After almost 1 month with XP12 and MFS, and after 2 long weeks away from my sim puter, I consumed pretty much all of yesterday's afternoon playing both sims.

Started with that nasty Win 11 22H2 update, which caused weirdiness the first time I ran MFS, including some graphics glitches, then a frther update appeared to fix it, and whn both sims were "stable" I went flying circuits in bad weather ( thx to badbadweather and skyvector ).

I used the default C172 on both sims, and also the Fenix A320 and the Toliss A319 for airliner "tests".

Had been exchnaging some messages with Alec who has reported some findings regarding limitations in the present XP12 FM, and also something weird regarding turbulence since beta 6, but I didn't have the time to thoroughly test aircraft performance at cruise, and the turb looked more like LR having tried to enable more "effects" since people now playing and enjoying MFS were saying XP now feels on-rails compared to it...

Well, I really must be honest to myself and, while I know that I still can't find much reward from flying gliders in XP12, or MFS, including some kindly submited FM updates to the default K21 provided by Janov at the .Org Gliding in XP12 forum, truth is that overall flying feels more "natural", smooth inn terms of control response, and now even as bumpy ( but not as overdone as sometimes in MFS after SU10 ) to me compared to MFS.

Landing the default C172 or the Fenix A320 in XP12 feels more "like it", less plastic specially under variabe / gusting winds, and even the behaviour of the aircraft when for instance uncrabing under strong x-winds is more plausible from an aerodynamics / physics PoV, with the aircraft realistically drifting downwind rather than upwind...

It's XP12, it's X-Plane, and flight is really more about it in this sm, I have to admit.

Scenery and graphics wise, probably due to my close vision problems, XP12 also feels at tiimes more plausible to me. OFC I can't compare the sensation of arriving in Lisbon in XP12 + SimHeaven with MFS + WU Portugal&Spain, but it still provides quite a remarkable sensation of "being there" in the final approach to rw 02 ( still rw 03 in XP12 😞 ).

It's uncomparably smaller the LR team, but if we take that into consideration, they're making this sim as Great! as it can be!

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Landing the default C172 or the Fenix A320 in XP12 feels more "like it"

Now I'm really confused? 🤪

53 minutes ago, SierraHotel said:

Now I'm really confused? 🤪

I mean that the "feel" overall when flying through X-Plane's troposphere, the reaction to control inputs ( including sensitivity ) and to weather effects like gusting winds & turbulence, feel more plausible at times in XP12.

The ground physics are still lacking in MFS, and ASOBO will update the ground physics in the future, so it's a bit unfair to make comparisons, but again I feel that specially under x-winds the aircraft in XP12 handle more plausibly on ground too.

The Toliss A319 is not as "tasty" graphics wise, nor as functional systems-wise as the Fenix A320, but again, handling the Toliss during an approach to the very same airfield under the very same weather feels more plausible to me. 

I believe LR has done something about turbulence in Beta 6. Maybe due to some users reporting that flying in MFS was more "lively"... Truth is the flights I did had the aircraft bouncing a bit, while up to Beta 5 they felt more or less "on rails" compared to MFS.

Unfortunately the gliders, namely the K21, still lack in some aspects, and the same applies to gliders in MFS.

I am waiting for the upcoming updates for Soaring in MFS, and for fine tunning of some flight dynamic modelling aspects in XP12, such as the fuselage and the way it impacts in terms of drag and lift. Sideslip behviour is poorly modeled for a K21 in XP12. I'd risk saying that it actually feels better in the MFS gliders I have tried. This really puzzles me and I can't find a good explanation for this "failure" in terms of more plausibly modelling this kind of aircraft, unpowered, so withg even less complexities having to be taken into consideration...

Well, and of course there's also the rotaries, not yet purelly modeled in MFS and long available for XP, now with additional details modelled in XP12.

It's surely very good to be able to have both platforms and benefit from their strongest points.

Edited October 10, 20223 yr by jcomm

There's something wrong with the wind and turbulence effect on airframes at the moment. Whether in the Citation X at 41000 ft or the C-47 at 8000 or 10000 ft, both airframes vibrated as if riding over a cobblestone road, even wheen there wasn't bad weather around.

Another difference is that real aviation dangers tend to be actually dangerous in XP (as it happens in RL). Ignore ice, cabin pressurizzation, runway contamination, Vne's, proper OEI procedures at your own peril. The competition, well nothing happens there instead.

I think Austin aim is to make flying in XP as dangerous as it is in RL, he should proceed further on that path. Make XP as hardcore as it can be.

Edited October 11, 20223 yr by Murmur

21 hours ago, jcomm said:

I mean that the "feel" overall when flying through X-Plane's troposphere, the reaction to control inputs ( including sensitivity ) and to weather effects like gusting winds & turbulence, feel more plausible at times in XP12.

The ground physics are still lacking in MFS, and ASOBO will update the ground physics in the future, so it's a bit unfair to make comparisons, but again I feel that specially under x-winds the aircraft in XP12 handle more plausibly on ground too.

The Toliss A319 is not as "tasty" graphics wise, nor as functional systems-wise as the Fenix A320, but again, handling the Toliss during an approach to the very same airfield under the very same weather feels more plausible to me. 

I believe LR has done something about turbulence in Beta 6. Maybe due to some users reporting that flying in MFS was more "lively"... Truth is the flights I did had the aircraft bouncing a bit, while up to Beta 5 they felt more or less "on rails" compared to MFS.

Unfortunately the gliders, namely the K21, still lack in some aspects, and the same applies to gliders in MFS.

I am waiting for the upcoming updates for Soaring in MFS, and for fine tunning of some flight dynamic modelling aspects in XP12, such as the fuselage and the way it impacts in terms of drag and lift. Sideslip behviour is poorly modeled for a K21 in XP12. I'd risk saying that it actually feels better in the MFS gliders I have tried. This really puzzles me and I can't find a good explanation for this "failure" in terms of more plausibly modelling this kind of aircraft, unpowered, so withg even less complexities having to be taken into consideration...

Well, and of course there's also the rotaries, not yet purelly modeled in MFS and long available for XP, now with additional details modelled in XP12.

It's surely very good to be able to have both platforms and benefit from their strongest points.

I wasn’t arguing, just wondering how you managed to land the Fenix in X-Plane 12?!

25 minutes ago, SierraHotel said:

I wasn’t arguing, just wondering how you managed to land the Fenix in X-Plane 12?!

Oh!

I was comparing Toliss-XP12 with FENIX-MFS 🙂

On 10/11/2022 at 5:01 AM, Bjoern said:

There's something wrong with the wind and turbulence effect on airframes at the moment. Whether in the Citation X at 41000 ft or the C-47 at 8000 or 10000 ft, both airframes vibrated as if riding over a cobblestone road, even wheen there wasn't bad weather around.

I have to agree latest update today 14 December 2022. No change. I did a test flight in the C172 at Luqa in Malta in the air the aircraft bounces about like an empty box no sense of mass and weight - a bit weird. If you do a outside view it is bobbing about like a cork! Not sure why and can find no means to adjust it. Yes other aircraft responses are correct - wind effect drift etc. But this is plain uncomfortable and even if it was real severe turbulence it would not behave like this.