"In X-Plane 12 everything feels more authentic."

[mSparks 2,123]

8 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Undeniable point is that great freeware is being generated using tools provided by both dev teams. And extremely low quality the same...

true enough.

9 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

. And hence the utter explosion of community content for the sim (just compare xp.org & xp.to to flightsim.to)

XP12 has been released for one day now, MSFS is more than two years old - three if you include its early access period. The .org is also generally very bad for X-Planes reputation... But not much that can be done about that.

1 minute ago, UrgentSiesta said:

YOU'RE the one who brought it into THIS thread.

No, I was dropping numbers to whoever it was that believed 10 million users in 3 years for a headline AAA game title is a good result for a massive game publisher like Microsoft, that needs to bring in $100m just to keep the lights switched on in the bathrooms.

4 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

"Product Placement" is generally a drop in the bucket vs Product Development.

End of the day, they were expecting, and spent accordingly, in order to take significant market share from

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/flight-simulator-market-102592

and "10 million pilots" mostly paying $1 each before cancelling their subscription didn't do that, from any perspective. 

 

[flying_carpet 675]

May I do a bit of whining? It's so UNFAIR!! *Stamping my foot like a child*
This is the thousandth time that the MSFS usual suspects have come to the X-Plane forums and riled up the people in a thread. Some of them were warned and even got holidays.
Hope the mods keep an eye on them. They have a habit of coming into the X-Plane forums, trolling, and riling people up. We even asked them to tone down the use of his/her language, and not incite people here in the X-Plane forum with his/her use of language and word choice. But they just refuse, despite us asking him/her the last time he/she was warned.
Not my words - copyright by ... see here.

 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,918]

9 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

On 12/16/2022 at 9:20 PM, OverTheEDJ said:

Its clear that XP12 is behind everyone else, including its predecessor and a sim released "16" years ago...and that's a bad thing for LR.

Surely, you must be joking...?

No, he's not joking and that's why he went on my ignore list.

[UrgentSiesta 974]

21 hours ago, brinx said:

Keep in mind that how well the planes fly largely comes down to the developer's skill. He mentioned the inibuilds 310 as an example of a well-made plane. This plane is a good comparison point because it is in both sims from the same developer. The consensus has been that it flies equally well in both sims.

This is a common Red Herring based on ignorance. You're talking about addon flight models when you should be talking about the "aero engines" of the sims themselves.

XP's aero engine applies equally (for better or worse) to all the aircraft in the sim. It's the key reason most XP addons fly better than most ESP/MSFS addons. And one of the foundational reasons that the best flying addons in ESP had to use external aero engines to achieve XP-like handling.

If you think about it, CFD-Lite is exactly the same - the original FSX-derived aero engine couldn't cut it, so CFD-Lite (an "external" deus ex machina solution) had to be created. Heck, they couldn't even include support helicopters until it was available!!!

Ironically, the vast majority now seem to assume that CFD-Lite is now in effect across all addons in the sim, as though it's just a light switch that had to be thrown (LoLz!!!).

In terms of iniBuilds A310, I stand to be corrected, but the only mentions of CFD seem to be related to their P-40.

Further, I find it rather hard to believe iniBuilds delivered a better flight model than PMDG or JustFlight or the other highly experienced ESP devs. Just sayin'...

Fundamentally, though, it has been pointed out by many others, most airliner simmers don't really care about flight dynamics as long as they're "close enough". They care about systems and visuals. And that includes most of the IRL pro pilots I've seen on YouTube. If you really pay attention to their reviews, though, they're overwhelmingly referring to how the plane operates rather than how it flies.

I mean, heck, there's a dude on PMDG's forums that said he cares more about windshield wipers than flight model! (no doubt an extreme, but still...)

I can emphatically state, though, that while CFD-Lite has great potential, as evidenced by Asobo's 172 G1000 & Cabri, the rest of the devs have yet to release anything with a flight model that compares to A2A sims, or SimCoders, or Aerobask, etc.

It just aint easy to get the fine tuning right (even Austin talks about it in v12 vids he's made).

Edited December 18, 2022 by UrgentSiesta
the point!

[MrBitstFlyer 3,918]

10 hours ago, jcomm said:

- MFS is a SCENERY and for some aircraft, AVIONICS too, simulator that offers for almost no cost what I have dreamed of having in a flightsim since ever, but it has a rather basic, even inconsistent, flight dynamics model, apparently very sophisticated, and the weather model while much more complex than that in previous versions, and that of XP12, is unfortunately full of inconsistencies too that render it useful only for not more than what I used to do with weather in FSX / P3D ( or even worst in some aspects that for instance Active Sky does more coherently );

- XP12, is a very enjoyable FLIGHT simulator, with a plausible World scenery that I would consider super if there had never been MFS,

I ditched MSFS for XP12 because of the scenery strangely enough.  Admittedly I needed ortho and simHeaven to get me to this point, but when I load MSFS now it only takes five minutes for me to feel underwhelmed by it.  I don't feel this way because MSFS is poor in any way at all, but just XP12 is so good.  Combine that with aircraft that need to be flown by the numbers and I get a whole experience that feels better to me.

I do get why some would prefer MSFS and have no problem at all saying its a good flight sim, but I surprised myself when the thought of uninstalling MSFS occurred to me recently.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,918]

21 hours ago, mSparks said:

He's just messing with ya, of course it does.

Only at that close distance though. A few feet further up they disappear.  

[OverTheEDJ 266]

On 12/16/2022 at 4:40 PM, blingthinger said:

You're that confident in Asobo's scenery simulator, upcoming plagiarized scenery gateway, and silly balsa-glider flight model?

The latter is an aerodynamic quagmire. Didn't you watch the OP video?

I am confident that 10M users on various platforms (that code convergence that Austin spoke of back in 2019) sharing "virtually" the same experience, a store with over 1,500 payware products, and an insane 2023 roadmap with updates, features and free content already laid out (in Dec 2022) paves the way for MSFS to close out the competition in 2023 / early 2024 for new users.

This FM debate is very subjective as it pertains to the immersion and feel of flying. A great flight model gets you but so far, and most folk just want the basics, and even that is subjective depending on the user. Also, how sophisticated are those controllers (heavy springs etc)??? and sensitivity tuning??? A person with a cheap $30 heavy spring controller is missing out no matter how good the flight model is.

To me, MSFS flight model is on par for the planes that I fly, and MSFSs recently released Heli flight model is better than both XP and DCS.

[UrgentSiesta 974]

43 minutes ago, OverTheEDJ said:

Not at all, if you stick to the context in which I was speaking. To be clear, I was responding to another poster concerning "steam" stats that I posted.

And the fact remains...on steam. That XP12 is clearly behind its predecessor and a sim released "16" years ago...and that's a bad thing for LR. Now quote me right, stay within the context...and then try to refute the facts I presented...

 

Indeed, that is clear. But again it has nothing to do with the premise / context of my statement that you quoted...

Not on steam it isn't...it's last place out of the 4 shown...FACT.

Not on steam it isn't...it's first place out of the 4 shown...FACT.

 

Ah..."Statistics" - I LOVE 'em!

But I understand them, too. 😉

Want to know why FSX on Steam is more popular? Here's a few easy tidbits:

1. It's been available for 16 years! XP v12 - 16 weeks...

1.a. v12 is Beta, and it's had a lot of issues (just like MSFS in the early days)

2. FSX, afaik, is pretty much only available through Steam these days. 

X-Plane, like Prepar3D, is usually purchased directly (according to the devs themselves).

3. It's CHEAP - about 60% less costly than XP or MSFS.

4. It runs well on lower-spec/older hardware.

So are all those "facts" "within context" enough for you? I sure hope so... 🙂

p.s.: You forgot to include DCS World - kinda surprising. And of course you left out Prepar3D, which has been "somewhat" popular over the years. Oh, right, because it's not available thru Steam! Yet another inconvenient "fact" for you to consider...

[mSparks 2,123]

Just now, OverTheEDJ said:

paves the way for MSFS to close out the competition in 2023 / early 2024 for new users.

I hope for your sake you dont have any meaningful skin in that game. They lied to you. They always lie to you. It is what they do.

MSFS is now in its twilight years, you need to move on, no less than those who clung on for dear life to XP9, XP10 and even XP11 now.

[blingthinger 671]

29 minutes ago, OverTheEDJ said:

and that's a bad thing for LR

Funny because LR is hiring instead of firing. No signs of 'bad' anything happening after months of xp12 purchasing trends. And given how hard the shopping cart servers crashed on 12's beta release and how long after that that steam-buy was an option, steam probably isn't the best single metric of usage.

I suppose it could be bad news for those who need to feel the emotional security of claiming membership with the majority. This is the way XP releases have always gone.

Also embarrassing that the majority is trying to throw shade on the underdog forum. Are you worried? Are you really that bothered that a fs2020 devotee/pilot declared that the underdog has the better flight model? 

 

[lwt1971 7,585]

42 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

This is a common Red Herring based on ignorance. You're talking about addon flight models when you should be talking about the "aero engines" of the sims themselves.

XP's aero engine applies equally (for better or worse) to all the aircraft in the sim. It's the key reason most XP addons fly better than most ESP/MSFS addons. And one of the foundational reasons that the best flying addons in ESP had to use external aero engines to achieve XP-like handling.

If you think about it, CFD-Lite is exactly the same - the original FSX-derived aero engine couldn't cut it, so CFD-Lite (an "external" deus ex machina solution) had to be created. Heck, they couldn't even include support helicopters until it was available!!!

Ironically, the vast majority now seem to assume that CFD-Lite is now in effect across all addons in the sim, as though it's just a light switch that had to be thrown (LoLz!!!).

In terms of iniBuilds A310, I stand to be corrected, but the only mentions of CFD seem to be related to their P-40.

Further, I find it rather hard to believe iniBuilds delivered a better flight model than PMDG or JustFlight or the other highly experienced ESP devs. Just sayin'...

Interesting thread to say the least :) ... So UrgentSiesta jumping on here just to clarify a few things, not sure what you mean by "add-on flight models" but if you meant a flight model that's completely external of MSFS then that's not possible. Basically all aircraft flight models in MSFS have to be on top of the core aerodynamics platform, and it's a matter of how they are implemented, what features they take advantage of in the platform vs not, what parameters are configured and how, etc etc.  Now when it comes to systems/avionics that can be completely external of course, i.e. the Fenix. But all the FMs of the Fenix A320, PMDG 737, iniBuilds A310 are using the core MSFS aerodynamics engine and flight model underneath (and yes whether to use CFD or not is the flight model implementer's choice). I have the Fenix and PMDG for MSFS and I'd say iniBuilds certainly delivered a great flight model that's equivalent to those two.. iniBuilds after all is a quality and reputable dev house certainly in the same league as PMDG, IMHO of course.

Now it's been a very long time since I flew XP and the ini A310 in it so I can't personally compare the A310 flight dynamics in MSFS vs XP side by side, but FWIW, here's what iniBuilds themselves have said on their discord about their A310's FM in MSFS as compared to their XP variant:

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/784467650612822016/972850172067459103
"Just to be fully clear, our flight model in MSFS is on par to XP
So those still wanting to negate MSFS as a viable sim solution based on those reasons - don’t speak too soon."


And the A310 does use CFD, here are some excerpts from iniBuilds commenting on this topic:

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/784467650612822016/1047257395086233771
"The core flight model itself for the 310 is correct when it comes to roll rate and rudder limits. It can be a tricky aircraft to land in a crosswind many airlines even have a hard limit of 27kts x wind which is very low for an airliner. Also the CFD FM on the 310 will make it feel more dynamic."

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1046408220257833060/1046777533997265036
"The A310 is also one of the only airliners using the new CFD FM which gives it more accurate takeoff behaviour."

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1040653493914058873/1041129939333820477
"Yeah we're super happy with it, blessed be CFD"

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1031242737741217913
"The flight physics in SU11 are the same as XP now you know with CFD"

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1017423315771596880
"Asobo are also making big strides in improving their physics with the new CFD simulations
X-Plane physics are very good. Every engine will have edge cases which that seems to be; and the sim is still in beta"

etc...
 

Edited December 18, 2022 by lwt1971

[threexgreen 3,160]

9 minutes ago, OverTheEDJ said:

This FM debate is very subjective as it pertains to the immersion and feel of flying. A great flight model gets you but so far, and most folk just want the basics, and even that is subjective depending on the user. Also, how sophisticated are those controllers (heavy springs etc)??? and sensitivity tuning??? A person with a cheap $30 heavy spring controller is missing out no matter how good the flight model is.

This is what I was thinking as well. As a non-pilot it was a bit of a head scratcher to see real world pilots not coming to a consensus many times about flight models with opinions divided just as much as those among non-pilots. This was also true when there was a lot of disagreeing among pilots about whether MSFS gusts are realistic or overdone.

In the end, the hardware most likely is a crucial factor in forming your opinion. Everyone fiddling with their sensitivity curves is going to lead to at least somewhat different results and I remember how switching from a yoke on the lower pricing end to a 737 full stand replica with proper physical resistance made flying in the sim feel drastically different.

Then you have different developers tuning their flight models to work around sim limitations which also has an effect on this and I would assume this is where XP has an advantage if it's true that the default sim flight model applies to third party aircraft on a more consistent basis without the need to work around it as much. Ultimately, flaws in aircraft handling may be erroneously perceived as a flaw in the default flight model when it may be a result of a third party developer getting things wrong working around sim things. Think PMDG saying they adjusted the 737's flight model for MSFS's atmospherics being on the lively side and even a real world pilot will possibly form a different opinion on the sim's flight model flying the 737 than one flying a different aircraft.

[UrgentSiesta 974]

17 minutes ago, OverTheEDJ said:

To me, MSFS flight model is on par for the planes that I fly, and MSFSs recently released Heli flight model is better than both XP and DCS.

Good points on that post up until the above. 

As to that, it's laughable, actually. All I can say is go compare the 407 in both X-Plane and MSFS. Nemeth's iteration is sub-par, to say the least.

Only DCS Gazelle (the laughing stock of DCS) is inferior to MSFS' helos, lol! And even still, prior to SU 11 it was arguably at least as good as anything using Asobo's FM.

DCS, like X-Plane, has it's issues with helo FM's, but they remain quite a bit more refined than even Asobo's genuinely very good Cabri. Especially so now that helos seem to be becoming a LOT more popular across most of the sims.

All you really have to do to see the differences is hover taxi around the airfield, and fly an IGE takeoff & landing.

[UrgentSiesta 974]

7 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Interesting thread to say the least 🙂... So UrgentSiesta jumping on here just to clarify a few things, not sure what you mean by "add-on flight models" but if you meant a flight model that's completely external of MSFS then that's not possible. Basically all aircraft flight models in MSFS have to be on top of the core aerodynamics platform, and it's a matter of how they are implemented, what features they take advantage of in the platform vs not, what parameters are configured and how, etc etc.  Now when it comes to systems/avionics that can be completely external of course, i.e. the Fenix. But all the FMs of the Fenix A320, PMDG 737, iniBuilds A310 are using the core MSFS aerodynamics engine and flight model underneath (and yes whether to use CFD or not is the flight model implementer's choice). I have the Fenix and PMDG for MSFS and I'd say iniBuilds certainly delivered a great flight model that's equivalent to those two.. iniBuilds after all is a quality and reputable dev house certainly in the same league as PMDG, IMHO of course.

Now it's been a very long time since I flew XP and the ini A310 in it so I can't personally compare the A310 flight dynamics in MSFS vs XP side by side, but FWIW, here's what iniBuilds themselves have said on their discord about their A310's FM in MSFS as compared to their XP variant:

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/784467650612822016/972850172067459103
"Just to be fully clear, our flight model in MSFS is on par to XP
So those still wanting to negate MSFS as a viable sim solution based on those reasons - don’t speak too soon."


And the A310 does use CFD, here are some excerpts from iniBuilds commenting on this topic:

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/784467650612822016/1047257395086233771
"The core flight model itself for the 310 is correct when it comes to roll rate and rudder limits. It can be a tricky aircraft to land in a crosswind many airlines even have a hard limit of 27kts x wind which is very low for an airliner. Also the CFD FM on the 310 will make it feel more dynamic."

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1046408220257833060/1046777533997265036
"The A310 is also one of the only airliners using the new CFD FM which gives it more accurate takeoff behaviour."

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1040653493914058873/1041129939333820477
"Yeah we're super happy with it, blessed be CFD"

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1031242737741217913
"The flight physics in SU11 are the same as XP now you know with CFD"

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1017423315771596880
"Asobo are also making big strides in improving their physics with the new CFD simulations
X-Plane physics are very good. Every engine will have edge cases which that seems to be; and the sim is still in beta"

etc...
 

 

All very well said & reasonable 🙂

Quote

In terms of iniBuilds A310, I stand to be corrected, but the only mentions of CFD seem to be related to their P-40.

I genuinely appreciate the correction and supporting citations from iB's Discord! Thank you (and kudos to iB!).

In re "external flight models" I was referencing MSFS's predecessors and the likes of MilViz, Majestic, A2A sims, et al.

Quote

a flight model that's completely external of MSFS then that's not possible.

This is indeed what I've heard. However, Fly Inside's Bell 47 and just announced Bell 206 would seem to counter that assertion. I honestly don't know, but they seem to claim their FM is independent...

[lwt1971 7,585]

13 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

This is indeed what I've heard. However, Fly Inside's Bell 47 and just announced Bell 206 would seem to counter that assertion. I honestly don't know, but they seem to claim their FM is independent...

If you're referencing https://www.helisimmer.com/news/flyinside-bell-206-released-december-23 then what they mean there is they're not specifically using the newly released helicopter features/physics in SU11 and just using the general aircraft flight aerodynamics/model in MSFS as their base.
 

Edited December 18, 2022 by lwt1971