Laminar Research will broadcast live XP12 interview today.

[Tino 80]

I don't usually jump into these sorts of conversations, but thought I'd address some things, as certain comments do seem misleading. 

I'm not speaking for Austin or the Laminar team, but from a developer perspective, X-Plane is not trying to compete with MSFS. Austin even acknowledged how beautiful MSFS looks. There's no denying that.

 

He simply stated he's starting to see a change in direction, which enables both simulators to co-exist. (Each with its own unique styles and features). This doesn't mean they are ONLY aiming at professional customers. It simply means the platform is ready for those types of customers if they so choose.

 

As I stated in previous interviews, the majority of the Orbx staff are flight simmers too! We enjoy flying on all platforms. I can't deny that MSFS looks outstanding, especially with high-fidelity aircraft. I've been really enjoying the Fenix and PMDG products recently. Although, I still fly a lot in X-Plane. I'd say my time is split 50/50 between each sim, (Not including dev time).  From a development perspective, I really enjoy the process of scenery design for X-Plane as I'm comfortable with the tools and the work environment. Others may enjoy the process of MSFS design. It all comes down to preference.

 

Either way, a lot of us at Orbx are excited for X-Plane 12. Just as we were with MSFS. At the end of the day, it gives people choices to enjoy what we all have a passion for.

 

Sante-

[rka 916]

14 minutes ago, Tino said:

He simply stated he's starting to see a change in direction, which enables both simulators to co-exist.

What would that change be? The release of milviz stuff and the PMDG and Fenix to finally prove that MSFS is a game and not to be taken serious as a platform for simmers? Come on.

[blingthinger 649]

5 hours ago, rka said:

I can't really take the nonsensical arguments from the XP crowd anymore.

And yet here you are! Hrmmmm.... in the augmented words of a semi-great poet: "Sometimes love don't feel like it should. You (Austin) make it hurt so good!"

[Murmur 3,941]

2 hours ago, rka said:

the PMDG

You mean the PMDG 737 that does not even exhibit the basic roll-yaw coupling like the real aircraft (and the default XP 737) does?

[HiFlyer 9,343]

10 minutes ago, Murmur said:

You mean the PMDG 737 that does not even exhibit the basic roll-yaw coupling like the real aircraft (and the default XP 737) does?

That sounds like something my friend Jcomm would say...

But as I tell him occasionally; for the people who think that's important..... Its important.

To the (I suspect) vast majority of us who are not actual pilots, engineers and etc. and don't even know what tha' heck you are talking about.. (Whoooooossh!!!)

(In other words... your average customer)

Not so much.

[blingthinger 649]

7 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

(In other words... your average customer)

Yes, I believe the aloof equivalent would be "X-Plane 12: For the discerning armchair pilot in your life."

[Murmur 3,941]

14 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

That sounds like something my friend Jcomm would say...

But as I tell him occasionally; for the people who think that's important..... Its important.

To the (I suspect) vast majority of us who are not actual pilots, engineers and etc. and don't even know what tha' heck you are talking about.. (Whoooooossh!!!)

(In other words... your average customer)

Not so much.

Of course many people couldn't care less about how the aircraft flies, but care a lot more about flying over their house. That's fine. 🤷‍♂️

Yaw-roll coupling is not some obscure flight model "thingy", it's a basic property of how almost all aircraft are designed for stability reasons.

That's why the two products might have (and actually always have been) two slightly different direction of development or focus.

Still can't understand why this seems to irk MSFS fans?

[blingthinger 649]

8 hours ago, jarmstro said:

He is now just holding it back and is out of his depth.

Actually, in one of his recent interviews he declared that over the years Ben was the one holding back the flight model updates until v12. Ben also happens to be the driver behind the eye candy, so what you're really declaring is that you want Ben gone. And Sidney.

And you want Austin to hire many more people....or wait...I thought you wanted that spare revenue to go towards paying Google to license streaming ortho scenery? So he should sell LR to Google?

Who on earth would buy LR with M$ in the room too? 

[HiFlyer 9,343]

11 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Still can't understand why this seems to irk MSFS fans?

For myself, I'm not even mildly irked.

It just reminds me of once where Austin was going on excitedly (I think it was in PR piece about the sim) about the depths of detail in the electrical system, and it just went on and on and on until my eyes glazed.

I had been thinking about trying out XP, but after that and a bit of digging, I was left asking "Exactly who is this thing for?"

Because I began to feel a definite vibe of "This is for real pilots, and lesser creatures should stay away".

The sim was for sale at Best Buy and etc. at the time, and tons of customers were asking the same question on the purchase page, while Xplaners arrived in force, essentially calling them peasants.

In later years, XP has seemed to take a more populist slant, and make a pitch, via more emphasis on graphics, a friendlier IU, placing itself on Steam and etc, that it was now trying to be more of a sim for everyone.

Up until the arrival of MSFS it seemed a winning strategy, and Orbx and others were on a roll.

Yet the emphasis recently seems very much like the old "This is for the true propeller heads".

If so, so be it, but it seems a bit of an abandonment of the consumer market, and an acceptance; even a celebration of niche status.

[The Flight Level 2,112]

I thought I was finished with this topic but here goes. Yes, XP has nailed, and continues to refine the flight dynamics of several aircraft. But I can tell you that the flight dynamics of certain aircraft in Flight Simulator are as close or narrowing the gap very quickly. I am disappointed that XP is not addressing new scenery technology and the powers to be do not want to explore new scenery avenues (at least from an outside view on the situation). Total immersion in flight simulation to make it as real as possible involves visual realism inside and outside the aircraft. For me, the thrill of flight simulation is all about the takeoff and the landing and the associated visual experience. Slight discrepancies or flaws in the flight modeling are a very minor drawback in my book. It is all about getting into aircraft that you love and taking control to fly as your imagination and desires drive you.

New scenery technologies have blown the expections and audience for Flight Simulator out of the park and way beyond the highest expections of the Microsoft management. There are ways that XP could address enhanced scenery, but it appears not to be and this is unfortunate given how much better XP could be from a visual perspective. The vast majority of flight simulation enthusiasts want the total visual experience and I’m pretty sure the entire XP team knows this. C’est la vie!

[Murmur 3,941]

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

It just reminds me of once where Austin was going on excitedly (I think it was in PR piece about the sim) about the depths of detail in the electrical system, and it just went on and on and on until my eyes glazed.

That's the beauty of it, I and many others are very interested in listening to subjects that make your eyes glaze and vice-versa. For example, if I happen to watch the Q&As on YT of the competing sim, I just jump to the flight model parts because I find most of the rest quite boooring, despite liking visuals very much as everyone else.

XP and MS Sims overlap in large parts and differ in others. It's a good and inevitable thing that XP continued to improve in visuals in the last decade (introducing MANY firsts in the visual arena, but that would take an entirely different thread to discuss), and I expect that it will continue to improve in the future.

The best thing LR can do is what it has always done: retain XP specificities (which are what attracted its userbase), and improve both its visuals and all the rest, as best as it can, with the resources at their disposal. Niche again? The important thing is continued financial viability. 🤷‍♂️ Other products in the past tried a different approach and basically all died.

 

[blingthinger 649]

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

abandonment of the consumer market, and an acceptance; even a celebration of niche status.

Loss of the market. Nobody saw M$ coming out of retirement like a snake in the grass, so LR went hog wild making it more user friendly. Given the fact that the sim itself is identical in pro vs consumer and always has been, there's zero switch in priorities aside from marketing and a bit of GUI facelift (which is waaay better than what Asobo has created...aside from the ability to click-buy scenery addons in the map, which is all sorts of Las Vegas-gaudy). Given that the consumer market has made its choice, the decision to hype up/celebrate the pro market is entirely logical. The FAA doesn't frown upon the Steam marketplace and it's not like Austin turned his back on the pro users. 

 

54 minutes ago, Doering said:

I’m pretty sure the entire XP team knows this. C’est la vie!

By all means, continue regaling us with your presence. Yes, they do know this. They are doing everything they can to address these shortcomings short of the impossible, which is to cough up enough money to pay for streaming ortho and photogrammetry. In fact, they continue to use OSM which does take advantage of some of these advanced scenery techniques (apparently M$ opensourced their building footprint database). They also continue to support ortho in general and I've seen 3rd party scenery packages that appear to be using photogrammetry. Those are the only 2 aspects in which 12 could rationally be considered inferior to M$.

[blingthinger 649]

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

You mean the PMDG 737 that does not even exhibit the basic roll-yaw coupling like the real aircraft (and the default XP 737) does?

So, it's interesting.... I noticed in their SDK some time ago that the summation equation for roll moments is missing. Pitch and yaw are both presented, but roll is mysteriously absent. Certainly it's something they could add to some level. It also lists a bunch of coefficients that could be used for applying roll force but they are all relegated to "Legacy FSX" status. If this coupling is ever introduced, they'll probably have to rely solely on their generalized straight-wing approximation and all its force elements, and even then they all get scaled down to the FSX lookup table forces. I feel sorry for Asobo. M$ really crippled them with the demand for backwards compatibility.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

The important thing is continued financial viability. 🤷‍♂️ Other products in the past tried a different approach and basically all died.

But that's been the question for years. My understanding for quite a while is that its been the mobile sales, from probably a quite more casual market where Infinite Flight and Aerofly compete, that's been keeping XP an ongoing concern, rather than the niche of dedicated technophiles on the PC?

True / False?

One wonders how that mobile market fares when MSFS and others become playable via streaming in even the most humble of mobile devices? (I've tried it. Its not awesome yet, but it is a gamechanger)

Again, (for me) that leads to thoughts of XP needing to focus on other markets, and that's what I feel I heard a lot from Austin in the video in question, when emphasizing so strongly and repeatedly a "professional" focus.

Which brings back my original "who is this for" from years ago, with renewed interest, as the answer, which had changed for a while, seems to be changing again.

As for other approaches trying and failing, somebody certainly seems to have learned from that, since this time they came back with something modern, with a full court press and true wow factor, rather than the usual decade+ of adding lipstick to the proverbial pig....

 

[blingthinger 649]

57 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

One wonders how that mobile market fares when MSFS and others become playable via streaming in even the most humble of mobile devices? (I've tried it. Its not awesome yet, but it is a gamechanger)

I think this is a great point. Streaming will likely be a big challenge for indie devs like LR because of the necessary cloud computing resources. Vulkan was a huge step in the right direction to compete, but I agree it will be almost impossible to go up against having desktop GPU performance on the equivalent of a raspberry pi. The closest LR will come is Steamdeck and the like. The only miracle that would save them here is seeing mobile GPU tech reach mid-desktop GPU capabilities.

Though also, now you're talking about software as a service and that's a host of other problems. So, LR might still stay relevant simply because we will be able to actually own our software instead of rent it.

 

57 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

with a full court press and true wow factor, rather than the usual decade+ of adding lipstick to the proverbial pig....

Great line, but misdirected. MSFS is the lipstick. Games and sims are generally as lucrative as your art department can make textures/3D models. LR can't model the whole world with a handful of artists in the same way M$ can pay blackshark AI and Asobo to do (probably talking a couple hundred employees total). Flying through ortho is nothing new. It's been in googleearth for a long time, not to mention free Ortho4XP....so technically XP did that "wow factor" first. The pig at the heart of MSFS is the flight model. FSX compatibility is the bacon, plus a host of other shortcomings.

So, wow factor? 3D water will be better in XP12. Trees will be better. Lighting model and material textures will be better. Flight model will be further better. Weather will be par if not better (runway conditions etc.)....I guess we're missing multiplayer? Xbox users and youtubers rejoice! You have found your princess!

Has it taken a long time? Sure, it took Ben and Sidney years to implement Vulkan and we're now seeing the fruits of the labor of a dozen or so software devs. There's no delusion of David vs Goliath here. In fact, it's a bit disturbing that you describe M$ to be some sort of underdog executing a 'full court press' to surprise everyone and fend off an otherwise lopsided victory! Worst case scenario is Austin has to tell a few employees to find work elsewhere. Warm fuzzies all around, eh?

Edited July 20, 2022 by blingthinger