35 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Not a reasonable comparison. One is freeware. The Zibo is superb and it's only competition is the FBW.

It reasonable enough to consider a design concepts that has been out for over 10 years vs one that is free. And we are talking about a 737 not the airbus. Why would I want for pay for it yet again, this time for each single variant. That is still spending money in my book that is not free.

14 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

I actually edited my post and took that first line back. Anyway, as usual, personal attacks.

Meanwhile 0 proofs of your loud claims.

So lets try again shall we😂

 

Re: CFD & flight model; Unless you are going to prove excatly the outcomes pros and cons and back it up with input/output data those statements are too vague a la tech marketing.

An example for how to do that:

https://developer.x-plane.com/2022/02/x-plane-12-flight-model-update-supersonic-transition-delta-wings-and-mass-properties/

https://developer.x-plane.com/article/x-plane-12-flight-model-report/

Read again, very carefully this time, my previous posts on this thread 🙂 What "claims" do you want me to "prove" lol? What I said initially was: "Asobo is speeding ahead in this area [aerodynamics], and currently has some capabilities that's not in XP" ... to which you demanded details so I gave some examples such as softbody physics and CFD per https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/storage/attachments/2425-debug-aircraft-cfd.pdf ... I did not speak to pros and cons of those specific features vs XP. If you feel that XP has more pros and what not, good for you and I could care less. Being this sensitive about what's being said on a MSFS forum is not a good look... But anyways, let's just move on.
 

Edited June 6, 20224 yr by lwt1971

8 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

It reasonable enough to consider a design concepts that has been out for over 10 years vs one that is free. And we are talking about a 737 not the airbus. Why would I want for pay for it yet again, this time for each single variant. That is still spending money in my book that is not free.

Yes. I couldn't agree more. I would never buy a 737 for X-Plane either because of the Zibo. Mind you, it whacks my fps like nothing else.

Edited June 6, 20224 yr by jarmstro

8 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Read again, very carefully this time, my previous posts on this thread 🙂 What "claims" do you want me to "prove" lol? What I said initially was: "Asobo is speeding ahead in this area [aerodynamics], and currently has some capabilities that's not in XP" ... to which you demanded details so I gave some examples such as softbody physics and CFD per https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/storage/attachments/2425-debug-aircraft-cfd.pdf ... I did not speak to pros and cons of those specific features vs XP. If you feel that XP has more pros and what not, good for you and I could care less. Being this sensitive about what's being said on a MSFS forum is not a good look... But anyways, let's just move on.

No not moving on😂

I'll ask again, What the CFD adds to MSFS that x-plane *does not have*? This is the answer im looking at, its your statements, not mine.

For example, AI in x-plane create wake turbuelnce that can affect your vehicle and this is because x-plane truely calcualte AI flight model model as well as yours.

X-plane 12 has new 3d water with a new water dynamics simulation (visual as well), this enables proper floatplanes, unlike MSFS.

What the CFD adds, that is missing from x-plane? What feature? What aviation phenomena? There must be something, you said that in so much confidence!

Edited June 6, 20224 yr by mtaxp

8 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

You seem to have borrowed this saying from the X-Plane forum 😂🤣.

XP forum? What is that?

5 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

For example, AI in x-plane create wake turbuelnce that can affect your vehicle and this is because x-plane truely calcualte AI flight model model as well as yours.

Yes but AI planes in X-Plane absolutely cripple fps. So there's that. Add a dozen ai planes and it's a slide show for me.

Edited June 6, 20224 yr by jarmstro

I hope inibuilds goes all in on MSFS.  I've thoroughly enjoyed all three of their offerings in XP11 and consider them finished products there.  They have surpassed any expectations I had for them as newcomer aircraft developers and they certainly lived up to whatever little hype they produced.  From the 3D modeling, textures, systems, sounds (some of the best sounds anywhere), and performance, these are some of my all-time favorites.  They have made no promise that hasn't been fulfilled (unlike another certain developer going all-in on MSFS).

Anything they release on MSFS will be a day-one purchase for me.

A310 looks interesting to me also, mainly for a cargo plane.   I'm not familiar with "inibuilds" but some of you talk well of them, which is good.

But I would *really* rather have an A300-600 which really became a prevalent cargo aircraft.   A310 is ok though too.

I remember having a book on the A300 as a little kid.  The A300 was brand-new then.  It was considered quite an innovation, a wide body aircraft with only two(!) engines.

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

At least they can see photo's of realistic scenery...😉

I find it funny people can't grasp that many people like flight simulation itself, so will use more than one sim, and therfore visit more than one sims forums.

Scenery does not have to be satellite based to be realistic in the terms of simulating flight.  I love what MS/Asobo have achieved in MSFS, but ground texture is just one item to make a sim feel realistic. From the latest XP12 videos I have seen the lighting, clouds and rain are all looking excellent.  I have photogrammetry turned off and find MSFS autogen perfectly adequate, so autogen is not a negative in my eyes.

My last flight in MSFS got many gasps from me just looking out the window, but why this would stop me using another sim and enjoying it is beyond me.  

 

1 hour ago, MDFlier said:

There will be new users of XP based on word of mouth amongst pilots and hard core enthusiasts that don't care about the visuals as much as some of the technical stuff

The XP12 visuals look stunning to me.  The clouds and lighting look phenomenal. 

51 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

repetitive autogen?

How is this different to MSFS autogen?  

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

You should visit the local FBO and have an intro flight.

You are sitting on an office chair at your desk. You are not simulating flight.

Well, that goes to the top of my list for a silly comment.  What we simulating then, fishing?

2 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Well, that goes to the top of my list for a silly comment.  What we simulating then, fishing?

You are simulating operating an aircraft ... flight is a physical movement, sadly we don't simulate that...

17 minutes ago, keithb77 said:

... flight is a physical movement, sadly we don't simulate that...

So, MSFS doesn't simulate the physical movement through the air? Then ... what's about all that "CFD" stuff? 🙃

45 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I find it funny people can't grasp that many people like flight simulation itself, so will use more than one sim, and therfore visit more than one sims forums.

Scenery does not have to be satellite based to be realistic in the terms of simulating flight.  I love what MS/Asobo have achieved in MSFS, but ground texture is just one item to make a sim feel realistic. From the latest XP12 videos I have seen the lighting, clouds and rain are all looking excellent.  I have photogrammetry turned off and find MSFS autogen perfectly adequate, so autogen is not a negative in my eyes.

My last flight in MSFS got many gasps from me just looking out the window, but why this would stop me using another sim and enjoying it is beyond me.  

 

My guess is the number of people using more than one simulator today is minuscule.