This could/should have been MSFS 2020 - more than ...

[flying_carpet 679]

... only "engine failure" (binary, i.e. on or off).

 

[mSparks 2,129]

your provocative title aside, I'm finding this release cycle has offered a lot more opportunity to do this sort of thing rather than get the actual plane simulation and functionality working that has plagued (everyone?) for the last few years.

When I started playing 744 engineer it couldnt even complete a flight.

[Murmur 3,978]

X-Plane failure system is certainly one of its strong points, it obliterates (to use a word I've recently read on another thread) other general purpose flight sims.

A legacy of X-Plane focus as a professional training tool.

Also, the MTBF option allows for a "real pilot" mentality and experience: be always ready for possible unexpected failures (and beware of unnoticed failures, like a failed instrument) and apply the correct decision making.

[flying_carpet 679]

I bet MSFS will never implement too extensive realistic simulation, as it would overcharge the average user (e.g. the Xbox-users) and they would complain why their plane doesn't react like they are expecting it. History is proof.

[Biology 1,347]

23 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

I bet MSFS will never implement too extensive realistic simulation, as it would overcharge the average user (e.g. the Xbox-users) and they would complain why their plane doesn't react like they are expecting it. History is proof.

Meanwhile at Asobo: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/release-notes-1-30-5-0-aau-i-dec-5th-2022/562540

Now all of the built-in avionics of MSFS (including the G1000 and GNSes) are much more accurate than their X-Plane counterparts.

They certainly care about simulation as much as Laminar does.

[UKflyer 630]

i've got all the failure options under the sun in the Fenix

https://kb.fenixsim.com/failures-in-the-fenix-simulations-airbus-a320

[mSparks 2,129]

41 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

and they would complain why their plane doesn't react like they are expecting it. 

But that is not a bad thing is it? Why not just let the majority have cake and be happy?

I stumbled across the perfect take on this when I was digging up AC7 stuff:

https://www.unrealengine.com/pt-BR/developer-interviews/ace-combat-7-soars-high-with-ue4-to-become-franchise-s-best-installment

Quote

To see how Bandai Namco Studios was able to reignite the series’ success, we interviewed Kazutoki Kono. The ACE COMBAT producer elaborates on the great lengths that went into getting the jets to feel authentic, talks about designing gameplay that straddles the line between feeling fun yet realistic, and speaks to balancing what hardcore fans expect from the series while introducing new innovations. 

The only ones complaining at the moment are those in total denial that MSFS is an XBOX game for people to enjoy, like that wasn't made clear from the first day it was announced.

I mean, OK, its not a very good game. Its been a long time since I've seen ratings this low and it is truly terrible if awesome developers like PMDG do get left out in the cold (although X-Plane 12 is waiting...)

But those expecting more/different from a games developer who put some staff through basic flight training and a game publisher that hasn't released a blockbuster title for 20 years were only ever fooling themselves, everyone else just got on with business.

Edited December 5, 2022 by mSparks

[Biology 1,347]

I also want to mention that your example regarding failure simulation is misleading. While X-Plane has more built-in failure options, a lot of high-end add-ons (like the Challenger 650 by Hot Start) don’t use default systems and instead they provide their own fully custom systems, which means they are not even tied into the built-in failures.

Similarly, while MSFS’ built-in failure system is more limited and it would be really nice if they improved it, most high-end add-ons don’t even use it. They provide their own custom systems and failures instead. It is already done in MSFS and it will likely be taken to the next level once A2A releases their aircraft.

[Murmur 3,978]

I like the fact that in X-Plane the failure system can be used on every aircraft, not only on specific aircraft that implement their own failure system.

Also, I like that one can trigger "failures" related to external environment (some that come to my mind: runway lights, navaids, birdstrikes, downdrafts, etc.).

[flying_carpet 679]

26 minutes ago, Biology said:

I also want to mention that your example regarding failure simulation is misleading. While X-Plane has more built-in failure options, a lot of high-end add-ons (like the Challenger 650 by Hot Start) don’t use default systems and instead they provide their own fully custom systems, which means they are not even tied into the built-in failures.

Similarly, while MSFS’ built-in failure system is more limited and it would be really nice if they improved it, most high-end add-ons don’t even use it. They provide their own custom systems and failures instead. It is already done in MSFS and it will likely be taken to the next level once A2A releases their aircraft.

Well, you know ... when I bought my new car, I realized, it had only "engine failure". I.e., if the engine is damaged, you don't know what is damaged and you have to replace the whole engine (gets very expensive). Or, to avoid that and to have a more granular failure system, you have to buy additional failures from a 3PD as the OEM doesn't offer that, so that I can exchange e.g. only the fuel pump. So, I passed on buying this extra addon, because I don't want my car to have multiple failures 😆 - however, with the risk of having to replace the whole engine sometime, because the manufacturer of my car was too lazy (or any other reason), to implement a sufficient failure system.

[flying_carpet 679]

28 minutes ago, Murmur said:

I like the fact that in X-Plane the failure system can be used on every aircraft, not only on specific aircraft that implement their own failure system.

Also, I like that one can trigger "failures" related to external environment (some that come to my mind: runway lights, navaids, birdstrikes, downdrafts, etc.).

Can the Fenix etc. simulate failed ILS/localizer/navaid transmitters, downdrafts, wake turbulences, melting snow/ice, snow free roads in winter, etc.? So, you're exactly right, a poor implementation of the base product has to be (partly) compensated by addons, but you still don't get the result how it should be.

[OverTheEDJ 266]

21 minutes ago, Murmur said:

I like the fact that in X-Plane the failure system can be used on every aircraft, not only on specific aircraft that implement their own failure system.

Also, I like that one can trigger "failures" related to external environment (some that come to my mind: runway lights, navaids, birdstrikes, downdrafts, etc.).

I like the fact tha MSFS is constantly improving / evolving. The new AAU (from hiring World Title) addresses the early complaints about the level of detail in the G1000 / G3000 / suites. MSFS took note, hired outside help, and now look at where they are with these systems (vid below). That TBM is going to be awesome...

Even with Helis, MSFS sought help to implement this feature then offered 2 helis for free. I really don't care for a flight model debates. However, the Huey in DCS was my gold standard for the best heli flight model, and MSFS has surpassed that for me.

No matter what MSFS does not have today, it will have at some point. The level of updates and free content is mind blowing given my original investment.

History has shown, when others have said "this could / should have been MSFS" about VR, Helis, DX12, DLSS etc. MSFS soon made it a reality...

 

[Murmur 3,978]

6 minutes ago, OverTheEDJ said:

I like the fact tha MSFS is constantly improving / evolving.

So if you think MSFS is better and you are exclusively using it, why are you here saying only negative things about X-Plane?

It seems people like you are triggered when someone prefers X-Plane over other flight simulators. Is that some form of insecurity? 🤷‍♂️

Edited December 5, 2022 by Murmur

[MrBitstFlyer 3,924]

30 minutes ago, OverTheEDJ said:

I like the fact that MSFS is constantly evolving improving / evolving.

Great, the MSFS forum is >>>>> that way.

[OverTheEDJ 266]

4 minutes ago, Murmur said:

So if you think MSFS is better and are only using it, why are you here saying only negative things about X-Plane?

It seems people like you are triggered when someone prefer X-Plane over other flight simulators. Is that some form of insecurity? 🤷‍♂️

Aside from making the wrong assumption about what I use, you then claim that I only say negative things about XP while quoting my post where I did not mention XP at all.

It seems like you were just triggered because I chose to bring some perspective to this thread (despite its title).

The question is, why would I be insecure about a "sim" company that I don't own, who has promised to be in the "game" for at least 10 years. has had about "24" major updates since its release, has hired several teams (like working title) to bring additional features, has collaborated with museums to bring more historical planes to the sim, has collaborated with the leading GPU company to bring performance to the sim, has a detailed roadmap letting consumers know where they are headed, and much much more??????

As I stated in other threads, I have tons of addons (and $$$) invested in XP that I would like to use in XP12. But I am not quite sure if its worth investing in XP12 given its history of stale development post release; do I just forgo my past investments...

If anything, I am spoiled (or even arrogant) when it comes to my demands from a flight sim developer; and this is due to the red carpet treatment from MSFS.