34 minutes ago, Doug47 said:

Even with its poor flight dynamics? 

Please elaborate - do you even own MSFS?

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Well you were the person that claimed that another sim  was "FAA" approved, so you are comparing something that costs a small fortune compared  to a sim that sells for around $100. 

someone said: "MSFS does everything better than everything in every other sim."

I admit I was the person that said: "not true, MSFS is not FAA-approved, can't be used to count simulator time for IFR training."

it is a statement of a fact. where exactly is the "comparison"?

everybody knows that FAA approved flight simulator training devices require more than the software alone. there are flight simulators that can be used for FAA approved IFR training, even free of charge, something MSFS can not currently and was not intended to be used for. nobody said MSFS could not get FAA IFR approval nor that a FAA FTD can be had for $ 60. 

https://wiki.flightgear.org/Professional_and_educational_FlightGear_users

generalisations like "xyz does everything better than everything in every other sim" in general are silly, generally speaking. 😊

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by turbomax

42 minutes ago, Doug47 said:

Even with its poor flight dynamics? 

Yawn. Do try harder.

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by Swe_Richard

A person can enjoy a wonderfully immersive experience in MSFS without even attempting to fly a plane. You can spawn in a parking spot and use the drone camera to "walk" around the airport. I'll sometimes do that at night in the rain. Even those simmers with low-end systems can crank all their settings up to Ultra and enjoy these walks. FPS becomes irrelevant.

9 minutes ago, turbomax said:

I am the person that said: "not true, MSFS is not FAA-approved, can't be used to count simulator time for IFR training."

This silly argument gets me every time. Just because a sim is FAA-approved doesn't somehow make it better. As someone mentioned before, MSFS could be a certified sim if they wanted it to be, and maybe one day it will be. The certification is much more concerned with hardware and how it reacts with the software. There's literally nothing that makes an FAA certified sim better than another. It's just a stupid argument. 

9 hours ago, turbomax said:

unfortunately not. in all fairness:

ambient lighting looks much better in another x-perimental simulator.

MSFS is not FAA-approved, can't be used to count simulator time for IFR training.

no way to change weather via SDK.

multiple screens/windows, cirrus clouds, joystick configuration - not better than in any other sim.

what MSFS does do better is to make best use of latest hardware: GPU programming plus Nvidia's FrameGeneration  providing highest fps/smoothest performance of all other sims at given graphics settings.

most other posts I'd agree with.

- FAA approval has always been a 'Papa Tago' (look up the history🥺) tactic of cornering the market in favor of one simulator versus another.  This was done years ago when a better argument could be made between the two (circa 1992).  The same standard shouldn't apply today.  That being said Microsoft didn't push the issue and retained the designation of 'Entertainment' title to insure more volumes were sold (we can all agree this was a good move).  Today MSFS has a comparable or better in many ways sim versus what Laminar is capable of giving us.  Users will fight about this but it is what it is. 

- Lighting is subjective and both sims look amazing.  MSFS more so with Bing scenery which should get get a node by the FAA.  But I digress as XBOX means more user volume which is good for the future of our community/hobby.  

- MSFS's weather is amazing as is.  I would rather have third party options but it's by far not of lesser quality than XPlane

For me XPlane has value as it's constantly evolving to keep up with MSFS.  The value in XPlane is if Microsoft one day turns into Microsoft and does what it's done in the past we have XPlane.  What I mean here is laying people off, powering off servers with no advanced notice, and flat out disregarding their customer base we have an alternative.🥴  You need an alternative...😶

6 minutes ago, David Mills said:

A person can enjoy a wonderfully immersive experience in MSFS without even attempting to fly a plane. You can spawn in a parking spot and use the drone camera to "walk" around the airport. I'll sometimes do that at night in the rain. Even those simmers with low-end systems can crank all their settings up to Ultra and enjoy these walks. FPS becomes irrelevant.

And if I may paraphrase your comments, the realism introduced by MSFS2020 permits millions of individuals to experience the visuals/sensation of flight who will never have the opportunity to sit in the real world left seat - kind of a mission statement for Microsoft Flight Simulator!

1 hour ago, Noel said:

I installed XP and do not see the acclaimed superior ambient lighting at all!

probably a matter of personal taste/preference/perception. many of those who have installed XP prefer the ambient lighting. since we can not compare screenshots in this forum, I'll leave it at that.

11 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

What does MSFS do best?

In two words: "lower pricing"

In a word? "value"

Yes indeed. It's 50% cheaper than the competition and 100% better. Probably it's much cheaper than 50% because we don't need to buy overpriced orthos. I mean the Toliss is £100 and the Fenix is £55? And the Fenix is better than the Toliss!

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by jarmstro

25 minutes ago, Bdub22 said:

This silly argument gets me every time. Just because a sim is FAA-approved doesn't somehow make it better. As someone mentioned before, MSFS could be a certified sim if they wanted it to be, and maybe one day it will be. The certification is much more concerned with hardware and how it reacts with the software. There's literally nothing that makes an FAA certified sim better than another.

no one said it is better, it is simply a feature that MSFS does not provide, nothing more, nothing less. for example, Flight Gear is used by many commercial FAA approved IFR simulators, yet I would never even in my wildest dreams imagine to install Flight Gear on any of my pc's. it is the ugliest simulator I have seen.

For an IFR trainer, you'd want detailed failure scenarios activated by an instructor station and programmatic access to adjust weather, which is currently not possible in MSFS as HiFi's ActiveSky Damian described earlier. these are areas that other simulators currently do better. no one said it could never be done also in MSFS, it is currently just not "everything better than everything in every other sim."

case closed.

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by turbomax

18 minutes ago, Dillon said:

For me XPlane has value as it's constantly evolving to keep up with MSFS.  The value in XPlane is if Microsoft one day turns into Microsoft and does what it's done in the past we have XPlane.  What I mean here is laying people off, powering off servers with no advanced notice, and flat out disregarding their customer base we have an alternative.🥴  You need an alternative...😶

Exactly this. 

XP will always be on my M.2 Really good things has happened on that platform. There are some really stellar add-ons there, no doubt about it. If MSFS would close the servers tomorrow, XP would be my go-to. XP12 has turned out to be quite the performer and I am *very* impressed given the small dev team. Supporting XP is an absolute no-brainer for everyone into this hobby. 

2 minutes ago, turbomax said:

no one said it is better, it is simply a feature that MSFS does not provide, nothing more, nothing less. for example, Flight Gear is used by many commercial FAA approved IFR simulators, yet I would never even in my wildest dreams imagine to install Flight Gear on any of my pc's. it is the ugliest simulator I have seen. case closed.

Back to cost, I believe the XP for use with an FAA certification, costs $1,000.... That is roughly 10 times what MSFS cost. I am sure if MSFS thought there was a market for $1,000 pricing, they could get their sim certified in a heart beat. 

3 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

Exactly this. 

XP will always be on my M.2 Really good things has happened on that platform. There are some really stellar add-ons there, no doubt about it. If MSFS would close the servers tomorrow, XP would be my go-to. XP12 has turned out to be quite the performer and I am *very* impressed given the small dev team. Supporting XP is an absolute no-brainer for everyone into this hobby. 

In what way is XP12 a no brainier? What are the advantages over MS2020? I'm guessing the flight model? But what else unless we are meant to feel sorry for Meyer and his small team?

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by jarmstro

3 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

Exactly this. 

XP will always be on my M.2 Really good things has happened on that platform. There are some really stellar add-ons there, no doubt about it. If MSFS would close the servers tomorrow, XP would be my go-to. XP12 has turned out to be quite the performer and I am *very* impressed given the small dev team. Supporting XP is an absolute no-brainer for everyone into this hobby. 

I have tried XP on a friends computer several times, and I thought it was lacking so much compared to flying MSFS. It reminds me of simming that I did over a decade ago at least. 

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by Bobsk8

11 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

if MSFS thought there was a market for $1,000 pricing, they could get their sim certified in a heart beat. 

there is indeed a market, as hundreds of other flight simulator training companies are actively involved there, it is just not Microsoft's strategy to go after niche markets.

this is more their size:

"Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard"

😊

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by turbomax