Thats why I aint buying any more.I want a T45 to do carrier stuff, but it seems to be uninteresting to developers. Luck we have a red hawk configured for Carrier ops.now just to land the thing without crashing. Seems to fly much like the t45 just too much auto stuff.

Got enough planes. Havnt flown some of them yet.

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

for others, the selection of aircraft in MSFS is more than enough and the fact that many users struggle with what is already available (not reading or understanding manuals of thousands of pages per aircraft, same for complex avionics and the approaches they allow), correct turbine prop handling, adjusting for altitude etc. confirms that to fly properly and not just to jump in and off we go type gaming, takes ever more time. but our available time unfortunately does not increase, in other words: the more aircraft we have, the less time we spend on each, the more superficial it gets. no real pilot gets to choose from 20 or more aircraft, let alone is type rated on all of them. if /when something new arrives on the market, I will think twice if I will really have enough time for it and if it really is considerably better than what I have already. only then will I purchase more.

No offense but MSFS attracted a lot of users that aren't taking flight simming seriously enough, and that shows in the way developers are focusing on their products. In X-Plane there has always been a push to make aircraft as realistic as possible, sometimes even ignoring visuals or sounds.

1 hour ago, bogdansrb said:

No offense but MSFS attracted a lot of users that aren't taking flight simming seriously enough, and that shows in the way developers are focusing on their products. In X-Plane there has always been a push to make aircraft as realistic as possible, sometimes even ignoring visuals or sounds.

But they shouldn't ignore visuals or sounds. What bugs me the most about XP is the poor graphics (AA, blurry textures  and shimmering). Every time I hear the word flight model, I shake my head. I've been using MSFS a lot lately and when I switch back to XP it looks so old. They really need to focus more on the graphics side of things

3 hours ago, Best said:

I've been using MSFS

you mean the overrated scenery viewer, as Austin likes to put it.🤣

to those who claim "it feels more realistic":

please understand I have somewhat more trust in those who are actual pilots (incl. myself - PPL) on those type aircraft. many airline pilots have agreed both simulator's flightmodels are equally realistic, it depends on the individual 3rd party aircraft implementation how realistic it performs though. many of those who "feel" the realism 🤣 are normally without any pilot license, let alone jet airliner ratings and have no clue about roll rate, moments of inertia, lift/drag curves, ground effect etc.

it's more than a feeling 🤣

 

Edited October 11, 20232 yr by turbomax

4 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

sometimes even ignoring visuals or sounds.

or p-factor, like Austin Meyer himself got it all wrong by calculating it twice in different sections of his code, which made single engine propeller aircraft nearly uncontrollable during take off roll. but instead blamed it on user's inability to adjust their joysticks properly. 🤣

4 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

No offense but MSFS attracted a lot of users that aren't taking flight simming seriously enough, and that shows in the way developers are focusing on their products. In X-Plane there has always been a push to make aircraft as realistic as possible, sometimes even ignoring visuals or sounds.

 

There is no "taking flight simming seriously enough".
There might be "not taking flight simming as seriously as you" do but every person gets to choose for themselves what they want to get out of a flight sim. 

4 hours ago, Best said:

But they shouldn't ignore visuals or sounds. What bugs me the most about XP is the poor graphics (AA, blurry textures  and shimmering). Every time I hear the word flight model, I shake my head. I've been using MSFS a lot lately and when I switch back to XP it looks so old. They really need to focus more on the graphics side of things

True. And sounds, which IMO are a very overlooked but important aspect of flight simming.

1 hour ago, Matchstick said:

 

There is no "taking flight simming seriously enough".
There might be "not taking flight simming as seriously as you" do but every person gets to choose for themselves what they want to get out of a flight sim. 

That's true, I personally prefer a higher level of realism.

3 hours ago, turbomax said:

I have somewhat more trust in those who are actual pilots

Sometimes. But there's plenty of handwaving there too. Their opinions are tainted with how full their bladder was and how still their heads were on the day they made the mental note to compare those sensations to a fixed-based 2D sim, among other factors. There are plenty of pilots who shouldn't be flying who run their mouths and plenty of efforts to sing Kumaya around the fire whilst saying 'but oh see they're soo similar'.

 

3 hours ago, turbomax said:

roll rate, moments of inertia, lift/drag curves, ground effect

Don't need a PPL to know that not all of these are modeled the same way, if at all in many cases. That makes one overall model better than the other by default. The other might get close sometimes, but fundamentally will never equal let alone exceed the one that does have all that in the mix.

 

 

5 hours ago, Best said:

Every time I hear the word flight model, I shake my head

Every time I see people complain about AA, I shake my head. Unless they're in VR. VR users can complain. It's well acknowledged that fixes are coming there but even then, the current AA really is just fine.

I didn't shake my head when I have tried landing in the other sim though. That flight model simply triggered outright laughter. 'Silly toy' felt like the most apt adjective.

11 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

'Silly toy'

Can't wait to see who'll bite 🤣

12 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

Even though MSFS is a really succesful platform, I feel like we're really spoiled by the aircraft available in X-Plane. Toliss, Aerobask, X-Crafts, Zibo to name a few. There's only a few planes that are worth in MSFS, and even those are lacking in some areas. Which is odd.

There are quite a few genuinely High Fidelity addons available for MSFS these days.

Many of the studios known for "Study Level" addons in FSX/Prepar3D have released for MSFS: PMDG, Leonardo, MilViz, FlySimWare, SimWorksStudios, et al.

And devs like Just Flight have significantly raised the level of fidelity for their recent MSFS addons, e.g., Just Flight

And we even have an ex-XP developer, iniBuilds, that have jumped to MSFS and have brought their very high standards to MSFS, too.

And let's not forget the 800lb Gorilla of "study level", A2A Sims have just recently released their Comanche.

When it comes to "feeling of flight", I still generally give the nod to the better X-Plane addons, but when it comes to systems fidelity and such, the better addons in each sim are definitely on-par.

ETA: I totally agree with you re the excellent aircraft available in XP. My current fave is the AFL King Air, and I'm eagerly awaiting the eventual update for the HotStart TBM. 🙂

Edited October 11, 20232 yr by UrgentSiesta

42 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And let's not forget the 800lb Gorilla of "study level", A2A Sims have just recently released their Comanche.

Standing ovation for shamelessly plugging competition in the XP forum. Well done. Well done.

And since we're here, A2A is the only one even remotely close to XP's FM and also well known to not use the default FM formulation in any way.

Yes, MSFS has a LOT of high fidelity stuff - PMDG, A2A, MilViz, Leonardo, FlySimWare, SimWorks, etc... there is also FSReborn which I can't wait for their Piper, but this is about X-Plane!

 

I fly mostly airliners and I already have a list of stuff I want since jumping into XP12 head first about a week ago... Firstly, I am waiting for XP12 versions of stuff I have - FlyJSim's 727 and 737... I know there will be a price tag for the upgrade, but I don't mind. I am debating whether to stay with FlyJSim or to go with IXEG for the 737 Classic. I have no 737 Classic in MSFS to fly, and there are 2 for XP! I did have Captain Sim's pretty good Classic but it's not for P3D v6 and I refuse to have the old P3D installed - I don't use P3D often enough to have anything other than their latest and greatest. Also, there is FF A350 which I have and which is compatible with 12 - there are no 350s in MSFS yet. I am also looking at stuff I can't get in MSFS like ToLiss' A340 - there is no one announcing an upcoming 340 in MSFS. The general rule is that I probably won't buy same aircraft that I have in other sims for any other sims... For example, I have Majestic's Q400 for P3D v6 and I have zero intentions of buying it for any other sim. The idea is that I can fly different aircraft in different sims thereby regularly experiencing the best they have to offer. But since XP12 is now the one that I fly the most, my list of stuff to get for it is growing! It helps that I am starting to discover features I didn't even know were there! I used XP11 for about a year or so and had NO IDEA that both 11 and 12 can simulate things like bird strikes! I just tried my first strike on a 172 in XP12 the other day and it was a hoot! MSFS doesn't offer these things! I also find default ATC better in both XP12 and P3D. Each sim offers a very distinct and different experience. RIGHT NOW, my fascination is with flying in XP12, but I don't have enough airliners. I have Zibo, A350, and the EXCELLENT Felis 747-200... Still reeling from the loss of my beloved Tu-154 from XP11 with no sight of update planned or available. 

Do you think you could maybe not turn a nice thread about enjoying xplane into yet another desperate attempt to make people care about microsoft stuff. That horse has been well and truly flogged to death.

5 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Every time I see people complain about AA,

Is there any update on those complaints now a lot of the new vram stuff has dropped, Ive not seen any "AA" complaints for a while now.

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

When it comes to "feeling of flight"

My bet would be on a lack of stutters rather than flight model for that "feeling".

Doesn't matter how good your flight model is, if it isn't running with 60fps minimums at fairly high graphics settings, it is going to feel like driving down a cobbled road with a flat tire.

 

Edited October 11, 20232 yr by mSparks

13 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

No offense but MSFS attracted a lot of users that aren't taking flight simming seriously enough

Oh come on, aircraft addons, instruments, navigraph integration etc, etc! 

7 hours ago, bogdansrb said:

That's true, I personally prefer a higher level of realism.

XP12 has not got the full house on realism and it would be silly to say it has.  I'll agree with anybody who says the XP12 flight model is more believable. Although I find XP12 with SimHeaven, AutoOrtho and other excellent addons to look functional & be enjoyable, it would also be silly to suggest MSFS doesn't excel in that area.

I made a point in the MSFS forum that one has to stick with another simulator before it can be appreciated.  The reason is the senses get used to the way a simulator portrays the world.  If you come from MSFS, using HDR, Map Enhancement tool etc, XP12 does indeed look bland and empty in comparison.  However, when XP12 was first released, I stuck with it for a few days and got 'tuned in' to the way it portrays the world.  I used it exclusivly for nine months before returning to MSFS (because it supports HDR and looks much better for it).