The X-Plane difference.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

10 minutes ago, Murmur said:

I have a strongly suspicion that, for example, when in the PSX forums someone says: "I love PSX because it models this detail more realistically than PMDG 747", there's not a bunch of MSFS users flocking to the forum to aggressively have an argument about that;

And when in the CondorSoaring forums someone says: "I love CondorSoaring because it models this detail more realistically than other sims", there's not a bunch of MSFS users flocking to aggressively have an argument about that.

And so on and so on.

But then, when users of a flight simulator (always the same one) flock here to attack and argument against another flight simulator (always the same one), it is the X-Plane community to be defined "toxic" and something "to avoid".

For things like these, words fail me.

 

So... when I create a post named something, like "Why MSFS has the best physics ever." you'll understand why nobody will expect to see any XP people reply, then.

Yup.

Edited November 3, 2022 by HiFlyer

[Murmur 3,941]

4 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

So... when I create a post named something, like "Why MSFS is the best ever." you'll understand why nobody will expect to see any XP people reply, then.

Yup.

Maybe yes, maybe not. Certainly I don't think that the MSFS community is less toxic than the XP one. What I read in the last 3 years make me think if anything it is more toxic, not less.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Murmur

[mSparks 2,086]

11 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

So... when I create a post named something, like "Why MSFS has the best physics ever." you'll understand why nobody will expect to see any XP people reply, then.

Yup.

Ohhhhh, I see.

Please do that, let us test 😄

[Portal - 'Still Alive' playing in my head]

Edited November 3, 2022 by mSparks

[blingthinger 649]

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

So... when I create a post named something, like "Why MSFS has the best physics ever." you'll understand why nobody will expect to see any XP people reply, then.

Yup.

Actually, you should fully expect responses from XP fanz with that kind of title. Replete with references to the Asobo SDK and NASA job postings requesting XP dev experience.

Both camps have their fans who won't let rational discussion prevent irrational topic titles like that. For example, Asobo's CFD has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads. It's a parlor trick that is actually hardly used in the model. It's a partial bandaid for the FSX lookup tables. The "XP difference" is that CFD at this level is neither needed nor desired. It causes problems. See Asobo's SDK. And yet the comments rain down that it's the world's most advanced flight model. So, in the face of obviously technically incorrect statements, the XP fans can be expected to comment back to some degree.

What's more, if Asobo's work really does have the best physics EVAR!, why bother reading the XP forums? At all? You've shed alligator tears about having a hard time looking away.... and then keep posting? Meh...ok.

So, as for this thread and Murmur's list below, are you not satisfied?

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

Visibility in MSFS cannot be set to precise values, there isn't any slider for visibility!

Pressure altitude deviations due to temperature deviations are not simulated when using manual weather (just try it for yourself, if you know how to do it);

Icing, as even other people said here, has been dumbed down by user request, so that aircraft can unrealistically fly in icing conditions for extended periods of times;

pitot icing is unrealistically modeled because airspeed reading is simply frozen and not reacting to altitude variations (contrary to what happens in XP);

aircraft keep flying with failed engine and unfeathered prop (try the default Diamond, for example);

All of these things you can test by yourself in MSFS: I advice  you do it before coming here again with your incorrect info!

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by blingthinger

[HiFlyer 9,358]

5 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

What's more, if Asobo's work really does have the best physics EVAR!, why bother reading the XP forums? At all? You've shed alligator tears about having a hard time looking away.... and then keep posting? Meh...ok.

Thread title caught the eye, as I assume was intended. I thought long and hard about posting without attracting sharks, but.... Yeah.

My mistake.

Edit: I much prefer Jcomms more focused Hangar Chat post on the subject of this topic, in a more neutral forum with less baggage.

Edited November 3, 2022 by HiFlyer

[Murmur 3,941]

DOUBLE POST

Edited November 3, 2022 by Murmur

[Murmur 3,941]

On 11/2/2022 at 9:25 AM, tonywob said:

Anyway, please keep the discussion civilised so this interesting thread doesn't derail and need to be closed.

I think this thread has run its course, it's only going back and forth now, has became exhausting, toxic and nobody is going to change his ideas. For what it's worth, maybe it's better if mods close it, but of course it's their choice.

[blingthinger 649]

59 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

My mistake.

No complaints here. Whether it's real or not, that white-fur-ball-for-a-profile-pic melts the heart every time.

[scotchegg 4,186]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

I think this thread has run its course, it's only going back and forth now, has became exhausting, toxic and nobody is going to change his ideas.

I think at some point it might be useful for people to stop blaming ‘the thread’, or ‘the forum’, and realize it’s the people that might be exhausting, toxic, and unable to change their ideas (that goes for any sim’s zealots, not just because this comment happened to come in this sim’s forum).

[Murmur 3,941]

12 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

I think at some point it might be useful for people to stop blaming ‘the thread’, or ‘the forum’, and realize it’s the people that might be exhausting, toxic, and unable to change their ideas (that goes for any sim’s zealots, not just because this comment happened to come in this sim’s forum).

👆 Aaaannnd Q.E.D.

Definitely ran its course.

[scotchegg 4,186]

36 minutes ago, Murmur said:

👆 Aaaannnd Q.E.D.

Definitely ran its course.

With respect, have you considered yourself why you decided to frame this thread as ‘XP does this better than MSFS’ rather than ‘I really like the way XP does this’? Both options were open to you and you’ve been around here long enough to know which one is more likely to produce an exhausting outcome.

[Murmur 3,941]

3 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

With respect, have you considered yourself why you decided to frame this thread as ‘XP does this better than MSFS’ rather than ‘I really like the way XP does this’? Both options were open to you and you’ve been around here long enough to know which one is more likely to produce an exhausting outcome.

Honestly, just because things went like that while I was testing, and I just shared my sentiment of the moment.

But you might be right, in hindsight.

Although, from the first day XP12 was released, I remember other threads here which were basically just "I really like the way XP does this", and which often went the same way.

[jcomm 5,919]

4 hours ago, Murmur said:

Visibility in MSFS cannot be set to precise values, there isn't any slider for visibility!

Check! although ASOBO has stated that they are working to bring more precise visibility settings.

Quote

Pressure altitude deviations due to temperature deviations are not simulated when using manual weather (just try it for yourself, if you know how to do it);

Check! and I honestly still have to test them properly with Real Worls Weather. They were introduced but caused a lot of problems with VATSIM, so I think ASOBO did something which i really don't know if that meant disabling it (?)

Quote

Icing, as even other people said here, has been dumbed down by user request, so that aircraft can unrealistically fly in icing conditions for extended periods of times;

Check!

Quote

pitot icing is unrealistically modelled because airspeed reading is simply frozen and not reacting to altitude variations (contrary to what happens in XP);

Check! although XP12's modelling isn't complete either... 

Quote

aircraft keep flying with failed engine and unfeathered prop (try the default Diamond, for example);

Can be fine-tuned and requires for that the proper use of the new "CFD" model. Aircraft that use the new model can have their prop drag more realistically adjusted as I tested for instance in the Kodiak and Caravan addons, but it's still not to the level of prop simulation in XP. For instance in MFS one can have a feathered prop on a free-running turbine standing still when flying in a sideslip, something not possible in XP unless the prop system has damage.

I would add that XP does a more plausible modelling of runway contamination by ice, and it's effects in aircraft control while manoeuvring on ground, but MFS is going to have a redesigned ground physics model in one of the upcoming SUs.

MFS OTOH has a better visual representation of ice accretion on various aircraft surfaces.

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by jcomm

[Murmur 3,941]

4 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Check! although XP12's modelling isn't complete either... 

Clogged ram air / unclogged drain is not modeled indeed. That could be one suggestion for Austin, but I think he's already quite busy with other things in this period, and wouldn't probably consider it high priority...

[Murmur 3,941]

8 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Can be fine-tuned and requires for that the proper use of the new "CFD" model. Aircraft that use the new model can have their prop drag more realistically adjusted as I tested for instance in the Kodiak and Caravan addons

That's interesting, are those payware addons?