9 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

They probably want someone that has interacted with real ATC before

I think this is where people have an issue with your statement. You may be able to solve ATC instructions using simple programming techniques, but the underlying logic of actual air traffic  control is extremely complex. If you don’t have an appreciation for the actual complexity of controlling air traffic, your position is very well misunderstood. 

You are again confusing complexity and dealing with a lot of information. Sometimes dealing with a lot of information can make things complex, but in this case, it's all basic conditionals and relatively simple logic.It also depends how perfect someone needs it, if you want an exact duplicate of ATC speaking back and forth that comes OOTB as having every potential response exactly like ATC would respond in real-life, then yah that's a bit of an AI problem there, but it could be a performance issue too in that case. However, even if they made it this way, there would always be "naysayers" saying ATC would never say that. I've heard ATC make some weird jokes before. I mean even that problem is somewhat easily solvable with an AI bot, but it will degrade performance. Also, I've listened to real ATC on Youtube channels, and increasing the number of conditions does not greatly increase complexity, because the logic remains simple. Again, it's the difference between being complex and tedious.

Edited November 11, 20232 yr by Alpine Scenery

41 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Can you develop the question please? I don't see your point.

The point is right there. You just don't want to admit it lol.

19 minutes ago, Krakin said:

The point is right there. You just don't want to admit it lol.

Admit what exactly? The only thing I see is that unfortunately you are trying to heat-up a discussion that had calmed-down after many disagreed with you because of the way you are doing personal attacks. Yet you try to double-down. Can I ask you what you want to achieve with that?

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

And I am bringing my side into play here, what i wish to see in any sim, although you obviously value other things more.

You're in a tiny minority Franz.  Me, and a whole lot of others, value other things beyond aeronautical fidelity.  I look forward to the low hanging fruit like cloud related turbulence being addressed and a few other things, but really they're minor compared to what missing in XtraBoringPlane.  Sorry, I tried the demo 3 or 4 times but it just missed the key feature you cannot overstate:  didn't feel like I was "there", in the real world, whereas I get that feeling, right or wrong, all the time in MSFS, every time.  Citing MSFS' major difference as "better graphics" vastly underappreciates what MSFS brought to the sim world 3y ago now.  Right now there are 8,900 in-game using MSFS and that is only Steam users, whereas XTraBoringPlane has a grand total of 614 in-game.  Both are sold on their respective internal platforms so it's reasonable to look at the only stats we have, ie Steam DB.  Why is that?  Well, having landing gear inertia addressed just will not satisfy the deep immersion that comes with MSFS, but it's good enough to satisfy those who get off on fidelity, even if that is all intellectual.  3 decades of FS for me, and this one is the one I get out of bed at 5am to launch my next flight experience with the help of A Pilot's Life.

39 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

after many disagreed with you because of the way you are doing personal attacks

Really, what was it like, two people? Meanwhile, the post you responded to has 15 upvotes and likes because what I pointed out is so obvious. It is so obvious that you ended up doing exactly what I pointed out in this thread. You tried to deny it but you got caught in 4K trying to suggest that the creators of MSFS only care about graphics while your favorite sim cares about what "really matters". It is a weak, innacurate and reductive argument that has been debunked multiple times, including in this thread but you are the one who chooses to double down.

13 minutes ago, Krakin said:

while your favorite sim cares about what "really matters"

That‘s not true. I pointed out to stuff that in my opinion is not important at all, like ATC or multiplayer that „this“ other sim want to spend more time with. I made a comment about that in the XP-forum this week. I have always been critical to every sim i‘ve used. And I am using sims since over 35 years. For any reason you are the one being offended when we don‘t admire everything about your favourite sim. I don‘t think this is the goal of a discussion-forum. At the same time I saw you making very negative comments about a sim you obviously hate (see your signature) in forums dedicated to it and explaining having a problem when others make one negative single comment you disagree with. I think everyone can make his own opinion about that behaviour.

Edited November 11, 20232 yr by Franz007

32 minutes ago, Noel said:

You're in a tiny minority Franz.  Me, and a whole lot of others, value other things beyond aeronautical fidelity.  I look forward to the low hanging fruit like cloud related turbulence being addressed and a few other things, but really they're minor compared to what missing in XtraBoringPlane.  Sorry, I tried the demo 3 or 4 times but it just missed the key feature you cannot overstate:  didn't feel like I was "there", in the real world, whereas I get that feeling, right or wrong, all the time in MSFS, every time.  Citing MSFS' major difference as "better graphics" vastly underappreciates what MSFS brought to the sim world 3y ago now.  Right now there are 8,900 in-game using MSFS and that is only Steam users, whereas XTraBoringPlane has a grand total of 614 in-game.  Both are sold on their respective internal platforms so it's reasonable to look at the only stats we have, ie Steam DB.  Why is that?  Well, having landing gear inertia addressed just will not satisfy the deep immersion that comes with MSFS, but it's good enough to satisfy those who get off on fidelity, even if that is all intellectual.  3 decades of FS for me, and this one is the one I get out of bed at 5am to launch my next flight experience with the help of A Pilot's Life.

That‘s great. You seem like a very dedicated and passionate user and seems to have found the sim that suits your needs and always had a wider audience since it was alway focussing more on entertainment as the one having been developped at first as a physicsl-training tool to help real-pilots. So what to want more; every user can choose the sim who fits his needs the best and makes him happy. I wish you many happy hours.

22 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

That‘s not true. I pointed out to stuff that in my opinion is not important at all, like ATC or multiplayer that „this“ other sim want to spend more time with. I made a comment about that in the XP-forum this week. I have always been critical to every sim i‘ve used. And I am using sims since over 35 years. For any reason you are the one being offended when we don‘t admire everything about your favourite sim. I don‘t think this is the goal of a discussion-forum. At the same time I saw you making very negative comments about a sim you obviously hate (see your signature) in forums dedicated to it and explaining having a problem when others make one negative single comment you disagree with. I think everyone can make his own opinion about that behaviour.

Wow I find it hilarious that earlier in the thread you tried to teach me how to properly develop arguments but here you are deflecting.

1. No one cares if you have certain gripes with your favorite sim and no one has said you didn't. This has no bearing on the weak narrative you've been pushing about MSFS in this thread. You having the ability to criticize all sims does not affect your argument being false or accurate.

2. I don't take issue everytime someone is not happy about MSFS since you don't see me arguing with people in every thread outlining an issue with the sim and I have started some of those threads myself. Just a wasteful argument once again.

3. I'll stoop to your level and point out that you are the one (among others) who loves to jump into MSFS threads that are a little too positve for your liking in order to stir the pot.

Edited November 11, 20232 yr by Krakin

47 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

... seems to have found the sim that suits your needs and always had a wider audience since it was alway focussing more on entertainment as the one having been developped at first as a physicsl-training tool to help real-pilots ...

Lol there you go again with your silly narrative and sweeping statements trying to disguise it as an either/or choice. You attempt to speak for us as preferring visual fidelity over aeronautical fidelity, and keep trying with that old trope of MSFS "always focusing" more on visual fidelity and "entertainment". Sorry but that's just, for the lack of a better term, utter nonsense. Yes we all have preferences, and a lot of us using MSFS prefer *both* aeronautical fidelity *and* visual fidelity. The that fact it doesn't do ground handling as good as it could, or is missing the tilting feature in its 3D radar, or other existing issues doesn't mean that it is "focusing" on "entertainment" and visuals (and certainly doesn't take away from the great many things it does do well in aeronautical fidelity, as evidenced by numerous default and payware aircraft).. I get it, some would like to pick on those existing issues to then make these general statements that push a certain narrative 🙄 but sorry, falls flat. News flash, a sim can do multiple things well, and focus on multiple areas for as wide an audience as possible.
 

Edited November 11, 20232 yr by lwt1971

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

since it was alway focussing more on entertainment

*Massive, giant eye roll* Trust me dude, Xplane is just as much "entertainment" as MSFS is. Maybe even more so, because it's pretty entertaining to look at. 

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

That‘s great. You seem like a very dedicated and passionate user and seems to have found the sim that suits your needs and always had a wider audience since it was alway focussing more on entertainment as the one having been developped at first as a physicsl-training tool to help real-pilots. 

With inferior default avionics to MSFS's default avionics?

Edited November 11, 20232 yr by abrams_tank

A point rarely considered when discussing aeronautical fidelity (i.e., flight model) is the direct relevance of flight model to the sim's overall performance in fps. Embedded within your sim may be the most grand and glorious physics equations since General Relativity. But if your sim's antiquated engine is struggling to chug out 20 or 25 fps in complex scenery or weather scenarios, then the resulting screen representation of this flight scenario will be of poor aeronautical fidelity. In other words, you can't have a great flight model on a mediocre-performing sim.  

Edited November 11, 20232 yr by David Mills

3 hours ago, Franz007 said:

That‘s great. You seem like a very dedicated and passionate user and seems to have found the sim that suits your needs and always had a wider audience since it was alway focussing more on entertainment as the one having been developped at first as a physicsl-training tool to help real-pilots. So what to want more; every user can choose the sim who fits his needs the best and makes him happy. I wish you many happy hours.

Well put. Though there is no question IMM the training value, even now in MSFS, is substantial and need not be written off because it's not perfect.  Let's face it:  even in XP you're not experiencing what RW pilots are in very large part.  Sure, there must be other elements XP offers as a training platform, Lord knows there better be after 25y of development by the same party.  Getting familiar w/ the cockpit, the basics of instrument flying, flight planning and so much more is indeed present in the MSFS world right now.  So if we said the maximum value as a training platform of any desktop sim, as contrasted from a real Level D commercial simulator,  is 1.00, then we can give XP maybe a 8.0, and MSFS 6.5, because so much is already present.  Flight dynamics you're going to get when you go get your PPL in real aircraft.  I appreciate better flight dynamics does matter for sure in a desktop sim, so we dock MSFS for this and other current shortcomings.  To reiterate getting the actual "feel" of flying an airplane in the real world isn't going to come out of XP any more than MSFS, at least flat screen implementations of these simulators.    So, in terms of an interface to simulate flying an aircraft out of an airport in weather the reason MSFS has a massively bigger audience is that in the end, you're still not flying a real airplane, so immersion really trumps aeronautical fidelity as a driver of interest in the platform.  All my humble opinions, of course 🙂

Edited November 11, 20232 yr by Noel

I'd rather crash in MSFS than grease it in Xplane is where I'm at. Due to various factors beyond my control, it's less and less likely I'll ever get a real pilot's license unless I decide to try ultralights or gliders, and both of them scare the living daylights out of me, as I have a fear of heights. In a regular plane, the height thing isn't so bad, though I haven't been in that many small planes, but an ultralight I can only imagine. So for now, MSFS is where it's at bruthas.

 

 

Edited November 11, 20232 yr by Alpine Scenery