12 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Could it not be argued that simulating gliders really well is a reasonable indication of just how good a flight model is, considering that the only forces acting on a glider are purely aerodynamic?

There's a difference between a flight model and an aerodynamic model, gliders are an indicator of the latter. As long as an aircraft's 3rd pary flight model is credible, it doesn't matter how the base sim acts aerodynamically. That's why in P3D PMDG and FSL were able to create a credible flight model, even though the simulator itself lacked much in regards to aerodynamics.

35 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

But you wouldn't sit idle, isn't? Why then PMDG, Fenix and Maddog didn't wait? There was an opportunity and everyone was doing their best to catch and now FSL is really missed the train. Unless they bring A330 and Concorde into MSFS soon? Then it would be something else for them.

Didn't FSL say some pretty unkind things about MSFS, when it was introduced. I guess they see the handwriting on the wall now. 

48 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

But you wouldn't sit idle, isn't? Why then PMDG, Fenix and Maddog didn't wait? There was an opportunity and everyone was doing their best to catch and now FSL is really missed the train. Unless they bring A330 and Concorde into MSFS soon? Then it would be something else for them.

I’m not either a developer or an employee of FSL so I can’t answer that question.

59 minutes ago, Farlis said:

What's with the hyperbole?

Real Glider pilots commented and critisized the shortcomings but none of them came to the verdict: "Very bad".

All of them said: Promising first steps with lots of rooms for future improvement.

Their opinion...

I take mine, after more than 40 years (still) flying gliders of the most various types... and being a simmer too.

I think people should take, for instance, Condorsoaring, or even SilentWings as a good reference.

Between XP and MFS, I'd say there's not much difference, although some of the glider models I  tested in XP12 feel a bit more convincing... 

Then, in both platforms, it is simply not possible - at all - to model some really basic glider aerodynamics, like those pertaining to flapped gliders, specially the modern era ones ( we call them "plastic" ) with their negative flap settings. No way you can effectively model the important effect of negative flap setting in either MFS or XP...

Absence of proper aerodynamics for the fuselage is yet another limitation in both platforms.

XP allows for a much more accurate representation of wing / airfoil(s) though.

Then comes weather. MFS does a more complex weather model, has more granularity in it's vertical profile, does a really nice job IMO regarding the basic weather parameters. Unfortunately their incursion into soaring weather, specially when it comes to "convection" and the way thermals and their live cycles are represented bring, all summed up, no advantage over more simplistic but effective approaches. Again, both Condorsoaring and SilentWings are way ahead in their simulations of soaring weather.

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by cagarini

53 minutes ago, cagarini said:

both Condorsoaring and SilentWings are way ahead in their simulations of soaring weather.

fine, that gives them an opportunity to survive in a niche segment, because for 20 years that's all they have been doing. the "one size fits all" simulator has not yet been invented and Microsoft is not known to develop products for niche markets. MSFS has obviously found the secret key to one size that fits most.

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by turbomax

58 minutes ago, cagarini said:

No way you can effectively model the important effect of negative flap setting in either MFS or XP

Even though I'm sure the mods will lock this thread because others have introduced the token XP vs. fs2020 debate......

I'm all ears. Why do you say this?

 

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Didn't FSL say some pretty unkind things about MSFS, when it was introduced. I guess they see the handwriting on the wall now. 

Yup, I agree, $$$ speaks.  Unless FSL has military or commercial business that they can sustain the company on, I don't think they can survive as a company if they put all their chips into P3D, if FSL is dependent on the consumer market.

Without income from military or commercial business, if FSL is dependent on the consumer market for their income, it's adapt or go bankrupt.

4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Yes in terms of default aircraft the C172 G1000 and the Cabri are the best in terms of aerodynamics of the Asobo developed lot. The other default aircraft that are also excellent are the A310 by iniBuilds, and the coming reworked CJ4 and Citation Longitude by WT. The Bell 407 definitely is subpar compared to the Cabri, I expected more from Nemeth Designs. Quite obviously I didn't mean *all* default aircraft/avionics currently in MSFS are excellent.

 

Well, I'll beg to differ.. in terms of 3PD aircraft using CFD currently, the iniBuilds A310 and the Sting S4 are quite competent aerodynamics wise. Yes some developers might still not find CFD suits their needs to flesh out their FMs, but other devs have also embraced it, especially iniBuilds. So developers' choices and all.

 

I meant exactly that, the default avionics in MSFS from the brilliant Working Title side of the MS/Asobo dev team, the G1000 NXi, the coming CJ4 and Citation Longitude, and the other Garmin models, etc... to have such depth of fidelity in avionics as *default* indeed is unprecedented, and I'll easily continue to maintain that far surpasses any other sim. And no, XP12 default avionics/systems though upgraded don't qualify to be in this high fidelity league (certainly not their A330 lol).  Also unprecedented is the inclusion of a high fidelity aircraft like the Airbus A310, and the coming biz jets again as default and for free.. I fail to see any default equivalents in any other sim. Again I never said add-ons and *all* features "far surpass" any other sim, so read carefully. And in terms of payware add-ons and their fidelity, the likes of the Fenix, PMDG, coming A2A Commanche, Milviz C310, etc all compare well with the best of their counterparts for other sims.. there's no clear winner there IMO as there are equally good 3rd party add-ons available for all sims.


Not talking particularly about you, but I get the sense that some people seem to be particularly sensitive when it comes to Asobo being praised, which is curious.. in any case what I'm talking about here is what we the end-users get at the end of the day, out of the box so to say... whether that be due to the deep pockets of MS, and/or Asobo, and/or their partnership with niche/skilled teams, it is goodness for us 🙂 In fact, Working Title are now a core part of the MSFS dev team, so yes kudos to the MSFS product and dev teams, and kudos also to Asobo for architecting and implementing a core sim platform with its CFD and non-CFD aerodynamics engines, the detailed world and weather depiction of course, the novel CFD based atmospheric airflow simulation and its interactions with aircraft aerodynamics, etc etc.. and the accolades, survey results, financial success, and 3rd party buy-in are all a natural consequence of the product's success ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Agreed, sir!

I love how some people around here automatically assume that the guys at FSL are walking around with blindfolds on. I get the feeling that they are a lot smarter than that.

25 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I love how some people around here automatically assume that the guys at FSL are walking around with blindfolds on. I get the feeling that they are a lot smarter than that.

It's almost like in the past they haven't made some very glamorous and visible mistakes that make people wonder if they may be a bit out of touch?

Developers do make mistakes. Following industry news makes that absolutely obvious. 

In this case, it's very, very hard to not identify as a mistake wasting resources on a dying simulator and letting other devs beat them to the punch on the simulator that isn't a commercial flop. That costed them a lot of sales and made them lose a lot of money. There is zero doubt about that. 

3 hours ago, Farlis said:

What's with the hyperbole?

Real Glider pilots commented and critisized the shortcomings but none of them came to the verdict: "Very bad".

All of them said: Promising first steps with lots of rooms for future improvement.

It's the internet. Everything is either incredibly awesome or dog*it. 😂

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by Abriael

36 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I love how some people around here automatically assume that the guys at FSL are walking around with blindfolds on. I get the feeling that they are a lot smarter than that.

Fenix releasing the first high fidelity ("study level," however you want to call it) A320 in MSFS is a huge loss for FSL.  The assumption is, Fenix will then do the A321 or A319 next in MSFS.  If Fenix releases the A319/A321 in MSFS before FSL does, this effectively takes away the high fidelity market for the A320/A319/A321 away from FSL in MSFS.  On top of Fenix's A320, you also have the FBW A320, which gets better every few months.  At this point, if FSL releases an A320 for MSFS, their sales will probably be very, very poor.

In fact, I don't even know why FSL would bother releasing an A320 for MSFS.  With the Fenix A320 already, and by the time FSL releases their A320, if the FBW A320 is much better at the time of FSL A320's release, I can't even imagine how FSL would make a profit on their A320 in MSFS, unless it costs FSL very little time (ie. time = money) to port their A320 over to MSFS.

Maybe FSL has their reasons for not prioritizing MSFS. Or maybe FSL thought the P3D consumer market would remain stable for years to come (to be honest, I didn't expect the implosion of the P3D consumer market to happen as fast is it did, either).

As for having smart people at the top, I just refer you to Microsoft.  Microsoft had all the smartest executives and Steve Ballmer even went to Harvard.  Yet Microsoft totally missed the ball on the potential of a tablet market, and then missed the ball on the mobile market. 

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by abrams_tank

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

FSL say some pretty unkind things about MSFS, when it was introduced

I'm certain that every single airliner dev looked at Asobo's balsa glider geometry and thought unkind things towards it. Some thought them out loud.

They were most likely holding out to see how well the CFD bandaids the 'force' elements.

11 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

I'm certain that every single airliner dev looked at Asobo's balsa glider geometry and thought unkind things towards it. Some thought them out loud.

They were most likely holding out to see how well the CFD bandaids the 'force' elements.

And then the developers that knew what they were doing, got it done, and the rest sat and watched....

14 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

thought unkind things

The key word here being "thought". If you're still thinking it, then you're an word not allowed for sure. 

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

In fact, I don't even know why FSL would bother releasing an A320 for MSFS.  With the Fenix A320 already

And when you see that Fenix will keep improving flight model, engine, sounds etc... Redo texture and EFB, as a Fenix A320 owner I will not buy the same plane from FSL, what for?

But if they can deliver a concorde soon, the last preview from 3 hours ago looks awesome, I will buy it in a blink.

https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/topic/32502-concorde-first-look/

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by bendead