall, Austin allowed for some meteor effects to be represented randomly ( ? )

Virgin Galactic and t's competitors is, nonetheless, what I really would like to be able to model in XP12.

Austin could also add some UFO Easter eggs...

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/519/468/original/ff7716e3d413e5c8.mp4

No worries Capt Pepe is in charge!

 

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by strider1

3 hours ago, strider1 said:

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/519/468/original/ff7716e3d413e5c8.mp4

No worries Capt Pepe is in charge!

 

🤣

On 9/9/2021 at 12:33 AM, Gulfstream said:

EDIT:  To summarize, as strange as it may sound, I'm watching how a true software competitor with limited resources will approach this incredible $200M+ storm.

Not strange, I am watching exactly that as well.

I grow more frustrated every day with XP11. It has nothing to do with the aircraft or flight dynamics. It's about an really old rendering pipeline that run like word not allowed on modern hardware anytime you are above 1080p resolution. My PC is as beast and only 28% of my GPU is in used when I load the FJS 727-300 at CYVR. I am only getting 28fps on the ground. Maybe i'll get in the 40fps while flying. If I'm lucky. It's frustrating to see my hardware barely getting used and having such low FPS. This is what I want for XP12. I want them to focus on the rendering engine. Take advantage of modern hardware.  It's all I am asking.  The rest is fine.  I can live with autogen. It's not a big deal.

7 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

I grow more frustrated every day with XP11. It has nothing to do with the aircraft or flight dynamics. It's about an really old rendering pipeline that run like word not allowed on modern hardware anytime you are above 1080p resolution. My PC is as beast and only 28% of my GPU is in used when I load the FJS 727-300 at CYVR. I am only getting 28fps on the ground. Maybe i'll get in the 40fps while flying. If I'm lucky. It's frustrating to see my hardware barely getting used and having such low FPS. This is what I want for XP12. I want them to focus on the rendering engine. Take advantage of modern hardware.  It's all I am asking.  The rest is fine.  I can live with autogen. It's not a big deal.

I believe that’s exactly what they’re planning for Xplane 12. 

I really hope so Randall. 

21 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

I really hope so Randall. 

If you are like me and interested on some more nerdy details like "how efficient the rendering is" I really recommend the last blog post by Sidney: https://developer.x-plane.com/2021/08/next-generation-trees-and-opengl/

On 9/8/2021 at 7:50 PM, alexcolka said:

Ftsim+ fmod sound packs for many XP11 aircraft are superb, including the Tolisses, I like a lot what he did with the A321 sounds for the CEO and NEO engines.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/all-available-53595876

That's one extensive list. Tempted to invest in tier 2 and collect some sound packages. Is the fidelity comparable to AudiobirdXP's package for the 737?

 

1 hour ago, fogboundturtle said:

It's about an really old rendering pipeline that run like word not allowed on modern hardware anytime you are above 1080p resolution. My PC is as beast and only 28% of my GPU is in used when I load the FJS 727-300 at CYVR. I am only getting 28fps on the ground. Maybe i'll get in the 40fps while flying. If I'm lucky. It's frustrating to see my hardware barely getting used and having such low FPS.

That sounds like an AMD 5000 or 6000 series GPU in Windows in OpenGL mode. In that case, it's AMD's fault for not optimizing its OpenGL driver enough.