27 minutes ago, Claviateur said:

Sadly, this is the weird feeling I was talking about... It's like a cult behavior... It's like let's find a little tiny thing in the other cult and make it a big issue..  What we have is ok...The same there is a big deal... And let's play down or deny things there because they do not serve our cult interest or agenda and let's twist things to make our cult always superior and feel good about ourselves in it... 

It's not that. It's much simpler. If the threads in this forum (which is the X-Plane forum, i.e. a forum where XP users and, residually, prospective XP users discuss about XP) wouldn't continually be derailed by MSFS shills constantly telling: "MSFS IS BETTER!" and "WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT MSFS IS BETTER?", then you wouldn't have the reactions you are decrying.

It's evident that most of the people hanging in this forum prefer XP and its way of doing things. So if MSFS shills come here provoking, it's natural that someone who chose XP as his sim is gonna rebut them and maybe show after all why they're using XP and not the competition.

I think that every XP user is wishing that the next version will have a better scenery, as he wishes that it will have better weather, an even better flight model, better AI/ATC, etc etc etc.

 

Edited May 31, 20224 yr by Murmur

2 hours ago, Murmur said:

It's not that. It's much simpler. If the threads in this forum (which is the X-Plane forum, i.e. a forum where XP users and, residually, prospective XP users discuss about XP) wouldn't continually be derailed by MSFS shills constantly telling: "MSFS IS BETTER!" and "WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT MSFS IS BETTER?", then you wouldn't have the reactions you are decrying

But as is often the case, and was the case for this very thread, the first person to mention MSFS is an XP user. I don’t see the value of those discussions anymore either, but frankly, it really is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

8 hours ago, Kopteeni said:

You know MSFS is doing something right when sparksy has stored screenshots in his hard drive about flaws in the sim and is monitoring their website and clinging on to any crumb of information that could in some imaginative way mean the end of the sim.

You know, XP is doing something right when MSFS f.nb..s are flooding the forum here.

 

4 hours ago, Claviateur said:

Sadly, this is the weird feeling I was talking about... It's like a cult behavior... It's like let's find a little tiny thing in the other cult and make it a big issue..  What we have is ok...The same there is a big deal... And let's play down or deny things there because they do not serve our cult interest or agenda and let's twist things to make our cult always superior and feel good about ourselves in it... 

While the whole discussion is simply about world engine technology for entertainment flight simulation that is obviously evolving like everything else... 🙄

The nature of cult or missionaries is to go "out to the world" (e.g. other countries, cities, forums, ...) and praise the good news. It's like let's find a little tiny thing in the other cult and make it a big issue..  What we have is ok...The same there is a big deal... And let's play down or deny things there because they do not serve our cult interest or agenda and let's twist things to make our cult always superior and feel good about ourselves in it... 

Isn't it? 😁

25 minutes ago, uwespeed said:

You know, XP is doing something right when MSFS f.nb..s are flooding the forum here.

This might sound completely strange to you but I like many flight sims, incl. XPlane and MSFS.

28 minutes ago, uwespeed said:

You know, XP is doing something right when MSFS f.nb..s are flooding the forum here

5 hours ago, Claviateur said:

Sadly, this is the weird feeling I was talking about... It's like a cult behavior... It's like let's find a little tiny thing in the other cult and make it a big issue..  What we have is ok...The same there is a big deal... And let's play down or deny things there because they do not serve our cult interest or agenda and let's twist things to make our cult always superior and feel good about ourselves in it... 

While the whole discussion is simply about world engine technology for entertainment flight simulation that is obviously evolving like everything else... 🙄

If you actually look at my imgur you will see I have posted plenty of XP related bugs to, e.g. here's highlighting some issues in one of the XP12 showcases

And sure, I get it, MSFS can sometimes draw nice scenery

That an artist spent days weeks on and is limited to small areas.

But "nice art by artists" 

Has consequences. Especially file size, which greatly impacts storage space required, load times and performance -> all the stuff that's actually important to a flight simulator.

And this is really the deciding factor to whether I use XP or literally anything else

It also cannot be overstated the impact that has on development. when you are developing - and reloading the sim every 5 minutes - it makes a HUGE difference if reloading the sim takes 20 seconds or 20 minutes.

No amount of AI, big budget or no budget is going to change this. Its hard limits on the hardware people have access to - hardware that has barely changed in a meaningful way for a long time up until very recently.

I'll also maybe do a facade video when I get back next week, because XP11 .fac file format is already insanely good these days, and I couldn't find a decent demo of it.

7 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Has consequences. Especially file size, which greatly impacts storage space required, load times and performance -> all the stuff that's actually important to a flight simulator.

Well coming from XP, I have huuuge amounts of storage space, performance and loading bandwidth available, can't exactly remember why... 😉

44 minutes ago, rka said:

 can't exactly remember why... 😉

The "user hardware limits" in the next paragraph.

Beyond that you have "streaming" aka downloading "on the fly". 

Which is probably my biggest criticism of msfs - its "mostly" achieving a level of detail (old crpy xp trees, and odd blob of high quality msfs scenery considered) equal to that of XP, while requiring you also consume a large amount of bandwidth to get it, well almost, you still have to pay for and download locally virtually any airport you want to operate on, whereas default XP 3D airports are all included and mostly "good".

But its only a flight sim, good airports aren't that important to include as default, right....

Edited May 31, 20224 yr by mSparks

22 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The "user hardware limits" in the next paragraph.

Beyond that you have "streaming" aka downloading "on the fly". 

Which is probably my biggest criticism of msfs - its "mostly" achieving a level of detail (old crpy xp trees, and odd blob of high quality msfs scenery considered) equal to that of XP, while requiring you also consume a large amount of bandwidth to get it, well almost, you still have to pay for and download locally virtually any airport you want to operate on, whereas default XP 3D airports are all included and mostly "good".

But its only a flight sim, good airports aren't that important to include as default, right....

Sooo... how many GB's of ortho have you downloaded? My MSFS community + official folder totals 240 GB. My Xplane 11 Custom Scenery folder is at 815 GB. I use ZL 16 orthos and have downloaded parts of the Europe.

Edited May 31, 20224 yr by Kopteeni

I find this discussion absolutely crazy. I like X-Plane, but credit where credit is due, the MFS default scenery is leaps and bounds ahead of what we have in X-Plane. Microsoft have huge resources, access to TBs of data, etc, so it's absolutely no surprise they can do this and this is not to knock the brilliant work LR do on other aspects of the simulation.

X-Plane can have decent scenery addons, but as of yet, nobody has done it on a large scale using AI. Nearest you'll get are the Simheaven, W2XP or Orbx TrueEarth sceneries, and these mostly rely on the availability of free data, so they'll never be able to cover the world, or even entire countries consistently or at a cheap cost, and let's not even mention the storage space required to hold this data.

The facade tech in X-Plane is nothing like the tech you see in MFS. Facades are fairly limited in what they can do, and basically just have sections of walls with perhaps 3D objects attached to them. Use these in any amount, e.g. to cover a city, and the sim will really struggle. Facades can't make anything more than basic block buildings (no gabled roofs), and are unsuitable for placing millions of houses. The MFS facades are very clever in how they are built up, even trying to match the general roof shape of the footprint, colour and also style for the region or data. Whilst yes, they look fairly odd at ground level, they do the trick, and on a global scale work really well. 

I think if anyone is expecting XP12 to have similar global scenery and to be able to see their own house, they'll be disappointed and should probably stick with MFS. What you'll get instead is an improved version of XP11 with better lighting, clouds, ATC, water, default aircraft etc... and 3rd parties will be able to build on-top of the sim as a base (and anyone who does this right should make good money, since all the competition moved to MFS to try to earn their dollars :))

26 minutes ago, Kopteeni said:

Sooo... how many GB's of ortho have you downloaded? My MSFS community + official folder totals 240 GB. My Xplane 11 Custom Scenery folder is at 815 GB. I use ZL 16 orthos and have downloaded parts of the Europe.

Sounds about right/similar.

But MSFS scenery is supplimented with probably 4 or 5 times that single TB you have for XP (for the same area) which is downloaded as needed. (the rolling cache thing).

pros - much more scenery detail where its available.

cons - unstable experience, long load/download times when the cache contains the wrong things (hence the download simulator nickname), limited control over performance (e.g. from an auto download of some  broken scenery that tanks performance), hard to debug and address problems.

Thats a lot of cons for a level of detail that XP can achieve when needed in pre flight planning.

Thank you Tony for making it so simple and effective to understand.

I know now that for soaring task planning my goto sim will be MFS. Same may apply to flying a 737 or Airbus alternating with Zibo or one of the Tolisses.

And while at their present states both MFS and XP do miserably in recreating gliders, I look fwd into Xp12 FM regarding the new features Austin identified as comming for this new version otherwise I'll have to return to Condor and wait for Silentwings v2 for the so far only acceptable simulations of gliders in a flightsim...

As Alexis pointed out recently Austin commented that while for choppers some "magic" must be done in the FM due to the complexity of the flows around the aircraft, gliders are at the opposite extreme of the FM capavity cope with their flight characteristics, so, I can only hope that XP12 does it rather differently from 11 because all summed up the end result for even the best gliders in XP is not that different from MFS with the best gliders presently available for it.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 20224 yr by jcomm

7 hours ago, scotchegg said:

But as is often the case, and was the case for this very thread, the first person to mention MSFS is an XP user. I don’t see the value of those discussions anymore either, but frankly, it really is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Well it was actually mentioned in the opening post, but apart from that, the first mention of MSFS was honestly admitting that XP12 scenery will not best MSFS one.

Do you know the posting history of rka and David Mills? I'm not posting into MSFS forums to shout: "your flight model sucks!".

10 hours ago, Murmur said:

It's not that. It's much simpler. If the threads in this forum (which is the X-Plane forum, i.e. a forum where XP users and, residually, prospective XP users discuss about XP) wouldn't continually be derailed by MSFS shills constantly telling: "MSFS IS BETTER!" and "WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT MSFS IS BETTER?", then you wouldn't have the reactions you are decrying.

Then there are the users of both simulators who visit both forums and all they see are people telling how awful both simulators are. I guess I will just use FlightGear as both X-Plane and MSFS are awful and bound to die if I go by what I'm reading here 🤷‍♂️

I'm also pretty tired of the same people downplaying X-Plane in every single opportunity, but some of the X-Plane people here are not helping either.

Edited May 31, 20224 yr by BiologicalNanobot

1 minute ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Then there are the users of both simulators who visit both forums and all they see are people telling how awful both simulators are. I guess I will just use FlightGear as both X-Plane and MSFS are awful and bound to die if I go by what I'm reading here 🤷‍♂️

FlightGear is often used as a joke being considered an inferior product, but it is an excellent flight simulator! It does several things better than both. I guess few people go in their forums to shout how better MSFS or XP are though. 😁