10 hours ago, turbomax said:

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

Maybe so at least has makes sure you have proper evidence before he goes changing stuff. If he changed stuff every time someone said, its not right, wed still be at xp1. Had a boss like that, only ever once apologised to me after I proved him wrong.

I really hope they decide to include the far north and south regions of the map at some point. It's the only thing that bugs me about XP. I don't know whether to get Grand Arctic or Aerosoft Greenland... because those overlap, so... I feel that Aerosoft scenery would be fairly high quality, but then I won't have the rest of the Arctic region that HSimulations provides. 

7 hours ago, blingthinger said:

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.

Bit of a slap in the face for others Devs, who have poured their heart and soul into a product since over 40 years ago. What have you accomplished in life to brand that one a silly toy in comparison  it must be something monumental you have created from just an idea that has been a revolution for generations of people 😆

"You've chosen to ignore content by blingthinger. Options "

This was going reasonably well, Just cannot bring myself to respond. ☹️

9 hours ago, blingthinger said:

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.

As a staunch advocate for and longtime user of X-Plane, who has more addons, scenery, hours logged and $$ spent on X-Plane than either MSFS or P3D, I feel quite comfortable pushing back on objectively incorrect statements like, "There's only a few planes that are worth [sic] in MSFS, and even those are lacking in some areas"

My response, unlike yours, didn't denigrate X-Plane's excellence or the large collection of high quality addons available, but rather to point out that "OP" is incorrect (or word not allowed?) of the significant and growing collection of similar fidelity addons in TOS. And, of course, I supported my assertion with well-known examples of similar fidelity addons (again, unlike you and OP).

And believe me, I do the same over in the other forums for the similarly "incorrect" fans over there.

There are Professional, Type Rated pilots who prefer Toliss, and those who prefer Fenix, and those who prefer FS Labs, and so on for each add-on. Who's "right"?

I mean, the US military is steadfastly sticking with Prepar3D for their IRL pilot flight training. Are they wrong when the quality of the training literally means life or death for their pilots...?

We know - for a fact, from Austin himself, many times - that XPs flight model is continually being improved (and corrected).

So what do you mean by "...the only one even remotely close to XP's FM..."? Even the default C172s in both sims are remarkably close to each other in fidelity and "FM". While I agree that XPs Flight Model delivers a more consistently, automagically better flight model in general, it's a far cry to say there's "only one" add-on in MSFS that even comes close. That's simply an outdated assertion, especially if you're not actively putting your money and time where your mouth is.

My overall point, perhaps, is that I never STOPPED enjoying X-Plane, but that doesn't mean I'm willfully blind to the every changing pros and cons of other sims.

Edited October 12, 20232 yr by UrgentSiesta

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

My response, unlike yours, didn't denigrate X-Plane's excellence or the large collection of high quality addons available

Feel free, there is always room for improvement, XP12 is under the same, insane crazy development schedule it always has been, and if it is annoying enough to take away some of the enjoyment (or more importantly, realism) it will get bumped right to the top of the todo list (although how long it takes is a different story).

Like, I knew the stutter popping out windows annoyed me, but didn't realise quite how much until they fixed it.

I actually get a little frustrated with the polyanna "everything is perfect" types, because it's obviously not, and the first step to fixing a problem is to admit you got a problem.

But tbh, any complaints I have about XP12 are basically insignificant at this point, even for scenery with my cloudless ortho, new road LODs and textures and simheaven for the 3D autogen beats anything I have seen anywhere else, with the lighting and vegetation it gives CS2 maps a run for their money, and they barely stretch out 1km2 of usable space.

 

I see X-Plane as similar in spirit to BeamNG.drive. For those who don't know, BeamNG.drive is a driving/racing simulator different from all others: while other sims use what we could call some sort of "pre-canned" physics/damage modeling, BeamNG uses strictly "first principles" to simulate everything (sounds familiar?).

One of the consequences is that, while other driving sims are more or less strictly limited in what type of driving and vehicles they model (only racetracks, only rally, etc.) in BeamNG you can simulate pretty much every type of ground vehicle (sounds familiar?), be it for asphalt, offroad, rock crawling, tracked vehicles, etc.

So, despite being less advanced graphically, and despite lacking (at the moment) several features compared to other racing sims, it feels a lot more immersive to many users (sounds familiar?).

After using BeamNG, to me other driving sims feel synthetic and lacking immersion. In BeamNG every action has consequences, and careless driving is not forgiven at the least (sounds familiar?).

I wonder if the fans of other driving sims are also triggered by BeamNG "cultists" (to use a term dear to X-Plane haters) like happens here... I envision racing sim users "Turbofax", "Greamer" and "Frakin" disrupting BeamNG forums and spreading hate on BeamNG developers. 😆

Edited October 12, 20232 yr by Murmur

10 minutes ago, Murmur said:

I wonder if the fans of other driving sims are also triggered by BeamNG "cultists"

Probably yes, because it's all based on opinion. Lots of folks do not agree with yours, as do I 😉

7 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Probably yes, because it's all based on opinion. Lots of folks do not agree with yours, as do I 😉

I prefer Ferrari over Lamborghini, but I don't post into Lamborghini forums to say that Lamborghini's suck or to insult Ferruccio Lamborghini.

20 hours ago, blingthinger said:

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.

You really ought to get a sense of reality.  MSFS is far from a toy and so is XP12.

Whenever I see a video of a professional level D simulator, I am always struck how basic the scenery looks. What I don't do is consider it a 'toy' because a PC flight simulator appears to have better looking scenery.

Really, ANYTHING that simulates flight is a toy by your definition, if you base your requirement on reality on a PC.  We have two great simulators to enjoy, so just use the one that ticks most of your required boxes.  Personally I find the flight model in XP12 to give the most realism, but I choose to use MSFS most of the time for its excellent scenery.  Even though MSFS flight model is not up to the standard of XP12, the sim as a whole gives an excellent simulation of flight.  Even though XP12 ground scenery is not up to the standard of MSFS,  the sim as a whole gives an excellent simulation of flight.

Argh...yet another thread derailed with my sim vs your sim squabbling.  Locked.