Is iniBuilds going all in on MSFS?

[sd_flyer 6,038]

6 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

And that tells us what? "Normal" flying is relatively simple (landing of course the most difficult part) - like driving with your car from home to the office. Kind of "boring". Last year I took part at two safe driving trainings (like below) - I can tell you, THAT was fun. You learn there what to do in emergencies. Similarly in the flight sim - flying from A to B is relatively boring, emergencies are the icing on the cake.

Why do RW pilots get a relatively high salary? Not because they can feed an FMC, take off and land, but because they can handle emergencies. And they do the training of emergencies (not feeding the FMC, taking off and landng) in ... guess what 😀 ... a flight simulator.

 

I have been flying IRL for 20 years and I'm not getting bored yet 🙂 

When you  are referring to certified flight simulators that used for recurrent training or flight certificate they are not XP11 or MSFS. Also not all of us getting relatively high salary and many fly for a love of flying 😉

[flying_carpet 657]

6 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

If you want to belittle MSFS while praising XP, you are free to go to the XP forums to create a thread to do that. Nobody is stopping you.  But if you think that you can use the same tone here in the MSFS forums, expect pushback from MSFS users.  

I have seen "over there" kind of:

"Well, you do understand this is the XP forums, right?  That we will be more critical of other simulators, while praising XP, right?

If you want to belittle XP while praising MSFS, you are free to go to the MSFS forums to create a thread to do that. Nobody is stopping you.  But if you think that you can use the same tone here in the XP forums, expect pushback from XP users." 😉

Edited June 7, 2022 by flying_carpet

[OzWhitey 3,353]

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

Don't have to use XP to know how pathetic it is. I have two friends that have XP ( only one now, because one switched to MSFS) And I have flown it on their PCs and I hated it. Looks like it is 10 years behind MSFS, and VFR in that sim is a joke. I don't get on the XP forum, however, and start bashing it, like some on that forum do here. 

Bob, I think "pathetic" is a bit harsh. I personally like the aesthetics of MSFS a lot more, so that's the sim I fly the most. X-plane definitely doesn't look as good, but there are some things it does pretty well. It's pretty good for VFR - try a bit of Orbx TrueEarth, for example, with an Aerobask plane.

All three major sims have their place. Also, when you're not used to a sim it often looks and feels off - different controls, different ways of doing things. It takes time to bond with a new sim.

Out of the box, MSFS looks the best but X-plane would possibly beat it for GA aircraft (their C172 is pretty good for default). However, if I was flying any of the 3 sims there is no way I would be flying default aircraft so it's a bit of a moot point.

At any rate, MSFS is my current choice for probably 90% of my simming time, and X-plane is now in 3rd place. Still, I have fond memories of that sim and do keep meaning to fire it up again.

 

[Bobsk8 12,680]

2 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Bob, I think "pathetic" is a bit harsh. I personally like the aesthetics of MSFS a lot more, so that's the sim I fly the most. X-plane definitely doesn't look as good, but there are some things it does pretty well. It's pretty good for VFR - try a bit of Orbx TrueEarth, for example, with an Aerobask plane.

All three major sims have their place. Also, when you're not used to a sim it often looks and feels off - different controls, different ways of doing things. It takes time to bond with a new sim.

Out of the box, MSFS looks the best but X-plane would possibly beat it for GA aircraft (their C172 is pretty good for default). However, if I was flying any of the 3 sims there is no way I would be flying default aircraft so it's a bit of a moot point.

At any rate, MSFS is my current choice for probably 90% of my simming time, and X-plane is now in 3rd place. Still, I have fond memories of that sim and do keep meaning to fire it up again.

 

I flew hundreds of hours in real life VFR. I can also do that in MSFS, couldn't do it in XP. I never liked the XP C 172, flew nothing like a real C 172 that I have many hours in. 

[abrams_tank 7,397]

12 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

I have seen "over there" kind of:

"Well, you do understand this is the XP forums, right?  That we will be more critical of other simulators, while praising XP, right?

If you want to belittle XP while praising MSFS, you are free to go to the MSFS forums to create a thread to do that. Nobody is stopping you.  But if you think that you can use the same tone here in the XP forums, expect pushback from XP users." 😉

And you are saying the XP forums here at AVSIM is normal and the behavior is acceptable?

[molleh 451]

seems kind of like a weird time to make a decision about consolidating efforts on one sim when the next major iteration of another sim is about to release which might drum up a lot more interest in that other sim. who can blame them for heading that way given the popularity of MSFS? that being said we obviously still don't know what their plans actually are, and if the reception of XP12 is really good and the community demands it, i'm sure they would reconsider their options going forward.

all i know right now is that i'm very excited to see their A300, A310 and Beluga in MSFS 😉

Edited June 7, 2022 by molleh

[TravelRunner404 596]

The interesting thing about X-Plane users is that it's more or less converted to the faithful at this point so no one in those forums says anything bad about the sim.  I read a couple of threads and it would seem Austin is being elevated to cult figure status.  Looking through the statistics on SteamDB it paints an interesting picture.  Xplane peaks on Sundays with about 1,700 players right now and 2,800 players in the more active winter months.  MSFS has seen has high as 20,000 players and generally hits in the 8k-9k players on peak days with only a drop off to 7k.  Not to mention MSFS has more MS store players.  So the number of people bug hunting, using different controllers, mixing hardware, and doing god knows what is literally 5x to 10x greater at peak and on average 400% greater.  The small XPlane community has formulated their message that the flight model is better, period, no argument, and they are going to die on that hill.  The consistent message from only 1,700 users is much easier and that's fine, I hope everyone enjoys their simulators/games/study level or whatever you want to categorize it as but it seems a bit disingenuous to believe that if the flight model and overall sim ever took on a user base as high as 50k people and an average peak 5x greater than it does today it wouldn't get ripped to shreds.  The flight model is a simulation just like MSFS.  It's littered with flaws, shortcuts, and short comings like any and all computer game flight models.   There are zero scientific studies being done to compare flight models.  If I ever see a double blind well controlled peer reviewed flight model experiment with statistical differences I'll start to take notice. And even then you need multiple studies and aggregate analysis to prove something.  Some guy named Steve, swears it feels more like a real plane and points to marketing material to back it up.  Okay.  I am not saying it's better or worse, I genuinely don't know.  But I can say with certainty that it's not proven to be better by any acceptable modern data and scientific standard.  I haven't even seen a good study that shows pilots think it "feels" better.  So in the end their 1,700 users like it better.  I might like it better.  It doesn't mean anything.

[Fiorentoni 4,218]

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

And, actually this one in particular commented on how better the Zibo felt compared to the PMDG, for various reasons related to flight dynamics... but not only ...

- like in --> HERE <--

- or in --> HERE <--  or --> HERE <--

I'm not doubting it, flight dynamics will be better on XPL. Problem is - as laid out above - that this is the only thing better on XPL (not judging the Zibo itself, but the platform environment, visuals, AI traffic, airport scenery, GSX etc.).

[mtaxp 666]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Well, I want to get back to discussion of iniBuilds prioritizing MSFS.  Unfortunately, there is a certain XP poster (who doesn't use MSFS), who follows me around in the MSFS forums here and constantly tags me with @, and gets into very nasty exchanges with me, here in the MFS forum.

@abrams_tank since you are probably talking about, again, wrong assumptions. Unlike you, who admited to not even try x-plane and IIRC p3d, I did try MSFS, several times through out the last 2 years. Each time It took me one circuit to see how bad the flight model was and how bad my local area looked to give up.

See this thread where I let others see it in their own eyes:

 

[Fiorentoni 4,218]

2 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Agreed... as MSFS currently stands, along with all the realistic aircraft implementations that flooded the scene in May (like the Milviz C310, Fenix A320, PMDG 737, FSW 414, Sting S4, etc) it provides for a compelling flight dynamics environment not too unlike XP11 in my experience with both, and various others including IRL pilots and competent reviewers would seem to agree. For sure the ground handling in MSFS is lacking (though worked around in some 3rd party aircrafts), and there's no weather radar, but those are areas being fixed/improved >= SU10.

As you say, given that MSFS is far superior in various other areas (especially the world/weather/lighting rendering+simulation) and just immersion overall, even if MSFS SU10/SU11+ only allows for flight dynamics that is 90%, 80% of XP12's capabilities, the overall experience in MSFS is just unbeatable. No wonder then various old and new 3rd party devs are investing in and focusing on MSFS. And for those of us who only like to build around one sim for convenience's sake, other sims' new incarnations are going to have to provide a *total* experience that is rather compelling above and beyond... which they don't at all look to be doing now. But let's see what P3D v6 provides if and when 🙂

It's crazy what has changed in the last couple of months.
Back in March (this year) I was still using mostly P3D for my airliner procedural flying, due to obvious reasons (also the FBW was not as advanced as it is by now). Now it feels like I've never done anything else but fly on MSFS with study level airliners 😄
I'll admit I was very sceptical about MSFS earlier that year and I was really doubting that ANY study level airliner would be released in 2022 for MSFS (it was the time where PMDG did only report delays and road blocks, and Fenix and Leonardo were basically dead silent for months). I've never been happier to have been that wrong!

[TravelRunner404 596]

12 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

I did try MSFS, several times through out the last 2 years. Each time It took me one circuit to see how bad the flight model was and how bad my local area looked to give up.

It’s called confirmation bias. Everyone will tell you they like their favorite wine over a $5 bottle but take away the labels and blindfold them and rarely can they tell the difference.  Fly both models with the exact same visuals totally blind to which is which and populate that over a few thousand people/professionals and you’ll potentially have at least one data point on which is better or more realistic. 

Anyone claiming one is clearly better than the other is no different than saying Coke tastes better than Pepsi.  

[molleh 451]

13 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

It's crazy what has changed in the last couple of months.
Back in March (this year) I was still using mostly P3D for my airliner procedural flying, due to obvious reasons (also the FBW was not as advanced as it is by now). Now it feels like I've never done anything else but fly on MSFS with study level airliners 😄
I'll admit I was very sceptical about MSFS earlier that year and I was really doubting that ANY study level airliner would be released in 2022 for MSFS (it was the time where PMDG did only report delays and road blocks, and Fenix and Leonardo were basically dead silent for months). I've never been happier to have been that wrong!

it was totally the same thing for me. i went from having zero interest in MSFS (other than casually following its progress after launch) to it becoming my main simulator in the space of a few weeks.

the cool thing is this will probably have a snowball effect, as the influx of new users will likely spur further development (from both Asobo and third parties.) 🙂

[lwt1971 7,348]

27 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I'll admit I was very sceptical about MSFS earlier that year and I was really doubting that ANY study level airliner would be released in 2022 for MSFS (it was the time where PMDG did only report delays and road blocks, and Fenix and Leonardo were basically dead silent for months). I've never been happier to have been that wrong!

Same here, outside of the DC6 and Kodiak we really didn't have anything tangible and substantial to know what the MSFS core platform/engine is capable of. May 2022 changed all that around completely. Now really looking forward to advancements coming in SU10, SU11 and onwards and also keep in mind all these aircraft devs have just put out their first iterations.. as they get more familiar with the MSFS platform and start to fully utilize it and take advantage of new capabilities >=SU10 it's only going to get better.

Edited June 7, 2022 by lwt1971

[flying_carpet 657]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

And you are saying the XP forums here at AVSIM is normal and the behavior is acceptable?

So ... do you think ...
"Well, you do understand this is the XP forums, right?  That we will be more critical of other simulators, while praising XP, right?
If you want to belittle XP while praising MSFS, you are free to go to the MSFS forums to create a thread to do that. Nobody is stopping you.  But if you think that you can use the same tone here in the XP forums, expect pushback from XP users."

is offensive and hence "they" are called "rabid dogs", is ok? But what is:

"Well, you do understand this is the MSFS forums, right?  That we will be more critical of other simulators, while praising MSFS, right?
If you want to belittle MSFS while praising XP, you are free to go to the XP forums to create a thread to do that. Nobody is stopping you.  But if you think that you can use the same tone here in the MSFS forums, expect pushback from MSFS users."

 

Honestly ...

 

 

43 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I'm not doubting it, flight dynamics will be better on XPL. Problem is - as laid out above - that this is the only thing better on XPL (not judging the Zibo itself, but the platform environment, visuals, AI traffic, airport scenery, GSX etc.).

No, it's (unfortunately) not. While MSFS has only 5 (engine) failures simulated, X-Plane has around 400 as I found out (not only in the planes but even in the environment, e.g. navaids, localizer, ...). Apart from that, just yesterday evening I did a flight and slowly the picture became dark. I was afraid, my monitor starts to fail (although it's only a few months old), and finally it got completely black. Now I was worried. I switched to another application and luckily the monitor was ok. So, what was wrong with X-Plane? After a short research, I found out, it was hypoxia. I haven't seen this yet in MSFS, and would like to have it as well.
Apart from that: microbursts, birdstrikes, you can damage your flaps at overspeed, knife edge flying, wake turbulences, ... That's what I found out until now - possibly there is even more.

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by flying_carpet

[Fiorentoni 4,218]

4 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

No, it's (unfortunately) not. While MSFS has only 5 (engine) failures simulated, X-Plane has around 400 as I found out (not only in the planes but even in the environment, e.g. navaids, localizer, ...). Apart from that, just yesterday evening I did a flight and slowly the picture became dark. I was afraid, my monitor starts to fail (although it's only a few months old), and finally it got completely black. Now I was worried. I switched to another application and luckily the monitor was ok. So, what was wrong with X-Plane? After a short research, I found out, it was hypoxia. I haven't seen this yet in MSFS, and would like to have it as well.

Apart from that: microbursts, birdstrikes, you can damage your flaps at overspeed, knife edge flying, wake turbulences, ... That's what I found out until now - possibly there is even more.

 

None of this works for 3rd party custom aircraft (like the CL650, which has its own failures; like the PMDG and Fenix have on MSFS), so you are missing my point.