Sim vs Real

[lwt1971 7,457]

16 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

X-Plane indeed has a better flight model, but this was pretty much the only thing you were accurate about. However quality of a simulation is not only measured by flight model, systems are as important for a realistic simulation experience, and both simulators are more than capable enough for simulating aircraft systems. In fact, if I had to choose between the slightly better flight model of Rotate MD-88 and much better systems of Leonardo MD-82, I would go with Leonardo MD-82 without a doubt.

All good points BiologicalNanobot, but I just want to say when it comes to "flight model" it's all about what the core sim aerodynamics and flight engine facilitates and then how each particular aircraft developer utilizes it and tunes it for their particular aircraft. And in that sense, given what we now see in the default C172, Milviz C310, PMDG 737, Maddog MD80, Bae 146, FBW A320, FSW C410, Kodiak, etc etc MSFS is more than capable.  And in some respects it is better than XP given the CFD innovations, softbody physics, world airflow simulation, etc.  And XP is also better in some other specific areas like ground physics, delta wing support etc. So whether one says XP is slightly better when it comes to "flight model" or MSFS is, it all comes down to the aircraft implementation ultimately I think.

Also want to point out how iniBuilds have come out and said MSFS's flight model is at par with X-Plane, see my thread https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/618710-inibuilds-a310-interesting-tidbit/ (iniBuilds A310 lead says: "Just to be fully clear, our flight model in MSFS is on par to XP, So those still wanting to negate MSFS as a viable sim solution based on those reasons, don't speak too soon")

 
As for systems/avionics yes like you say it is definitely in the control of the aircraft implementation, and we have great deep avionics now in the latest crop of birds for MSFS, and am looking forward to the Fenix A320 especially for stellar systems. But even here, the default avionics that Working Title is providing to the MSFS core product, such as the G1000 Nxi, is better than anything in XP.

Edited May 14, 2022 by lwt1971

[mtaxp 666]

4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I fly MSFS, and you will not see any posts from me on the X plane forum, raving about how great MSFS is. I also  don't go into Apple Stores e and start telling people how wonderful Windows is. 

Good for you! 

If I have both, but chose to fly x-plane 11 more am I allowed to express my own opinion about it when *someone else in here* mention it?

Edited May 14, 2022 by mtaxp

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Thanks for the comparison pictures. This is why we can't go back to autogen

Most of the MSFS world is autogen.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

MSFS is only a couple of years old and has already left X plane in the dust. X plane has been around for decades, and still is lacking in many areas. Why is that? 

XP11 is a previous generation product. XP12 will release in July and is looking very nice indeed.

[Biology 1,347]

12 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

I expressed my own opinion about available products! I tried MSFS, I already had x-plane 11, I chose the latter dur to the exact reasons I wrote based on my own experience. On the other hand, x-plane 12 is not released and declared inferior, not for the first time rather for the 1000th time by @abrams_tank. So I did excatly the same as him deliberately just from the other edge of this whole debate  presenting a hypothitical x-plane 12 condition (unreleased!!!), why I am the wrong one here getting the backlash?

You definitely have all the rights to mention what you like more! Just keep in mind that you are in the MSFS forum, which means you will encounter much more people who prefer / use MSFS, which also means there will be a lot more people who will disagree with you. My "backlash" only comes from your remarks (which were phrased more strongly than an opinion) about MSFS SDK and avionics, which are frankly simply inaccurate and some of the evidence like Leonardo MD-82 speaks for itself. There is nothing wrong with expressing opinions, but basing these opinions on facts is very important.

Edited May 14, 2022 by BiologicalNanobot

[Bobsk8 12,863]

2 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

XP11 is a previous generation product. XP12 will release in July and is looking very nice indeed.

More XP lipstick I guess.  it still looks like a pig in my opinion. 

[Scottoest 1,561]

11 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

I expressed my own opinion about available products! I tried MSFS, I already had x-plane 11, I chose the latter dur to the exact reasons I wrote based on my own experience. On the other hand, x-plane 12 is not released and declared inferior, not for the first time rather for the 1000th time by @abrams_tank. So I did excatly the same as him deliberately just from the other edge of this whole debate  presenting a hypothitical x-plane 12 condition (unreleased!!!), why I am the wrong one here getting the backlash?

He offered an opinion that he thinks XP12 will be inferior because he thinks they've fundamentally placed their bets incorrectly on autogen instead of photogrammetry.  You can think that's wrong, and explain why (though maybe not in a thread that has nothing to do with that topic).  You can also keep in mind that you're in the subforum for MSFS, and not X-Plane.

Instead, you basically went full REEEEEEEEEE - the usual "you don't care about the actual flight simulation" (again, in a thread ABOUT SCENERY), "XP12 will be the bestest evar we will have teh bettar trees, our planes are SOOOO much better, you're a word that rhymes with hamtoy abrams don't even talk to me about LMDG".  The only thing missing from my dead horse bingo card was "it's a game not a sim".

Then you immediately pulled the victim card because "you said something nice about XP", which just betrays an incredible lack of understanding of why your post was so over-the-top ridiculous to begin with. BiologicalNanobot said some nice things about X-Plane above; notice how no one has lost their minds?

If we ever managed to pool our resources together we could put WIndsor out of business with the salt we could mine from this subforum.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Scottoest

[Biology 1,347]

4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

More XP lipstick I guess.  it still looks like a pig in my opinion. 

Meh, I disagree with that one too. X-Plane 12 will feature a new shader-based sky, volumetric clouds, photometric lighting, 3D trees and water, weather effects like shader-based snow and water puddles, screen space reflections, improved night lighting, improved autogen, new default assets and much more. I wish both sides were more fair about strengths and weaknesses of both simulators.

Edited May 14, 2022 by BiologicalNanobot

[mtaxp 666]

12 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

All good points BiologicalNanobot, but I just want to say when it comes to "flight model" it's all about what the core sim aerodynamics and flight engine facilitates and then how each particular aircraft developer utilizes it and tunes it for their particular aircraft. And in that sense, given what we now see in the default C172, Milviz C310, PMDG 737, Maddog MD80, Bae 146, FBW A320, FSW C410, Kodiak, etc etc MSFS is more than capable.  And in some respects it is better than XP given the CFD innovations, softbody physics, world airflow simulation, etc.  And XP is also better in some other specific areas like ground physics, delta wing support etc. So whether one says XP is slightly better when it comes to "flight model" or MSFS is, it all comes down to the aircraft implementation ultimately I think.

Also want to point out how iniBuilds have come out and said MSFS's flight model is at par with X-Plane, see my thread https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/618710-inibuilds-a310-interesting-tidbit/ (iniBuilds A310 lead says: "Just to be fully clear, our flight model in MSFS is on par to XP, So those still wanting to negate MSFS as a viable sim solution based on those reasons, don't speak too soon")

 
As for systems/avionics yes like you say it is definitely in the control of the aircraft implementation, and we have great deep avionics now in the latest crop of birds for MSFS, and am looking forward to the Fenix A320 especially for stellar systems. But even here, the default avionics that Working Title is providing to the MSFS core product, such as the G1000 Nxi, is better than anything in XP.

That's a nice post. 

I actually wrote it multiple times in many occasions, for a normal simmer who just wants to meet POH numbers, the whole flight model discussion is mostly irrelevant, you get those in both as long as the aircraft developer did some good work.

For research and development purposes, both x-plane and MSFS approaches are radically different with x-plane more suitable for real life development (not home simmer mods) uses like NASA use it, BETA and Austin building a real life vehicle and many others. I'm interested in this second aspect as well.

Edited May 14, 2022 by mtaxp

[tweekz 2,165]

18 minutes ago, Scottoest said:

There's obviously differences in fidelity and the general grime and "random" messiness of the real world, but man it's really impressive what Asobo/Microsoft have managed to accomplish for the entire planet when you consider that what you're looking at here was created by largely automated systems and geographic data and requires no real work (or added expense) on the part of the person using the sim.

I guess the layout of buildings are extracted from OSM / Bing map data, not actually from satellite imagery. I guess that's a common misconception. That'd be a waste of resources and probably even less accurte.

The actual appearance of buildings (style, roof, etc.) is what is created by the AI. In most cases it does not really fit on a specific level (my house does look nothing like it is in RL and the hospital is a giant industry building), but the overall impression still feels realistic.

[enright 496]

You forgot to set render resolution to 100% before taking these screen shots. Oh wait, those are the real world shots.

Remember the days of the "blurries" with FSX? FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION ring any bells? Now the sim is sharper than the real world.

The night shots are the most surprising to me - I thought the brightness of highways compared to streets was overdone in the sim - turns out it's spot on. It's eerily accurate.  

Great shots - thanks for the meticulous effort on these!

Edited May 14, 2022 by enright

[Bobsk8 12,863]

Just now, BiologicalNanobot said:

Meh, I disagree with that one too. X-Plane 12 will feature a new shader-based sky, volumetric clouds, photometric lighting, 3D trees, weather effects like shader-based snow and water puddles, screen space reflections, improved night lighting, improved autogen, new default assets and much more. I wish both sides were fair about strength and weaknesses of both simulators.

Sorry, but you fly low altitude VFR in X Plane, whatever the version, and it doesn't look like what you see in a real aircraft like MSFS does. It is like make believe scenery. 

[tweekz 2,165]

12 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Good for you! 

If I have both, but chose to fly x-plane 11 more am I allowed to express my own opinion about it when *someone else in here* mention it?

You can bet on that.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

50 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I see the always-defensive XP fans are out and about monitoring MSFS forums, as always 🙂 So ya sorry MSFS's default aircraft/avionics can't be used to bash the sim any more... with all the high fidelity aircrafts and avionics realized for MSFS now, along with the world/weather/lighting/etc simulation that's leagues ahead of anything else, along with the very capable aerodynamics and core flight model engine + new innovations like CFD and softbody physics, MSFS really is the you-can-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too sim now 🙂

For those who love to keep harping that XP is better in flight-model/aerodynamics sorry that ain't the case no more, and I'm gonna bet MSFS keeps speeding ahead there.. as for avionics, MSFS is actually better even in the core/default product level with the likes of the WT G1000 Nxi, etc.. start factoring in all the deep avionics in the 3rd party aircraft already out, and yet to come like the the Fenix A320, then that XP fans' talking point get even more stale. For me, XP12 seems to be about as compelling as watching paint dry, but I can see how it'd be a non-trivial step forward for XP11-only tribalists  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good grief, calm down.  Msfs is a flight sim and does many things very well.  XP11/12 are flight sims and will do many things very well.

I am so thankful I'm a flight simulation enthusiast and not a single simulator word not allowed.  Both MSFS and XP12 will be on my system and I'll enjoy them both.

I have said many times I love MSFS and the direction it is taking.  How does this fact mean I should hate XPlane and denigrate it at every opportunity?  Such a shame we have to have such childish scraps about what we all should be welcoming.

[mtaxp 666]

1 minute ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Good grief, calm down.  Msfs is a flight sim and does many things very well.  XP11/12 are flight sims and will do many things very well.

I am so thankful I'm a flight simulation enthusiast and not a single simulator word not allowed.  Both MSFS and XP12 will be on my system and I'll enjoy them both.

I have said many times I love MSFS and the direction it is taking.  How does this fact mean I should hate XPlane and denigrate it at every opportunity?  Such a shame we have to have such childish scraps about what we all should be welcoming.

Thank you! Some sanity!