14 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

It wasn't part of FSX/P3D but A2A does it well on their products. I can only hope developers go to thar level.

The (excellent) X-Plane equivalent is this: https://store.x-plane.org/Reality-Expansion-Packs_c_301.html

Edited April 23, 20224 yr by Bjoern

14 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

It wasn't part of FSX/P3D but A2A does it well on their products. I can only hope developers go to thar level.

This is basically the case for any simulator, so P3D is not any better than X-Plane in that regard. You just need to find a good third-party implementation of the aircraft you want - as Bjoern pointed out Reality Expansion Packs all go into that level of detail. Sadly for you though, there isn't a REP (nor any other good alternative) for Cessna 182 Skylane, so the A2A version is still your best option. In short, simulation realism comes from the aircraft developer, not from the base simulator (which is why I always find the MSFS is not good for simulation comments funny) - in fact the most realistic aircraft like Hot Start CL650 use X-Plane as nothing more than a scenery generator and flight model engine. So just like in P3D a good rule of thumb for finding high quality aircraft is looking for custom-made systems.

P.S. Other than REPs you should definitely check out Hot Start TBM 900, if that kind of aircraft is your style you will absolutely love it.

Edited April 23, 20224 yr by BiologicalNanobot

16 hours ago, Janov said:

Lol, you guys are too young to remember, it seems! 😅

The picture I posted was an artist´s concept image for FlightSimulator X (FSX) and the DirectX10 upgrade.

It created a bit of disappointment - because as anyone that played FSX in DirectX10 knows - it looked nothing like that image at all 😉

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/flight-simulator-x-hands-on-impressions-new-features-new-audio-experience-and-a-hint-at-directx-10-graphics/1100-6155710/

I remember that image well!

14 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

This is basically the case for any simulator, so P3D is not any better than X-Plane in that regard. You just need to find a good third-party implementation of the aircraft you want - as Bjoern pointed out Reality Expansion Packs all go into that level of detail. Sadly for you though, there isn't a REP (nor any other good alternative) for Cessna 182 Skylane, so the A2A version is still your best option. In short, simulation realism comes from the aircraft developer, not from the base simulator (which is why I always find the MSFS is not good for simulation comments funny) - in fact the most realistic aircraft like Hot Start CL650 use X-Plane as nothing more than a scenery generator and flight model engine. So just like in P3D a good rule of thumb for finding high quality aircraft is looking for custom-made systems.

P.S. Other than REPs you should definitely check out Hot Start TBM 900, if that kind of aircraft is your style you will absolutely love it.

I would like to see more aircraft developers go under the skin on their aircraft. Flying them is only part of what a pilot does. There is a market for that among the operation simulator enthusiasts. I tell you, A2A planes are expensive but I gladly pay for the extra depth. Until I spent some time in the left seat òf a real skylane I didn't fully realize just how accurate A2A's was. I will seek the same when I get into XP12. It wouldn't surprise me if Laminar has Christmas in their sights.

On 4/23/2022 at 2:28 PM, BiologicalNanobot said:

(which is why I always find the MSFS is not good for simulation comments funny) - in fact the most realistic aircraft like Hot Start CL650 use X-Plane as nothing more than a scenery generator and flight model engine.

vs

On 2/7/2022 at 12:03 PM, GoranM said:

It's fine to have an opinion, but if you're going to have an opinion, you'll need to back it up with facts.

After pushing the boundaries in what X-Plane is capable of, after making the CL650, I'm not convinced that X-Plane will be wise to adopt any other workflow or SDK other than the one it has kept for the past 3 decades.

We know, unequivocally, that the CL650 cannot be made, with all the features and systems coding it has, for MSFS.  

3....2....1....FIGHT

I would love to see realism even beyond the ground environment or aircraft systems and mechanics. Like realistic ground handling that is sim global for any aircraft. A 1st person POV walk behind tug for light GA singles and twins that you control with you stick, yoke, or pedals and a selection of tugs and tractors you direct in cockpit by drop down or voice for larger aircraft. First person avatar to do walk around preflight. All things to bring the real activities into a screen. 

7 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

I would love to see realism even beyond the ground environment or aircraft systems and mechanics. Like realistic ground handling that is sim global for any aircraft. A 1st person POV walk behind tug for light GA singles and twins that you control with you stick, yoke, or pedals and a selection of tugs and tractors you direct in cockpit by drop down or voice for larger aircraft. First person avatar to do walk around preflight. All things to bring the real activities into a screen. 

Sounds like you need an airport simulator.

16 hours ago, mSparks said:

vs

3....2....1....FIGHT

Did you really just try to incite a fight between two developers? I develop for MSFS. I know what can be done and what cannot be done. I also develop for X-Plane and have payware and freeware add-ons released for it. Goran is a highly respected and skilled X-Plane developer with lots of add-ons under his belt and he also knows what can be done and what cannot be done in MSFS. What cannot be done in MSFS for the CL650 had absolutely nothing to do with my point, unless you think an FBO (and a few other things) is essential for simulation.

Edited April 25, 20224 yr by BiologicalNanobot

On 4/24/2022 at 5:14 AM, Gary1124 said:

I would like to see more aircraft developers go under the skin on their aircraft. Flying them is only part of what a pilot does. There is a market for that among the operation simulator enthusiasts. I tell you, A2A planes are expensive but I gladly pay for the extra depth.

Add-on developers are few and far between and those that can program well enough to implement a complex engine simulation are much more rare. So there could be an endlessly market for that type of add-on out there - if nobody with the skill and time has interest to cover it, it will not get served. Period.

 

17 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

I would love to see realism even beyond the ground environment or aircraft systems and mechanics. Like realistic ground handling that is sim global for any aircraft. A 1st person POV walk behind tug for light GA singles and twins that you control with you stick, yoke, or pedals and a selection of tugs and tractors you direct in cockpit by drop down or voice for larger aircraft. First person avatar to do walk around preflight. All things to bring the real activities into a screen. 

You're asking way too much of a flight simulator.

But if you insist:

• Simple Ground Service or SImple Ground Equipment & Services for clutter around the aprked user aircraft (both freeware).
• Custom manual pushback logic is supplied by Reality Expansion Packs (payware), automatic pushback by BetterPushback (freeware).
• First person walk around can be achieved with X-Plane's free camera, no plugin needed. Reality Expansion Packs (payware) have a walk around mode.

If this is too improvised and not packaged tightly enough for you, the only solution is picking up Python, Lua or C++ and going wild on the subject on your own. Fortunately, X-Plane is really good at in terms of interfacing with and overriding parts of the simulation, so spawning objects (ground equipment), overriding the camera (walkaround) and moving the aircraft (manual pushback) is perfectly possible.

2 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Did you really just try to incite a fight between two developers? I develop for MSFS. I know what can be done and what cannot be done. I also develop for X-Plane and have payware and freeware add-ons released for it. Goran is a highly respected and skilled X-Plane developer with lots of add-ons under his belt and he also knows what can be done and what cannot be done in MSFS. What cannot be done in MSFS for the CL650 had absolutely nothing to do with my point, unless you think an FBO (and a few other things) is essential for simulation.

Just that Goran is better to explain it, you just aren't correct.

 

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

Just that Goran is better to explain it, you just aren't correct.

 

Do you have any evidence or demonstration showing this is the case? Have you even tried MSFS SDK or do you make add-one for it? Do you know what aspects Goran was talking about? I have a high suspicion that answer to all of my three questions is no.

Just now, BiologicalNanobot said:

Do you know what aspects Goran was talking about?

Do you know mSparks?

🤣

This will not end in a satisfactory way for you 🙂

2 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Do you know what aspects Goran was talking about?

Probably those aspects ^^

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

Probably those aspects ^^

He really should invest in a Honeycomb setup or at least CH.

3 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

He really should invest in a Honeycomb setup or at least CH.

I'd be very surprised if he doesn't have every piece of cockpit equipment money can buy, 600k subscribers gets you plenty of free stuff. He flies the SR22 irl, so he's not short of flight stuff 😛

6 hours ago, Janov said:

This will not end in a satisfactory way for you 🙂

I don't have much skin in the game tbh, if all the CL650 needs is a scenery generator and flight model engine I'm sure there will be a flurry of hotstart planes for MSFS soon, since it has both. Or Goran can explain otherwise (again)

Edited April 25, 20224 yr by mSparks