6 hours ago, snglecoil said:

You may be able to solve ATC instructions using simple programming techniques, but the underlying logic of actual air traffic control is extremely complex.

Considering all the recent news stories about near-runway collisions, I'm not sure that real-world ATC is functioning much better than sim ATC these days.

17 minutes ago, David Mills said:

Considering all the recent news stories about near-runway collisions, I'm not sure that real-world ATC is functioning much better than sim ATC these days.

And some real world pilots would do well to remember not to take-off without clearance.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/us/houston-hobby-airport-jets-collision/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2023/08/04/learjet-pilot-jetblue-near-miss-not-cleared-takeoff/70528133007/

1 hour ago, Noel said:

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 🙂

Absolutely, visuals are more appealing for the masses, there is zero doubt about that.

1 hour ago, David Mills said:

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

Correct, that's why you need a good PC. I don't know where this number is in MSFS. For XP you need at least 20 fps to maintain that full accuracy of the FM. And for a certified version, you need much more because of the visual fluidity having to be maintained as well (via projectors etc.)

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

With inferior default avionics to MSFS's default avionics?

Absolutely, no doubt about that. I would also not state that XP has the same quality of default graphics, just because MSFS has inferior default airports and sky-lightning. I was talking in general of course.

Edited November 11, 20232 yr by Franz007

this seems like a typical discussion among non-pilots, confirming again that we are talking entertainment market here. both simulators can help train pilots with VFR and instrument procedures just as well, irrespective of frame rates, anti aliasing, GPS, flight model fidelity and what have you. the main causes for accidents in GA can be simulated and studied equally well in both, MSFS and Xanadu 12. these crusade-like discussions (my simulator is better because of better anti-aliasing, fps, Rayleigh atmospheric scattering etc. p.p.) would not have helped any GA pilot to avoid their accidents or become a better pilot. but those aspects of real world aviation are all less exciting than fps, GPS, FMC, Navigraph, flight model and what have you.

real world flying instead has to cope with less entertaining issues like: VFR into IFR, lack of training, judgement, understanding and interpreting instrument failures, getting-there-itis, weight & balance, maintenance, loss of situational awareness, icing, stall-spin going from base-to-final etc.  

all that plays hardly any role in our discussions here, yet they are the most important issues in real GA flying. the more heated these debates around here, the more they are telling me we are talking entertainment market, but not real world aviation.

"Pilot error is the number one cause of aviation accidents."

"In the early days of flight, approximately 80 percent of accidents were caused by the machine and 20% percent were caused by human error. Today that statistic has reversed. Approximately 80 percent of airplane accidents are due to human error (pilots, air traffic controllers, mechanics, etc.) and 20% percent are due to machine (equipment) failures."

 

 

https://pilotinstitute.com/aviation-accident-causes/#:~:text=The largest cause of fatal accidents in general aviation is,Flight into Terrain (CFIT).

https://www.wkw.com/aviation-accidents/faqs/what-are-the-common-causes-of-aviation-accidents/

 

 

4 hours ago, David Mills said:

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.  

XP and MSFS perform similarly on my rig. Quite easy to keep them both above the minimum FPS.

I mean, if your statement were fundamentally true, then FSX would be a prime candidate for excellent flight models...

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

XP and MSFS perform similarly on my rig. Quite easy to keep them both above the minimum FPS.

I mean, if your statement were fundamentally true, then FSX would be a prime candidate for excellent flight models...

But MSFS performs better if both XP 12 and MSFS are set at ultra, at 4K, especially if the user has an Nvidia 4000 series card to take advantage of frame generation. For most computers out threre, MSFS simply performs better.

6 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

But MSFS performs better if both XP 12 and MSFS are set at ultra, at 4K, especially if the user has an Nvidia 4000 series card to take advantage of frame generation. For most computers out threre, MSFS simply performs better.

Are you running comparative instances of both sims, yourself?

I'd like to see the stats to back that up, especially whatever constitutes "better" in your opinion, and particularly if, as you assume, "MSFS simply performs better" on "most computers out there"

On my sample of one midrange rig, they both run well, and well above whatever standard David Mills was implying.

 

Could we get back on topic? Why does every thread need to de-evolve into a VS discussion?

These discussions usually end with the thread being closed.

Edited November 12, 20232 yr by Tuskin38

27 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I'd like to see the stats to back that up, especially whatever constitutes "better" in your opinion, and particularly if, as you assume, "MSFS simply performs better" on "most computers out there"

Forget the opinion of anyone here on the MSFS forum, here is a recent poll on the .org detailing the main complaints of XP owners themselves. The primary complaint, needless to say, is graphics quality. But a close second is performance of XP.

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/296266-analyzing-the-unofficial-poll-feedback/&

 

8 minutes ago, David Mills said:

Forget the opinion of anyone here on the MSFS forum, here is a recent poll on the .org detailing the main complaints of XP owners themselves. The primary complaint, needless to say, is graphics quality. But a close second is performance of XP.

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/296266-analyzing-the-unofficial-poll-feedback/&

 

Have you EVER heard of a sim survey where "faster" isn't one of the top requests?

I note that "Stability, Performance and Memory Improvements" are consistently listed high on Asobo's own development updates.

Same with DCS World, same with Prepar3D.

Sounds more like we're an insatiable lot than anything else...

both run 60-100 fps on my system, enough to not see any stuttering. cela suffit

Can we all agree that what Jorg revealed in this interview is a good thing?

On 11/11/2023 at 12:55 AM, Alpine Scenery said:

I'm amazed they don't do ATC, it's not a complex programming problem.

If ATC is so overwhelming complex, that in real world automation will not accomplish overtaking the role of human ATCO's for years to come, how should a consumer computer program accomplish the same?

Quote: "Could air traffic controllers be replaced by automated systems altogether one day? Both experts say that although the systems are proven to increase efficiency, for the next 20 years at least, humans will remain in charge."

from here The growing role of automation in air traffic control (airport-technology.com)