1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

It is so very sad when somebody has to defend a flight simulator - just why?  If you are going to finish it for him, you need to add...

Xplane 11 (VR, study level aircraft, RC4, Pilot2ATC, add-ons, and collaborative community)
< List of excellent aircraft not available in MSFS>

MSFS is my main simulator because it has taken flight simulation forward with its world environment, but that fact is pretty pointless when I want to fly one of my favourite aircraft only available in XPlane.

Lol ok then. You might notice I just focused on the MSFS part, and clarified the list of currently available high fidelity aircraft for MSFS.  By doing that, that doesn't mean I'm implying MSFS has *all* the aircrafts X-Plane has or whatever else 🙂 ... Since I could care less about X-Plane, I only chose to focus on the MSFS bit in that list. 

When we pontificate about MSFS (in a MSFS forum), and laud how it now provides both a realistic rendering of world/weather/lighting *and* also high fidelity aircrafts, it just means that, nothing more... quite simple isn't it?

By your own logic, it's so very sad that when hearing such praise about MSFS in this thread then somebody needs to point out how there are aircraft in X-Plane that's not in MSFS... why, that's almost as if that somebody is "defending" a simulator 🙂 ... oh, and it's quite obvious to all of us that X-Plane indeed has aircrafts that are not in MSFS currently. If one really wants to fly specific aircraft that are not in MSFS then naturally one should fly them in another sim that happens to have them.

Edited May 16, 20224 yr by lwt1971

4 hours ago, Noel said:

The phrase takes on negative connotation when used by fanatic loyalists to one of the other flight sims.  It's frequently used to downplay the role of what photorealistic 3D satellite imagery brings to the simulator, with the clear implication that it's secondary to authentic 'flight simulation' and so is somewhat superfluous.  And yet, of course, right after the other sims are installed myriad add-ons are acquired to enhance the scenery.  This can take on hours and upon hours of time and cost.  I think the reason this is lost on the fanatic loyalist has to do w/ the fact it's all they can do to remain anti-MSFS.  I'm only referring to those with a bad case of 'identity flight simulation' who are thankfully in a minority.  

And even this add-on scenery is artificially drawn, based on landclass textures with randomly placed buildings. Except for the few hand-crafted cities, add-on scenery in the pre-MSFS sims usually bears little actual resemblance to the real world. I was a big fan of FSX enhanced with Ultimate Terrain -- a great product in its time -- but it is now history. Time has marched on.  

Edited May 16, 20224 yr by cobalt

2 hours ago, cobalt said:

And even this add-on scenery is artificially drawn, based on landclass textures with randomly placed buildings. Except for the few hand-crafted cities, add-on scenery in the pre-MSFS sims usually bears little actual resemblance to the real world. I was a big fan of FSX enhanced with Ultimate Terrain -- a great product in its time -- but it is now history. Time has marched on.  

I love MSFS, but you're wrong about some addon scenery, at least in XP11.  This is flying just north of San Diego in XP11.  The autogen uses MSFS data for placement.

 

Not only is MSFS the best looking sim it is also the cheapest. The planes are cheaper, the airports are cheaper together with all the other addons that  are available. And you need fewer of them because the sim looks so good out of the box, Excellent quality freeware is abundant. Your money goes a lot further with MFS.

And now the quality of the planes available is beginning to surpass anything  available elsewhere. I paid £90 for the Toliss A321. The Fenix is £50 and far surpasses the Toliss in visual fidelity, systems and features. The word is that it flies better to boot.

There is also performance. Like for like fps in MSFS is a country mile better for me than I get in XP. The Zibo has my PC crawling on its knees. The PMDG 737 has little effect. You can fly perfectly well with cheaper hardware than you need in the other sims.

In terms of value for money there is no real competition to MSFS it seems to me,

Edited May 17, 20224 yr by jarmstro

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I love MSFS, but you're wrong about some addon scenery, at least in XP11.  This is flying just north of San Diego in XP11.  The autogen uses MSFS data for placement.

 

What do you mean “uses MSFS data for placement”? Is it a mod that uses MSFS data? It’s not an official feature offered by XP then. You can’t say XP offers this, just as we can’t say MSFS offers Google satellite data, even though there is a Google mod for MSFS,

And do you need to own MSFS just to use this mod for XP?

Edited May 17, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

21 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

And do you need to own MSFS just to use this mod for XP?

I’m guessing he means it uses OSM data in common with MSFS for autogen placement.

Either way, it’s not really helping me feel there’s anything to do with this thread other than take it out back and humanely shoot it in the face.

Edited May 17, 20224 yr by scotchegg

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

And do you need to own MSFS just to use this mod for XP?

I’m guessing he means it uses OSM data in common with MSFS for autogen placement.

No, it uses open source Microsoft building footprints, e.g. from here:

GitHub - microsoft/USBuildingFootprints: Computer generated building footprints for the United States

It is not MSFS data. And there is no global coverage. And besides the building footprint, MSFS also gets the vegetation, the building height and color right.

I find it somewhat funny that XP users mock MSFS for being eye-candy (and regarding graphics as being secondary) while at the same time filling their SSDs GB after GB with orthos.

With the Maddog, the 737 and soon the Fenix released, it‘s a very weird timing to pose this question.

Edited May 17, 20224 yr by Fiorentoni

9 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I love MSFS, but you're wrong about some addon scenery, at least in XP11.  This is flying just north of San Diego in XP11.  The autogen uses MSFS data for placement.

 

How did I know that this thread would turn into yet another my sim is better thanyour sim argument? 

4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

How did I know that this thread would turn into yet another my sim is better thanyour sim argument? 

Because certain people at avsim regurgitate the same old same old rubbish, day in day out. 

46 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

With the Maddog, the 737 and soon the Fenix released, it‘s a very weird timing to pose this question.

Agree: I'm still loving P3D (and I moved recently to v5), but I must admit that, more than stalled, MSFS has just lighted reheats on in the last few days.

Edited May 17, 20224 yr by Luis Hernandez

10 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I love MSFS, but you're wrong about some addon scenery, at least in XP11.  This is flying just north of San Diego in XP11.  The autogen uses MSFS data for placement.

 

Yes, there are pricey add-on packages that add satellite data (not from MSFS) to X-plane (up to 125 GB!) but they do not cover the entire globe and the quality of the 3D data is lower than that in MSFS. This is ironic, given that the developer of XP has a well-known antipathy to satellite-based scenery. But this is a good thing -- it gives XP users a chance to see how the flying experience is totally transformed by real-world imagery, which they get for the whole world in MSFS for 60 bucks -- and no add-ons needed!

Edited May 17, 20224 yr by cobalt

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

With the Maddog, the 737 and soon the Fenix released, it‘s a very weird timing to pose this question.

Not really. Everyone has a list of features that make or break a flight simulator platform for them.

Whether that's realistic ATC, a good AI aircraft engine, high-quality orthographic ground textures, building modelling, aircraft handling, weather, seasons, terrain mesh resolution, price of add-ons, price of platform, frequency of updates, sim stability, a strong freeware community, peripheral compatibility, hardware requirements..., the list is nearly endless.
It's a Venn diagram of user wants and needs - if enough of the user requirement circles overlap, then MSFS is fantastic. Yet, for other people, incomplete or missing features can make MSFS an absolute no-go.

Given the OP didn't make a comparison with other flight sim platforms and the fact that MSFS is most definitely still a work in progress, I think their question is very valid.
The recent appearance of study-level third party airliners doesn't make any difference to the state of the base simulator. Even per Asobo's Development Updates, the sim has a number of important outstanding elements and customer requests to be worked on.

1 hour ago, F737NG said:

Given the OP didn't make a comparison with other flight sim platforms and the fact that MSFS is most definitely still a work in progress, I think their question is very valid.

The recent appearance of study-level third party airliners doesn't make any difference to the state of the base simulator.

For some, and for you... and then for a great many others the current state of MSFS along with all the recent 3PD aircrafts *does* make a difference for a very compelling experience, and we're happy to soak in all the improvements/fixes from Asobo's roadmap as they come in.. For those who don't care for 3PD aircrafts/add-ons and find that the base sim is stale and not moving along as fast they'd like, their question is indeed very valid, but I guess their only recourse is to try other sims until whatever feature X/Y/etc they desire comes into MSFS in order to cure their boredom... which this OP appears not interested in doing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯