5 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

   

As far X-plane ready to go to be FAA certified, all you need to going to the website and look at X Plane Pro right here and it explain it to you.

https://www.x-plane.com/pro/certified/

 

It's a marketing hype and misleading for those who doesn't know . If it was certified out of box I would do my IFR currency on X-plane long time ago. No there is a process that would cost  thousands of dollars before XP can be truly certified and use for visuals . But hey you bought into that marketing slogan so LM job well done LOL

By the way XP and MSFS could be used as training aid, but that is far from certified and get log your time toward certificate or currency

Saying "we are not competing because x,y,z" is the same as giving up.

1 hour ago, tup61 said:

Somehow some people only see what they want to see and I have no clue why. But it is what it is. Let's accept that and move on. Enjoy the sim you prefer. Happy flying!

Whereas the OP topic is the release of xEnviro for MSFS (I never used it back in the XP days and I'm not going to start using it now), this reminds of the time before the launch of MSFS. I had been a frequent flyer over at the .org for a number of years, but eventually switched over to Avsim for the MSFS forum. By that time the level of hyperbole, dissonance and blatant exaggarations had reached reached ridiculous levels over at the .org. Don't see any point in mentioning names, but there was one particular user who staunchly defended XP and ridiculed MSFS as if his life depended on it. 

27 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

No there is a process that would cost  thousands of dollars before XP can be truly certified and use for visuals . But hey you bought into that marketing slogan so LM job well done LOL

I understand very well that there are additional equipment that would be needed to certify a whole system. I don't think they are saying that certification can just come out of the box without the additional equipment and they do spell it out in their statement.  But hey whatever lol. 

I like to fly in VR anyway so my feet are staying on the ground. Have fun. 😃

 

3 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Whereas the OP topic is the release of xEnviro for MSFS (I never used it back in the XP days and I'm not going to start using it now), this reminds of the time before the launch of MSFS. I had been a frequent flyer over at the .org for a number of years, but eventually switched over to Avsim for the MSFS forum. By that time the level of hyperbole, dissonance and blatant exaggarations had reached reached ridiculous levels over at the .org. Don't see any point in mentioning names, but there was one particular user who staunchly defended XP and ridiculed MSFS as if his life depended on it. 

I take pride in being the first person to point out that XP11 and the Org showed all the hallmarks of being a cult. For which I was duly banned!😂

Did anyone actually purchase this product here in MSFS?  What are your thoughts?

@ryanbatc 

A couple of pages back user a321 purchased it.

Here is his or her comments:

 

I bought it using the discount.

The awful and unrealistic gusts are gone, landing in the Fenix is now not a battle of the Auto Thrust vs the wind. There are gusts, but not 180/22 - 347/55 180/12 - 90/10 - 91/24 situation going on in all 3 seconds. I really dont get why people have to be negative about it. It is also Version 1 and the devs made no bones about that. To write it off as useless is just crazy. But anyway the toxicity is normal now. 

 

MFS is a Great Flightsim, of that I have no doubt because I have used it extensively ( hihihih, a term whose semantics are deformed for an external observer in the space-time grid of an uninstaller ), and people using MFS  should be able to get from it the best they can, just as those using other flightsims.

There is nothing wrong with comparing simulated features between two simulators. It's actually good that constructive comparisons are made. Provided they don't derrail into the usual thread black-holes they can bring into the table some good points and help their users to better know what and how to ask for something to be implemented addressing it to the corresponding developers.

What I find unnecessary is all of the discourse that has as main focus not this clean / positive discussion but rather and solely to bash the other sim because "I want mine to be the best !"

This is the mindset that some of us ( me included !!! ) sometimes write from when posting stuff like how well a given simulator sells and how many potential users it has, how many develeopers have jumped from one platform to the other, and so on....

This kind of sentences can be "useful" for the "self" as a way to get convinced the best option was his option, which is actually not required or meaningful for others since some users can use more than one platform and enjoy them all !

I have posted various positive exclamations about MFS in this forum, and using it has provided some really good sim times, but since I do not have the capacity to use more than one sim at the same time, I have now decided to switch to XP, but will be ready to return to MFS when the "Glider / Soaring" update gets available.

In my decision there were some important factors, but they were not based on sales numbers, or on if this or that developer has decided to jump from another platform to the other or to embrace both... I couldn't care less about it, provided it doesn't affect my investments in one of the platforms, such as when all of a sudden a developer states that there is not going to be any further development for his products for the current version of the simulator, whatever that simulator is.

Honestly I would like to see  MFS and XP12 and Aerofly FS 4 and FlighGear and P3D all getting the necessary support to continue to please their user bases. All will be happy!

But I can't be that cynic as to make it look as if my more basic / cerebellum-based emotions don't play their tricks and make me write stuff that, in some way, serves no other objective than to express that "mine is bigger than your's" mindset too 😕

 

Edited October 25, 20223 yr by jcomm

I bought it using the discount.

did compare it with msfs live , and get out and look at the real clouds iam live 7km from threshold rwy34 esnn

compared 3 days with differnt clouds .

just know i have this metar ESNN 251420Z VRB02KT 3600 DZ OVC006 05/04 Q1007

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2cay7zqlieceb2/MSFS.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2llwavt18t2icii/Xenviro.png?dl=0

On 10/23/2022 at 7:38 PM, tull said:

You don’t need an external weather program for FS2020 do you, the weather is just fine …bloody waste of money, bloody crazy

Well, Q8 stream showed the accuracy of MSFS stock weather to be way out.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

I take pride in being the first person to point out that XP11 and the Org showed all the hallmarks of being a cult. For which I was duly banned!😂

To be fair, your posts over their were mostly negative bashing.  If you don't like a sim, don't visit a forum for it. There is nothing wrong in only liking one sim or liking both.  I think MSFS and XP12 are amazing simulators and I am so thankful we have such technology and choice available to us.  

There are some things that each sim does better than the other - I say enjoy what each has to offer and leave the silly sim bashing alone.

Edited October 25, 20223 yr by MrBitstFlyer

45 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

I understand very well that there are additional equipment that would be needed to certify a whole system. I don't think they are saying that certification can just come out of the box without the additional equipment and they do spell it out in their statement.  But hey whatever lol. 

I like to fly in VR anyway so my feet are staying on the ground. Have fun. 😃

 

No quite even that. It required third party company to get certified using additional equipment + x-plane visuals. In other words, if you buy yoke and rudder pedals you are still not there. You have to buy the complete system from another company that certified this sim

Here is example of BADT which is basic and only for C172SP from Gleim

https://www.gleimaviation.com/cockpitbatd/

Mind me to say if student pilot works on private certificate he/she can only log up 2.5 hours on that sim.  

Look at price tag below from Elite vendor. You may able to complete entire training in real aircraft for the same price of one sim system

https://flyelite.com/basic-atd/

 

Finally list of vendors with FAA approved sims. There is no Laminar listed anywhere there

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/FAA_Approved_Airplane_ATDs.pdf 

21 minutes ago, westman said:

I bought it using the discount.

did compare it with msfs live , and get out and look at the real clouds iam live 7km from threshold rwy34 esnn

compared 3 days with differnt clouds .

just know i have this metar ESNN 251420Z VRB02KT 3600 DZ OVC006 05/04 Q1007

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2cay7zqlieceb2/MSFS.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2llwavt18t2icii/Xenviro.png?dl=0

I prefer, for obvious reasons ( the METAR with DZ and 3600 vis ) the default MFS depiction.

MFS's weather is good. It need fine tunning in some aspects, but ASOBO has stated they're working on it and it's not closed for development.

21 hours ago, Gulfstream said:

I feel bad for developers like this, who were obviously making a lot of money on X-Plane sales due to the seriously lacking default weather in XP11.

So now they are in a difficult position where they have to try to bring their product into the current dominate simulator, MSFS, and it simply can't compete with default weather.

It's likely because a lot of these addons are one-man-shops and they are up against hundreds of skilled developers at Asobo making sure everything is working as it should.

Either way, I am highly skeptical of any weather addon at this point that says it can do a better job than the effort that's been poured into the default.

Very early on in Q8s stream, MSFS live weather displayed a thick layer of cumulus for a metar showing clear skies.  X-Enviro showed clear skies.  X-Enviro doesn't transition as smooth as default weather.  For me, I am grateful to have a choice of products that can be better than the other for what each of us find the most important.

From my own experience of Rex Weather Force and Q8s stream, both of those products can produce more accurate weather with more varied cloud types.  They each have their negatives, but so does MSFS default weather - none of them are perfect.  Personally, I am willing to put up with the poorer transitions for the greater variety of cloud types.  Other will differ of course and that is fine.

Choice is good and there is no need to bash the option each of us chooses not to use.

3 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I prefer, for obvious reasons ( the METAR with DZ and 3600 vis ) the default MFS depiction.

MFS's weather is good. It need fine tunning in some aspects, but ASOBO has stated they're working on it and it's not closed for development.

I cant prefer MSFS or Xenviro , when looking outside my house i say its a close one something in the middle