1 minute ago, Alpine Scenery said:

The problem is there is no numbers to dial in correctly, it's all fudged because as others said in another thread, there isn't enough CPU available to use enough of the real equations to model the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere correctly. If Asobo did this, we'd be getting 0.00001 FPS, or maybe worse.

I'll grant you dialing in the flight model requires more effort because it's less forgiving, but that is really only one element of the entire project.

18 minutes ago, Noel said:

I'll grant you dialing in the flight model requires more effort because it's less forgiving, but that is really only one element of the entire project.

Yes, but that is the only point I was making when the interjection came. The other stuff like systems just vary and it depends how much is OOTB and how much you have to roll your own. So that would vary with different planes.

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

7 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

The smaller plane has a larger error (less precision) with the same equation as the larger plane, both atmospherically and because the directional equations are more complex as tied into the user response of the controls (joystick, etc) on the smaller. This makes the smaller plane harder to achieve a lower delta error. 

Again no. Small airplanes has hundredth times less surfaces to calculate. Also there is a lot of accessible data regarding airfoil, easy accessible maintenance manuals and etc

Controlling smaller GA airplane is very easy  it just a system of pulley and wires. IRL smaller airplane control sensitivity often depends on how their are rigged, so  there are a lot of room for interpretation. 

It's is true smaller aircraft are moresusceptible to turbulence because of lighter mass. But then again neither MSFS nor XP can't replicate moderate chop in airliners. Airliners deal with wind more than GA airplane they go on higher altitude and can easily catch jet stream and turbulence  type virtually not accessible for lighter GA fleet.

Finally you don't need and type rating to fly smaller GA airplane. Other than complex, tail or high performance endorsement is virtually all one need to fly fleet of GA. As you mentioned insurance this is a reason we do give check outs for pilots in each new aircraft model because of it. . In rare instance sto certain aircraft insurance would require  certain flying experience. But again checkout is just a one flight max two.

Over 20 years of my flying I have around 20 different aircraft in my log book half of each I instructed in. In most cases I just had to do one flight to get checkout. I flew anything I could get my hand on Rockwell, Mooney, Beechcraft, Piper, Cessna, American Campion, North American and etc. Try to find airline pilot who has 20 airplanes in his log book!

The bottom line lighter GA is easier to simulate. You can tell by about of large GA adding we have for MSFS or XP or P3D. If some developer raise bars in term of simulation and prefer lighter airplane is just a choice. After all turbojet or tube proper are more complex to simulate than piston engine.

33 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Again no. Small airplanes has hundredth times less surfaces to calculate. Also there is a lot of accessible data regarding airfoil, easy accessible maintenance manuals and etc

The CPU load is primarily based on precision of floating point. You don't need a high precision when there is much more inertia, so because of the fudge factors, the amount of surface isn't as big of a deal as the overall movement response. The issue is just the feel of the small plane is harder to get right because there is more movement in all directions based on response of the natural way small planes fly at the lower wind speeds we use in the sim.
 

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

38 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

The issue is just the feel of the small plane is harder to get right because there is more movement in all directions based on response of the natural way small planes fly at the lower wind speeds we use in the sim.

Yes, the flight modeling is a little less forgiving but once again it's just a data table to adjust and do the best you can with.  There is no magic though it make take some more effort to make it tolerable.  Majestic's Dash 8 was hugely overrated in this regard, IMO.  That plane got the majority of its accolades from how frame-rate friendly it was.

3 minutes ago, Noel said:

Yes, the flight modeling is a little less forgiving but once again it's just a data table to adjust and do the best you can with.  There is no magic though it make take some more effort to make it tolerable.  Majestic's Dash 8 was hugely overrated in this regard, IMO.  That plane got the majority of its accolades from how frame-rate friendly it was.

The majestic was good because it had a unique feeling on the landing, not sure how accurate that feel was to real life, but it was a lot of fun. A2A planes were cool because they were flying wild but somewhat believable.

I agree, but tweaking the flight model for smaller planes is sort of like texturing. It's a lot of trial and error and luck. For instance, sometimes I struggle getting a texture to look right for hours, then I come back a couple days later and get it right in 5 minutes. The lotto of getting it right.

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

On 9/12/2022 at 1:16 PM, micstatic said:

my guess is they absolutely crushed the XP12 Sales.  In fact I bet the Fenix and Maddog did also.  

XP12 is in beta. I'm not sure any comparison with regard to sales can be made at the moment. Personally I am hanging on for the full release before I decide whether to buy it or not. I can't financially justify supporting two sims so I will need to see some considerable advantage if I decide to switch to XP12.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

XP12 is in beta. I'm not sure any comparison with regard to sales can be made at the moment. Personally I am hanging on for the full release before I decide whether to buy it or not. I can't financially justify supporting two sims so I will need to see some considerable advantage if I decide to switch to XP12.

TBH, I think most of the features in XP 12 are baked in now. Most of what you see is probably what you will get, even in the subsequent updates to it.  Austin promoted how much better the graphics in XP 12 would be in various cherry picked photos and cherry picked locations/angles in videos, but while the lighting, water, and trees have improved in XP 12, XP 12 wasn't a generational leap in graphics like many of the community imagined, when they saw the promotional photos and videos.  There will likely be bug fixes in the next few versions if XP 12, but I don't see anything revolutionary coming to XP 12 in the subsequent updates to it.

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by abrams_tank

They are late to the party, it is possible now-a-days to beat the MSFS graphics with just a good DEM-mesh and using procedural landclass texturing. The problem is that it requires a very special skillset of people that are exceptional at processing and rendering landscape textures, there are a few people that are good at it and almost all of them are working for giant game studios, and a lot of them are overseas. Those guys cost a lot of money to hire away, but in a few more years it is going to get even easier to texture stuff, so at that point XP 14 or whatever may have a chance to compete against MSFS, right now it's too early with their budget.

There is also the chance they will never compete and they will end up a niche product forever. Probably more chance of this, but hard to say.

28 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

TBH, I think most of the features in XP 12 are baked in now. Most of what you see is probably what you will get, even in the subsequent updates to it.  Austin promoted how much better the graphics in XP 12 would be in various cherry picked photos and cherry picked locations/angles in videos, but while the lighting, water, and trees have improved in XP 12, XP 12 wasn't a generational leap in graphics like many of the community imagined, when they saw the promotional photos and videos.  There will likely be bug fixes in the next few versions if XP 12, but I don't see anything revolutionary coming to XP 12 in the subsequent updates to it.

What I do not understand is why exact sales figures are never divulged? Neither for the sims themselves or any addon?  There must me a commercial reason for this but I cannot think what this may be? If something sells well surely this should be trumpeted to the fooftops?

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by jarmstro

2 hours ago, Noel said:

Yes, the flight modeling is a little less forgiving but once again it's just a data table to adjust and do the best you can with.  There is no magic though it make take some more effort to make it tolerable.  Majestic's Dash 8 was hugely overrated in this regard, IMO.  That plane got the majority of its accolades from how frame-rate friendly it was.

If I remember correctly there were a few IRL Q400 pilots that thought the Majestic Q400 was pretty realistic. 

39 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

TBH, I think most of the features in XP 12 are baked in now. Most of what you see is probably what you will get, even in the subsequent updates to it.  Austin promoted how much better the graphics in XP 12 would be in various cherry picked photos and cherry picked locations/angles in videos, but while the lighting, water, and trees have improved in XP 12, XP 12 wasn't a generational leap in graphics like many of the community imagined, when they saw the promotional photos and videos.  There will likely be bug fixes in the next few versions if XP 12, but I don't see anything revolutionary coming to XP 12 in the subsequent updates to it.

XP probably feels like the Flip Phone manufacturers did, when Smart Phones were introduced. It's a whole new ball game now. 

2 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

but tweaking the flight model for smaller planes is sort of like texturing. It's a lot of trial and error and luck.

Absolutely, positively!

I've rapidly personally learned (in the last 24h!) just how terrible my Saitek yoke was even for the big planes!  I now have this wonderment and it is nothing short of fabulous!  I am imagining I will have a much better appreciation for planes like the Maj Dash 8 now that I have this yoke which really is great for pitch and roll including progressive resistance at a really nice level!

 

13 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

If I remember correctly there were a few IRL Q400 pilots that thought the Majestic Q400 was pretty realistic. 

Whatever--overrated plane and had it had poor performance would not have done well at all so I stand by my original statement.  That being said the Saitek yoke was the wrong tool to manifest subtleties in flight behavior so probably influences my opinion of the "Crash 8".

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

Personally I am hanging on for the full release before I decide whether to buy it or not.

I don't need to see any more it does not hold an unlit candle to MSFS now and there is no ginormous update pending beta or no beta else we would have heard about it.  Great back up game/sim for if n when MSFS dies and I hope they can retain enough undying allegiance to stay the game.