2 hours ago, TravelRunner404 said:

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.  

Yes....almost exactly!   When he states "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."

I can't help but think of this scene: (Fast fwd to 40 secs in the vid if you're impatient) 😉 

 

In reality, I can make the exact same observation regarding any other sim platform. (but lets pick on xPlane here because I have an empirical example)

I came up in the fs2004/FSX/P3d farm league (using a baseball analogy)....I knew it, config'd it, lived and breathed it.  It was MY sim.   I was intrigued with xPlane but knew that with my "other" hobby (which is painting planes), I could not sustain an expert level of P3d, xPlane and painting all at once.

However, I did, just like mxaxp did, try it on several occasions, and just like him, found it lacking after  "one circuit to see how bad the flight model was and how bad my local area looked to give up."  No Ortho, no addons, none of the hundreds of tweaks, controller settings, nuanced things you just know when you've lived and breathed a sim for so long.

When I 1st came to MSFS, I was bewildered by all the newness....but I certainly flew it for more than "one circuit" before condemning it to the trash heap. 🤣

In my opinion, the only way you can fairly and honestly compare and set of sims is one of two ways:
Way ONE

1. Install them all.
2. Install each one completely bare bones and do a test each with:
   1. A person with an interest in aviation and sims and general familiarity with lets say a Cessna 172...but mainly new to simming in general
   2. A person with vast experience in EACH sim and general familiarity with lets say a Cessna 172
3. Review results from each test group in step 2 above, but keep them separate as they should be, as one group will have a very different opinion than the other.
4. Next, take the same sets of groups and let them spend a day learning and configuring each sim, then fly it for a whole day with predefined flights (as to not skew the results)
5. Log all the results from all the tests and compare them like for like.

Way TWO

1. Create another set of groups identical to the ones above, but sit them in front a fully configured, max'd out sim with all the Ortho, add-ons, best planes, all the Orbx scenery, etc on the worlds most powerful and expertly tuned machine.
2. Review results from each test group in step 2 above, but keep them separate as they should be, as one group will have a very different opinion than the other.
3. Next, take the same sets of groups and let them spend a day learning and tweaking each sim to their personal preferences, then fly it for a whole day with predefined flights (as to not skew the results)
4. Log all the results from all the tests and compare them like for like.

After that, a few simple Excel charts should net you some pretty non-biased results to make an informed opnion on what a model group of people think of each sim.  Should be easy. 🙂 

Edited June 7, 20224 yr by Steve Dra
adding time stamp to vid

3 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I guess not all simmer agree on something ! LOL So I'm 30+ years simmer (date back to sublogic),  flight instructor, owner of real airplanes and I'm still not bored ! I have absolute freedom of flying. I love to explore new places. I love to have access to airplane otherwise I can't fly IRL. I also love to learn new things. Photometry is big deal for me. I can fly places I used to fly IRL like Australia, Ukraine, Alaska and recognize landmarks. I can fly over landmarks I flew few hours ago and still enjoy it!

Another Sublogic inspired simmer here... those were the simple days lol, a Commodore 64, wait what seemed like ages for Sublogic Flight Simulator II to load, be wowed by the fact that you actually have 3D being rendered on your computer even if it's wireframe, then imagine that you're soaring the skies and flying from the cockpit as you picture it from the times when pilots used to let little kids in 🙂 ... sorry to get off topic, I was on an Air Nepal Boeing 727 flight in '82 and my dad got the pilots to allow me to come in and see the Himalayas and Mount Everest just out there so close, and that got me all awestruck and into flying forever (at least as a real-life passenger and simmer lol).

Edited June 7, 20224 yr by lwt1971

30 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Another Sublogic inspired simmer here... those were the simple days lol, a Commodore 64, wait hours for Sublogic Flight Simulator II to load, be wowed by the fact that you actually have 3D being rendered on your computer even if it's wireframe, then imagine that you're soaring the skies and flying from the cockpit as you picture it from the times when pilots used to let little kids in 🙂 ... sorry to get off topic, I think I was on an Air Nepal flight in '82 and my dad got the pilots to allow me to come in and see the Himalayas and Mount Everest just out there so close, and that got me all awestruck and into flying forever (at least as a real-life passenger and simmer lol).

And to continue a bit further off topic - one of my best experiences as a passenger was in Nepal between Kathmandu and Pokhara. The views of the Himalayas were simply stunning. Of course I had no idea at the time that it would be possible to recreate something similar in a flight sim. But here we are... 

Edited June 7, 20224 yr by Cpt_Piett

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

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.

Do you have the CL650? Why shouldn't it make use of the failures which are already builtin by default and build up all that stuff completely anew? This doesn't make any sense. As I understand it, it has added even more custom failures like temperatures in each combustor separately etc..
Aprt from that, you were ignoring the other items I mentioned, namely microbursts, birdstrikes, hypoxia, you can damage your flaps at overspeed, knife edge flying, wake turbulences, ...

 

2 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

You keep harping on the failures simulations of XP vs MSFS but I presume you're talking about the *default* aircraft in both.  And if so yes, MSFS's simulation depth of its default aircraft are nothing to write home about.  But failures simulations using properly implemented aircraft like the Fenix A320, Milviz C310, PMDG 737, etc in MSFS are a completely different story of course with hundreds of failures simulated. I realize that using the default aircraft in MSFS to speak to its general capabilities has been convenient for talking points for some, but reality is now very different 🙂

What, if I'm neither an A320 fan (i.e. Fenix), nor B737 (i.e. PMDG), nor C310 (i.e. Milviz), but e.g. of the C172? Or of helicopters? Then im borked. And currently, I'm borked in MSFS.

 

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

As for my earlier question that I asked you, here it is again: And you are saying the XP forums here at AVSIM is normal and the behavior is acceptable?

Can you tell me, what's wrong with it? I have seen MSFS users posting (or should I say spamming?) lots of pictures and videos of MSFS and they fought back* (isnt it their right to do so, as you also wrote further above "expect pushback from MSFS users"?). Therefore they were called "rabid dogs" - not by you but by other MSFS users. BTW, why are you taking it this personal? So, if MSFS users are pushing back, are they also rabid dogs?
*However, I haven't seen an X-Plane user titling MSFS users as "the most pathetic person in this forum", or "fanbo.ism .... sh.t" like it happened in this very thread by MSFS users. How would you call people who are expresseing themselves this way?

 

Edited June 7, 20224 yr by flying_carpet

24 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

What, if I'm neither an A320 fan (i.e. Fenix), nor B737 (i.e. PMDG), nor C310 (i.e. Milviz), but e.g. of the C172? Or of helicopters? Then im borked. And currently, I'm borked in MSFS.

Well then yes, if the aircraft you want is not available in high fidelity form in MSFS (either in 3rd party payware/freeware form or default out of the box) then you really are borked and would need to fly them in other sims.. or wait till a 3PD aircraft you want comes along, or wait until Asbo along with Working Title improve the default aircrafts systems/etc. The default C172 is probably the best implemented default aircraft in MSFS currently and with the Working Title G1000 Nxi it's a good experience, but no full failures simulations. Oh, and if you want all this with hypoxia simulation and/or birdstrikes, then definitely have to go with whatever other sim(s) that simulate those ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited June 7, 20224 yr by lwt1971

9 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Do you have the CL650? Why shouldn't it make use of the failures which are already builtin by default and build up all that stuff completely anew? This doesn't make any sense. As I understand it, it has added even more custom failures like temperatures in each combustor separately etc..
Aprt from that, you were ignoring the other items I mentioned, namely microbursts, birdstrikes, hypoxia, you can damage your flaps at overspeed, knife edge flying, wake turbulences, ...

I do and no, as far as I am aware of, it does not use default failures, because it's coded in a different way from default aircraft (like basically any 3rd party software). But I don't use it very often, almost never, so I'm not 100% sure.

1 minute ago, lwt1971 said:

Oh, and if you want all this with hypoxia simulation and/or birdstrikes, then definitely have to go with whatever other sim(s) that simulate those

I have a hypoxia mask that I use for altitude training on the bike.  A real machine that starves the oxygen not just a mask that restricts breathing.  It can simulate up to 29,000 feet.  I never thought of bringing it up from the basement and flying with it.  That would make all of my planes viable for hypoxia training and a TRUE simulation!  

27 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Can you tell me, what's wrong with it? 

These aren't my words. They are the words of Claviateur, who appears to use both MSFS and XP, about the XP posters in the XP forum:

Quote

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 "cult behavior" Claviateur is referring to the XP posters in the XP forum. How can you ignore Claviateur's statement?

Here is a further clarification by Claviateur:

Quote

I swear that it feels like things you hear in a cult...obsessive focus on a tiny thing that is generalized to make it the rule for positive or negative arguments... And denial of the 90% of facts... It is an unsettling behavior... 

And usually no logic can win over such psychology... Even the elegant post Tony wrote in this thread to add more logic to this basic discussion, did not make any difference...

This is why I think you are biased @flying_carpet  You don't see what is very obvious in the XP forums, that Claviateur sees. And remember, Claviateur uses both MSFS and XP, and if you read through his comment history, his comments are very reasonable.

You also seem to make the same type of arguments that Claviateur mentions. Claviateur's description above describes you pretty well: "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...".  

@flying_carpet I also see you taking the most tiny things and making it a big issue.  For example, you keep nitpicking that MSFS doesn’t have bird strikes.  Yes, MSFS doesn't model bird strikes, but you seem to ignore everything else that MSFS has, and not evaluating MSFS as the entire package.

Edited June 7, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

Gents, we are entering the new golden age of flight simulation. It’s a great time to be alive if you are a hardcore simmer. Let’s act that way towards each other. 

We aren’t melting our Pentium processors trying to get get 20 FPS. We aren’t spending small fortunes trying to get our sims to look as real as possible. 
 

For the third time, yes I can’t wait for the inibuilds A300 series in MSFS. 

 

6 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

We aren’t melting our Pentium processors trying to get get 20 FPS. We aren’t spending small fortunes trying to get our sims to look as real as possible.

Good one …. let the essential important truth be told! Long live MSFS!  Bring on iniBuilds!

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

I do and no, as far as I am aware of, it does not use default failures, because it's coded in a different way from default aircraft (like basically any 3rd party software). But I don't use it very often, almost never, so I'm not 100% sure.

Isn't that a bad deal? It wasn't cheap ... Does it simulate also "external" failures, e.g. navaid, localizer, ... with its own logic?

Whatever!

 

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

... nitpicking ...

I asked 4 questions and you answered only 1 of them, for opening a sideshow.

 

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

... nitpicking that MSFS doesn’t have bird strikes. 

You ignored microbursts, birdstrikes, hypoxia, you can damage your flaps at overspeed, knife edge flying, wake turbulences, ...

By the way, when was MSFS 2020 published? In August 2020, right?

8 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

By the way, when was MSFS 2020 published? In August 2020, right?

C'mon, that's hitting below the belt. I'm sure @abrams_tank means no harm. Besides, we were discussing... Oh dear, I forgot. 

Perhaps it's time for the inquisition to end? Or if that's not possible, maybe you can settle on "agree to disagree"?

Edited June 7, 20224 yr by Cpt_Piett

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Isn't that a bad deal? It wasn't cheap ... Does it simulate also "external" failures, e.g. navaid, localizer, ... with its own logic?
Whatever!
... microbursts, birdstrikes, hypoxia, you can damage your flaps at overspeed, knife edge flying, wake turbulences, ...

You seem to be trying too hard to impress us with XP and failing spectacularly at it. Seems to be quite clear that's the sim you much prefer so shouldn't you be over on that rather vibrant forum discussing away? Or maybe actually flying in XP striking birds, coming in and out of consciousness with all that hypoxia modelling, then avoiding dangerous microbursts (and birds) all while simulating hundreds of failures on those default aircrafts? Not quite sure what you think your constant pontificating on what XP has that MSFS doesn't, on this forum, actually does :))

Anyways, back to this thread's topic and everyone else.. about iniBuilds releasing a lot of their wares for MSFS, and their pending A310 for MSFS which they seem rather pleased about in how it's coming, so much so that they said "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", which in turn has got me anticipating it even more 🙂 ... Given my longing for a long-hauler (pun intended), and this looks to be the first high fidelity long hauler for MSFS, I absolutely cannot wait for it! Like me, there seems to be near-daily queries from various users on their A310 discord https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/784467650612822016 now lol. I'll take anything they can give.. previews, videos, little reveals.. anything!

Edited June 8, 20224 yr by lwt1971

I cannot wait for the A310 either. Can't wait to get some Iran to Asia long hauls in, in the 310. I love the classic aircraft and I am thrilled that the A310 is ini's first choice for MSFS. Hopefully the A300 won't be too far off when the 310 releases. From what I've seen and heard, it is outstanding in X-Plane.