3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I would need lots of high quality airports, and that would ultimately cost me a lot of money.

Switching from my current simulator is not an option for me at this time unless I win the lottery.

Understandable and entirely up to you.

Some developers are offering P3D to MSFS discounts and as @Fiorentoni pointed out, there's an awful lot of good quality freeware in MSFS.

The FBW A320neo far surpasses any default or previous attempt at a freeware narrow body Airbus. The iniBuilds A310 is a fantastic rendition of the legacy wide body that, unlike most Airbuses, uses a yoke.

Take a look https://flightsim.to/by-country/GB/

EGKK is a stand out favourite.

What's great is for just £1 first month subscription on the Xbox Game Pass (ignore the Xbox bit, can be used on PC) anyone can try out MSFS.

1 hour ago, Reader said:

It should be crystal clear by now that being an expert at flight simulation is an entirely different skill from being a real-world pilot.

 

In MSFS you are not a pilot you're a gamer, just like when you play COD WWII, you're not actually a soldier.

Of course, you can be both.

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by Ricardo41

I find it interesting that there are those of us who believe that P3D will reassert its leadership in users as time goes on. Perhaps someone could explain how that might occur given the explicit licensing requirement that P3D only be used "for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment." Just to refresh memories, here's the press release announcing the LM/MS technology partnership

https://news.microsoft.com/2009/11/30/lockheed-martin-microsoft-agreement-to-bring-better-training-to-warfighters/#:~:text=The Microsoft ESP IP licensing,with industry through IP licensing.

I would respectfully draw attention to the statement that the partnership, "allows Lockheed Martin to further develop the Microsoft ESP PC-based visual simulation software platform to better train warfighters for battle." Has the agreement governing LM's licensing of the original ESP technology lapsed in some way, clearing the way for LM to develop flight sims for home users?

14 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I can't imagine anyone that already has the Fenix, buying another Airbus from FS Labs....

That totally depends on the variant they release. Another A320 CFM? No way. And I doubt they will release theirs in time before Fenix has released the IAE. 

But If FSLabs is smart they release an A319 or A321.

5 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and considering P3D as "dead" is simply an opinion. I am sticking with P3Dv4.

 

Is P3D dead ? I don’t know, I don’t care and the question is irrelevant anyway as it will be alive as long as it stays on your disk and you enjoy it.

If there were any good reason to switch to MSFS, that wouldn’t be because majority rules 😄 ! I fly MSFS because it is much better for my needs than P3D, Thats it. Your profile of simmer is very different from mine and your explanation (if any were needed) makes sense.

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by Dominique_K

31 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

unlike most Airbuses, uses a yoke.

Oh that’s true..i didn’t even noticed that when flying it because i have flown the A320-family that much 😅

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by Franz007

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Quite frankly, though, I find only the C172 G1000 and Cabri helo measure up in terms of their aerodynamics. I attribute this to the great lengths the Asobo devs went to collect real-world data to shape the flight & performance models of the addons themselves rather than to any inherent advantage of CFD-Lite.

A great example of that is how closely the Cabri performs to IRL and High Fidelity versions in other sims, and yet the Bell 407 is inarguably sub-par when it comes to many aspects of helo flight characteristics (and don't even get me started on the utterly abysmal state of its systems...).

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.

 

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

In re fixed wing flight models, there are quite a few 3PD addons that are CFD-enabled, which makes them fly more fluidly, but which like the B407, don't behave correctly to one degree or another.

We also have cases where 3PD developers like SWS and Just Flight are publicly avoiding CFD because they can NOT get it to perform their aircraft according to real life metrics. In their view, the traditional flight model is preferable because it enables them to get their addons to hit the IRL performance chart metrics very closely.

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.

 

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

In terms of systems, I'm not quite sure if you're restricting your comments to the Default aircraft, or in general. If the former, then you may very well be right.

The new Defaults in XP v12 are substantially upgraded as well. I cannot make a blanket judgement, other than to say they are definitely Payware-Grade addons that perform better than many of their counterparts in FS 2020 to this day.

Now, it is quite obvious that MS & Asobo brought their "A" Game to the table when it comes to the G1000, the 40th Anniversary addons. And the still-pending upgrades to the CJ4 & Longitude look to raise them to a High Fidelity status in all regards. I am particularly interested in the Longitude as it will finally represent it's incredible IRL performance, plus the thoroughly modern & accurate Garmin, along with other systems.

So while Asobo absolutely deserve a standing ovation for this year in particular, it's still quite early (and still inaccurate) to declare that the addons and other features "far surpass anything else in any other sim."

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)_/¯
 

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by lwt1971

Apart from the great avionics available thanks to WT,  none of the CFD enabled aircraft, including the Cabri, have changed my opinion on how basic the CFD with it's re-injection features is.

None of these aircraft show acceptable propwash effects, or at least not comparable to what I have in other sims.

I am yet to see the new ground physics announced for one of the the upcoming SUs. It was mentioned more than once some time ago, but then I never heard about it again, and ground physics really leave a lot to be desired.

OTOH, yes, default systems with the latest updates to the GNS 430/530, 3000, etc, and even the default systems in the A310 are astounding, specially for being default & free.

Overall weather is also very pleasantly modelled, although I retain only the general properties, not the specifics, like soaring weather, which are not realistic.

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by cagarini

9 hours ago, cagarini said:

I believe that along 2023 XP11 users will mostly migrate into XP12, and that more users will find in X-Plane 12 a very interesting platform for using sophisticated add-ons like the Challenger 650, or simply enjoying the superior quality of X-Plane's flight dynamics.

MFS is here to stay for sure, and it's a revolutionary platform in the way it does scenery and in some way weather too, and in the way it set a new "pricing strategy". OTOH I fear not much more in terms of it's flight dynamics and systems modelling will evolve from what has been reached so far. I even start to fear we will not see that promised new ground physics model...

Well, I'll beg to differ 🙂 ... regardless of how many times the "XP flight dynamics is superior" talking point is repeated does not make it true unfortunately... I've flown all sims including XP11, and what I get with MSFS in its *current* state, with some of its default aircraft and the various quality 3PD aircraft out there, XP by no means is "superior".  I'd say it's a wash when it comes to flight dynamics now, and in fact feel that the MSFS aerodynamics platform is more diverse given the broadening of its support for heli and glider physics since SU11. Also the aerodynamics interaction with the weather and atmospheric airflow is more advanced and realistic to me than XP. But by no means is it perfect, and there's work to be done still, but gone are the days when one could easily say MSFS was inferior. It's a matter of the particular aircraft's specific flight models being implemented in the best way possible to realize all the capabilities and needs one would have of flight dynamics for that aircraft. There could be some edge cases in aerodynamics & the flight envelope where aircraft FMs implemented in XP do better, but that's not to say it's impossible in MSFS either (it's only been a year since high fidelity FMs started to be put out by competent aircraft devs using the core MSFS aerodynamics platform, and very likely more refinements and capabilities will come in future iterations from Fenix/PMDG/iniBuilds/Milvia/A2A/etc). If I were to slap a percentage comparison to it, at worst case MSFS is around 95% of XP's flight dynamics capabilities, based on flying and comparing available best-of-breed aircraft default and 3rd party in-sim... but again like I said above, in some areas such as aerodynamics + atmospheric airflow interactions MSFS is definitely better IMHO.

The first step to improving ground handling/physics is already implemented and the Fenix and other aircraft have taken advantage of it to improve their ground handling (i.e. https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/624533-fenix-hotfix-out/?do=findComment&comment=4849262). I don't see any reason why MS/ASobo would not continue to improve that area as they have stated multiple times.

You might have a fear that not much more will evolve in terms of flight dynamics and systems modelling in MSFS, but evidence so far in how much both MS/Asobo and 3rd party devs have delivered, and what's on the roadmap for both MS/Asobo and 3rd party devs, I'd say a lot more advancing/evolving is to come 🙂

 

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by lwt1971

5 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

given the broadening of its support for heli and glider physics since SU11.🙂s.🙂s.
 

Unfortunately glider aerodynamics are really bad, but truth is, and I can't explain myself why, X-Plane gliders aren't that better...

 

24 minutes ago, cagarini said:

Unfortunately glider aerodynamics are really bad, but truth is, and I can't explain myself why, X-Plane gliders aren't that better...

 

Yes, I thought they did a much better job with helicopter physics than gliders.. but yes, it's still the better of the glider implementations compared to other sims, or equal-ish. But then combined with the world depiction and weather, the glider experience in MSFS currently is appreciably better than other sims 🙂 .. in any case, this was their first iteration, I feel they'll be improving it over future SUs, they certainly seem open to feedback in order to help in that improvements endeavor.
 

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by lwt1971

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I think the biggest problem was the SDK and lack of info that would allow a serious aircraft to be developed. Plus updates caused issues that required hot fixes on more than one occasion. Remember the DC3 from PMDG? The Airbus is infinitely more complex so you can understand their initial reluctance.

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.

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I had the experience of-flying with MSFS for a couple of months and then having to return to P3D while my new PC was being repaired, It was beyond horrible, and I quickly realized that having to fly P3D again was no longer an option. 

Me too, flew P3D for a few months after MSFS released...but I had to fly from dusk til dawn only when the only scenery that mattered was the payware airport I bought.  Bonus:  could dial autogen back to SPARSE  and terrain distance to LOW or whatever it was called, and actually have smooth performance in the PMDG NGXu/777.

55 minutes ago, cagarini said:

Unfortunately glider aerodynamics are really bad

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.

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by Farlis

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?