22 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

To be fair, your posts over their were mostly negative bashing. 

Not so much if your read them properly. I was an XP11 user. The issue was that not one person on the Org was prepared to acknowledge that there was anything whatsoever of merit in MSFS. And as far as XEnviro goes it should not have been necessary in the first place if Meyer had not sat back fat on his Laurels. It was only the advent of MSFS that shook him, too late, out of his complacency.

Edited October 25, 20223 yr by jarmstro

On 10/24/2022 at 3:05 PM, abrams_tank said:

XP 12 clouds are very bad.

Some of them are, but some are amazing.  If anybody buys in to a product that the developer openly states the clouds needs work, then criticises the clouds as poor, then I find that to be bashing the product for no good reason.

I can't believe how poor some of the MSFS clouds are after two years, but I love the product as a whole.

I had xEnviro back in x-plane. It was very expensive, took toll on framerate, and was notoriously slow on updates. There is absolutely no reason for me to get for MSFS. And yes I'm biased 🙂

2 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Not so much if your read them properly. I was an XP11 user. The issue was that not one person on the Org was prepared to acknowledge that there was anything whatsoever of merit in MSFS. And as far as XEnviro goes it should not have been necessary in the first place if Meyer had not sat back fat on his Laurels.

I remember. I was more of a lurker back then, so I did a quiet exit. Sort of snuck out the back door 🙂 My last post (just checked) over at the .org was August 25, 2020.

Just now, Cpt_Piett said:

I remember. I was more of a lurker back then, so I did a quiet exit. Sort of snuck out the back door 🙂 My last post (just checked) over at the .org was August 25, 2020.

I stopped posting there when they could not handle a difference of opinion. 

10 minutes ago, westman said:

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

Yep, that's a good assessment !

4 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I can't believe how poor some of the MSFS clouds are after two years, but I love the product as a whole.

The clouds in XP12 for the most part don't just look poor, they look what on earth were they thinking releasing that mess, poor. There is no comparison. Its bad enough that the shapes are often completely unrealistic but the resolution is atrocious. I've seen MSFS get bashed constantly for things Asobo said needed work so I guess there's nothing wrong with really making sure both companies get the message, right?

Back OT, like others, I see no need to spend the extra money for Xenviro. Asobo has already showed that they mean business when it comes to improving the default weather.

9 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I can't believe how poor some of the MSFS clouds are after two years, but I love the product as a whole.

The only clouds that are not great for me are the towering cumulonimbus clouds (storm setting) The dark shadowing is too concentrated and regular.

8 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

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

Oh I absolutely agree, you're not going to get any arguments from me on that. As far as the price of the link below, I'm not too surprise about that. The software and verifying all the equipment is what is driving that cost along with with custom software to make everything work together. Even if some things are off the shelf there is still that overhead you have pay for the engineering put everything together, configure and insure its compliant. Even the OS maybe different than what you think that's in there as well. I use to work in the utilities sector supporting hardware so I know like the an average pc or server cost are astronomically higher than what it appears due to software that is running on it makes it into something else and has to be regulatory compliant.

As far as that list from the FAA, your right, you don't see LR on that list because LR is not a training facility under that name, You would have to look at each company or vender to see if they would tell you what kind of sim they using if they would allow themself to do so. Sometimes they may not for proprietary or security reason.  You may not know it unless you actually go there and see it up close.  

 

1 hour ago, Doering said:

@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. 

 

So of 14 pages one person has bought it hehe.  And the rest are basically XP vs MSFS posts...  Nice lol.  Maybe I'll wait for some YT videos

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

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 .

Purchasing and configuring the hardware needed to run the sim at FAA standards is indeed $1000s. However, no changes are made to the sim software itself. That is well established. So, even though one cannot log IFR hrs in their living room out-of-the-box, even if they do nothing more than purchase a pro key (nor does LR proactively market such capability), the accuracy and fidelity of the visual simulation is indeed FAA-approved.

In fact, even level D status as of XP12:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/622219-xplane-12-livestream-revelations/?do=findComment&comment=4835903

"The reason X-Plane is being used is because it is the only package that can be interfaced easily and completely with a commercial FSTD and meets/ will meet the performance criteria of a steady 60hz and full control of weather, runway and taxiway lights, correct appearance and correct visual distances for RVR and CAT I,II,III visibility. The good news for you guys is that many of these professional standards that we are assisting the Laminar Research team with will also be implemented into the consumer version."

Get over it.

Edited October 25, 20223 yr by blingthinger

3 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

So of 14 pages one person has bought it hehe.  And the rest are basically XP vs MSFS posts...  Nice lol.  Maybe I'll wait for some YT videos

Yeah, you really pushed a button when you mentioned xp12, eh? 

3 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

So, even though one cannot log IFR hrs in their living room out-of-the-box, even if they purchase a pro key (nor does LR proactively market such capability), the accuracy and fidelity of the visual simulation is indeed FAA-approved.

No, it's not. The one to be made Level D sim will possibly be. Your XP at home is not.

Edited October 25, 20223 yr by rka
is -> will possibly be

1 minute ago, rka said:

No, it's not. The one to be made Level D sim will possibly be. Your XP at home is not.

Will be. Not "possibly". I have no reason to think otherwise.

5 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

So of 14 pages one person has bought it hehe.  And the rest are basically XP vs MSFS posts...  Nice lol.  Maybe I'll wait for some YT videos

...and that one person only said positive things about it.  The amount of default MSFS defending that goes on makes me wonder if the Asobo team have invited people out for a drink and a meal.