737NG tries XP12 :-)

[UrgentSiesta 942]

10 hours ago, markk70 said:

Follow-up video.

 

A very important note here that most folks won't know is that he's comparing the Default Skyhawk, which was Asobo's reference model for their new CFD/NPS/SBS realism physics (which means that this is the best even Asobo can do...). There are SO MANY addons in MSFS that don't use CFD.

Unlike in X-Plane where EVERY addon is BET/etc enabled. And you can get even better results with custom FMs such as those offered by SimCoders or X-Aerodynamics.

It would've been better to fly one of the other Defaults against each other, where the differences of the default non-CFD FM become readily apparent.

In any case, even with the unequal comparison between the Default XP 172 and the CFD-enhanced MSFS 172, he still comes down and advises that serious simmers training for IRL should choose XP.

Hats off to him - he's extremely reasonable and his criticisms are always Constructive.

 

 

[Franz007 534]

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

In any case, even with the unequal comparison between the Default XP 172 and the CFD-enhanced MSFS 172, he still comes down and advises that serious simmers training for IRL should choose XP.

Hats off to him - he's extremely reasonable and his criticisms are always Constructive.

Absolutely. Great respect to him. Most of XP-users will agree and admit that visuals and graphic performances are MSFS’ big pro. But reading the comments, many MSFS-users struggle to accept that flight dynamics in XP are better. Or they try to play it down.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Franz007

[Pe11e 812]

As usual, interesting discussion regarding flight dynamics.

We all know that even in XP, flight dynamics depend a lot on the devs too, and how they will utilize it. There is a lot of numbers in plane maker...
I actually flew some models in XP that don't feel very good (Aerobask I'm looking at you), very very sensitive, twitchy, and no any sort of dampening (they fly like a fighter jet).

I'll put aside the talk about flight dynamics and proper envelopes, etc, let's talk about THE FEEL OF FLYING. I'm actually stunned that no one mentioned that, and actually the feel of flying is something that makes a HUGE difference between MSFS and XP. The difference is so big actually, that flight envelopes are not that important for me as I'm enjoying the flying itself in XP, especially in VR.
So how to describe it? Well, in MSFS aircraft feel weightless, sort of speak. All aircraft feel like they weight 30% of the real counterpart, feel wise. I mean, if the only way to feel the aircraft weight in MSFS is to adjust the control sensitivities, than you know it's utterly wrong. For some aircraft I had to bring down extreme deadzone by 40%, means that actual axis full deflection equals 60% in the sim. For big airliners it's a must! IT's the only way I can sort of feel the weight of the aircraft, but still way off XP. I can't feel what aircraft is doing in MSFS, can't describe it properly, I can only SEE what aircraft is doing, by looking outside through the cockpit windows, and that is clearly not flying by the feel, which I do a lot in XP.
Another point, all MSFS aircraft feel like a cheap digital replica, instead of a digital machine that is alive and breathing. Not sure how to put it, but great visuals, great cockpit sounds and even solid systems doesn't help in MSFS to make me believe I'm behind the control of a virtual aircraft. Can't really describve the feeling, but it really feels cheap, artificial (which it is, but I can't find the better word), fake.

In XP11/12, I can really feel what aircraft is doing. Somehow physics delivers you the feel of the aircraft, and yes, the weight! It doesn't matter if I fly in 2D or VR, it counts in both, but it's more pronounced in VR (logically). I flew patterns with Sparky 747 in XP11 few times, just to feel the aircraft, that enormous weight pushing through the air, and I always was amazed how good it feels flying it. Ah, speaking of, I can really feel the air in XP, but not in MSFS, even with these crazy turbulence that MSFS throws at you, that, to me, feel like a random shaking effect. Landings are another story, especially touchdowns. MSFS feels like landing on a sponge, where only the touchdown sound is a signal you landed, but in XP I can really feel the landing, the thump, the movement, all done by physics! Huge difference imo.

Also a big issue in MSFS is the rudder. Doesn't matter if I set really extreme non-linear sensitivity, I will get completely wrong feel of it, and the twitchy movement will still be there, especially on takeoffs. Yes, some addons fixed this to a point, but for example PMDG 737 feels catastrophic on takeoffs and taxing. It's very twitchy, and honestly it feels like I'm using cheap analog gamepad for a rudder, which I'm not. I use pedals. Of course, no issues with this in XP, and you can even adjust the controls way more precise, way more easily (due to really good UI), and save a profile per aicraft. Something that MSFS can only dream about.

In the end, it all depends on your personal preference. If you seek specific feel of flying/pushing through the air, you'll choose the sim that you think mimics RW flying, doesn't matter if you are real pilot or not. That is why, luckily, we have few sims to choose. 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Pe11e

[blingthinger 649]

9 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

unequal comparison

I do follow your train of thought leading to this description, but....

It is amusing to see people phrase these comparisons in ways that portray XP as the surprising underdog that manages to slay the flight model monster against all odds. The reality is that these comparisons are unfair to Asobo. They're now years into their project (their best attempts, as you put it), and XP is still ahead in essentially every arena of the comparison, even with slightly incorrect geometry??.... oh my.....this was written on the wall from the beginning. The delusions induced by streaming ortho into aspects of the sim that are entirely unrelated are clearly substantial, not at all surprising, and truly comical to watch.

Asobo's balsa glider (even with 'CFD-lite', a generous term) going up against real-life lift and drag forces??? How could it ever lose!?! Easy. It's an inferior method of predicting flight and an unfair comparison. For Asobo.

[Franz007 534]

6 hours ago, Pe11e said:

Somehow physics delivers you the feel of the aircraft, and yes, the weight!

Yes absolutely. We are talking about "inertia" here. It's for me one of the most thrilling flying experiences: landing the MD11 from Rotate and feeling it's big inertia when heavy loaded. This alone makes a huge difference, I agree.

[jcomm 5,996]

@Pe11e Great post above !!! Should be pinned !!!

 

[Pe11e 812]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

@Pe11e Great post above !!! Should be pinned !!!

 

Thanks! I'm glad I'm not "the only one" that feels the same, that feels the FEEL. 🙂
 I actually tried to summarize my finding after flying both sims for few years. And among that long post, I forgot to mention the crucial word - inertia, as @Franz007 did. Although I'm sure it's not only inertia playing the main rule, but that requires deep physics analysis, and that doesn't belong here, nor I have the knowledge to do it.

Lately I started using some interesting references regarding MSFS, and why I spent so much time in it, especially in VR:

MSFS is like a pretty mermaid singing the same mesmerizing song, always calling me back.
I was always attracted by its visuals and simplicity, but in the end, I always swim back (or crawl) to my XP ship full of happy sailors. 🙂

(last part of the post is a bit over the line, and on the limit of "you are talking too much" lol)

[Bulva 98]

18 minutes ago, Pe11e said:

...
MSFS is like a pretty mermaid singing the same mesmerizing song, always calling me back.
I was always attracted by its visuals and simplicity, but in the end, I always swim back (or crawl) to my XP ship full of happy sailors. 🙂
...

Everything you write above is exactly (101%) what I clumsily always mention when comparing both sims.
But due to my lack of English, I've never been able to describe it well 😉 
I often try to "love" MSFS for its good points (because it has some 😉 ), but always going back to XP is like coming home - or going back to the memories when I flew a bit in the real world.
In MSFS, whether I'm flying a 737 or a C172 - I personally don't feel almost any difference when it comes to "feeling" the weight of the aircraft and its dynamics.

[Franz007 534]

I was like that last year but now i completely stopped using that other sim, because it has to many flaws for me. And using XP with autoorthos is close to perfect for me. Waiting for better clouds and improving the shimmering and performance, then opening the weather-API for weather-radars. And i will be 100% satisfied 🙂

[Pe11e 812]

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

I was like that last year but now i completely stopped using that other sim, because it has to many flaws for me. And using XP with autoorthos is close to perfect for me. Waiting for better clouds and improving the shimmering and performance, then opening the weather-API for weather-radars. And i will be 100% satisfied 🙂

Grinning here in 2D cloud sprites. 😄 (XP11 still, probably until 12.06 or so)

[SAS443 1,729]

 

5 hours ago, Pe11e said:

Although I'm sure it's not only inertia playing the main rule, but that requires deep physics analysis, and that doesn't belong here,

Handling characteristics in all phases of flight is obviously vital in a flight simulator. 🙂

From a C172 pilot POV,  a big "well that's not right" is when XP12 rather aggressively slams the nosewheel of the airplane onto the tarmac while the landing itself is quite gently. (pitch attitude of 7 degrees at around 44 kts, that is perfectly fine). This is with Simcoders REP C172 (default C172 no longer does this!)
Regardless what X-plane is simulating here, "physics/friction/inertia"do not plant the nose like this on the runway unless you land hard or let go of backpressure. 
I have almost zero VS (and full aft pressure which is not visible) . Everything leading up to that slamdunk of the nose is however marvelous, and the feeling of holding her off the ground is very accurate.

Sidenote: I do recall that MSFS default C172 has a similar erroneous behavior (at least used to, going through my old YT-videos).
Sidenote 2: Soft field landings (protecting the nosewheel) are fine. 

Edited July 16, 2023 by SAS443
default C172 no longer slams the nose

[mSparks 2,094]

2 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

rather aggressively slams the nosewheel of the airplane onto the tarmac while the landing itself is quite gently

lets see that again with

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/43586-a-new-landing-rate-display/

to see just how "gentle" that landing was.

Because it looked like about 400fpm to me...

 

[strider1 575]

45 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

 

Handling characteristics in all phases of flight is obviously vital in a flight simulator. 🙂

From a C172 pilot POV,  a big "well that's not right" is when XP12 rather aggressively slams the nosewheel of the airplane onto the tarmac while the landing itself is quite gently. (pitch attitude of 7 degrees at around 44 kts, that is perfectly fine). This is with Simcoders REP C172 but it's virtually the same with default XP12 Cessna.
Regardless what X-plane is simulating here, "physics/friction/inertia"do not plant the nose like this on the runway unless you land hard or let go of backpressure. 
I have almost zero VS (and full aft pressure which is not visible) . Everything leading up to that slamdunk of the nose is however marvelous, and the feeling of holding her off the ground is very accurate.

Sidenote: I do recall that MSFS default C172 has a similar erroneous behavior (at least used to, going through my old YT-videos).
Sidenote 2: Soft field landings (protecting the nosewheel) are fine. 

The default 172 no longer slams to ground like that, it did, not sure when it changed. Simcoders needs to fix the nose slamming to the ground, unrealistic. 

Side note: the 172 is very floaty in ground effect in real life unless you are slow with with full flaps. 

[UrgentSiesta 942]

13 hours ago, blingthinger said:

I do follow your train of thought leading to this description, but....

It is amusing to see people phrase these comparisons in ways that portray XP as the surprising underdog that manages to slay the flight model monster against all odds. The reality is that these comparisons are unfair to Asobo. They're now years into their project (their best attempts, as you put it), and XP is still ahead in essentially every arena of the comparison, even with slightly incorrect geometry??.... oh my.....this was written on the wall from the beginning. The delusions induced by streaming ortho into aspects of the sim that are entirely unrelated are clearly substantial, not at all surprising, and truly comical to watch.

Asobo's balsa glider (even with 'CFD-lite', a generous term) going up against real-life lift and drag forces??? How could it ever lose!?! Easy. It's an inferior method of predicting flight and an unfair comparison. For Asobo.

Overall I agree. XPs reputation seems to have always been one of Underdog status, for a number of reasons. Not least of which that LR has always been a micro business, and only recently has grown into a small business (headcount).

As an aside, it's incredibly impressive that the best flight models seem come from the smallest shops (e.g., A2A Sims, SimCoders & LR themselves 🙂 )

OTOH, Austin & Co have clearly been working overtime to improve the already legendary flight model (and it shows! 🙂 ). So it's clear that LR feels some pressure now that they didn't much before. And that competitive pressure can only be coming from MSFS...so there must be some quality elements to MSFS' FM...

The "balsa glider" analogy is indeed apt. However, Seb directly said that primitive FM shape is going to the dust bin with v2024. I.e., what they're building ends up working a lot more like PlaneMaker.

Combine that with the vastly increased resolution of the v2024 flight model and other improvements, and next year the race could become closer than ever before.

I'm hoping that XP continues to innovate and hold the lead, just as they've been doing for the last 3 decades.

[snglecoil 1,828]

On 7/14/2023 at 7:47 PM, Pe11e said:

I would appreciate if any RW pilots can elaborate more on this topic - which addons do it the best flying wise. Although, control sensitivity will change things a lot.

A2A’s 172 is a great add-on. I haven’t tried the Airfoil one in XP, but honestly, as far as 172s go, the defaults in either sim are fine. None are perfect by any means but they they are close enough given limitations in typical home sim controls. 

As far a the real 172 being “floaty,” I personally find it can be a very floaty airplane in the flare. Maybe that is due to the fact that a full stall landing attitude is somewhat more nose high that other popular planes in the single engine trainer class. Landing a plane isn’t all about airspeed…but it definitely plays a significant role. Nailing the airspeed will help reduce the amount of runway you leave behind and reduce the likelihood of excessive floating/ballooning.

I’ve been fortunate to teach in models from mid-1960’s E (Johnson bar FTW!), F, and H models through newer G1000 S models. The newer models definitely seem to have a heavier control feel, but they can still float with the best of them 😄