IMHO, they (LR) should try to ...

[jcomm 5,961]

make the default aircraft a bit more "professional" and detailed / correctly modeled...

This weekend I spent some time comparing the recently released MFS SU14 Cirrus SR 22 to the default Cirrus SR 22 in XP12, and all taken into consideration, including the simulation of avionics and the engine and prop physics, I have to prefer the MFS version, which is kind of disappointing for me given that I believe XP12 could shine in aircraft like this... not to mention that AFAIK Austin even owned one (?)

Just to name one of the inconsistencies modelled in the XP version, a huge pitching up from flap deployment is notorious, while the MFS version reproduces, according to documents in the Net and rw pilot reports the slight pitch down even if some balooing takes place depending on the speeds... Also, details like the modelling of the combined throttle / prop system.

Then the representation of the G1000, which has some limitations in what it models and how it models it...

What I think is that LR should really invest in making their default aircraft probably not grow in number but rather in quality and control, because after all they're the face of the proclaimed advanced flight dynamics that X-Plane is said to have, and indeed has but aren't always taken to their best...  

[mSparks 2,090]

55 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Then the representation of the G1000

They were talking about the new avionics and synthetic vision "soon" during the Christmas Q&A a few days ago.

[BostonJeremy77 519]

I find your posts to be very refreshing - you are an active supporter of all 3 platforms as I am. The way I look at it is... P3D - I have to convince myself every week to keep it on my system - there is only 1 (!!!) actively supported aircraft on v6 - the Dash. And when I buy the FlyJSim version, I am pretty sure that will eliminate P3D if it comes close. LR on the other hand is very much alive and I find more and more of us who actually prefer XP12 to MSFS. MSFS has some great ac, but is annoying in so many aspects. LR has really outdone itself on XP12 - the environment, especially at night is magnificent. The default ac? I don't care so much because I just don't count on default - the payware will always shine. LR has some work to do - the constant rain needs to stop. AA needs fixes and they are coming with 12.1.0 - or at least the first bulk of them. They have proven a few things - the airport lighting CAN be done right. I was given a month long vacation by the MSFS forum overlords because I kind of mocked them for a screenshot contest of "runway lights" - saying "that's pretty funny! Contest on one of the worst aspects of MSFS - lights being completely wrong, PAPI not working half the time, random taxiway lights in the center of taxiways... perhaps fix them before running a contest"... It was considered "unconstructive" and overtly critical. LR social media cats are a lot less grandiose - they KNOW the issues, they openly acknowledge that scenery needs to be better, and they take criticism seriously. The way I see it is - IF LR are able to improve scenery, as it stands? XP 12 has potential to blow away MSFS in every other department. It's why I have invested in a lot of payware ac for XP12 lately - I just enjoy it more. Default ac will always be default, but the exciting part to me is their intent for 2 things - they want to improve weather radar to be closer to real representation and they intend to improve G1000 with additional pages and functions. THAT (to me) is more important than individual default aircraft. Default SYSTEMS can be utilized by 3rd party devs. MSFS has an advantage because they hired Working Title to improve avionics. Their Garmin systems far surpass XP right now. If we can get LR to level up in that department? I see NO reason for anyone to fly MSFS (unless X-Box, but I don't take that segment seriously - sue me)... XP has positioned itself for success and I really believe LR can deliver. 

[BobFS88 648]

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

This weekend I spent some time comparing the recently released MFS SU14 Cirrus SR 22 to the default Cirrus SR 22 in XP12, and all taken into consideration, including the simulation of avionics and the engine and prop physics, I have to prefer the MFS version, which is kind of disappointing for me given that I believe XP12 could shine in aircraft like this... not to mention that AFAIK Austin even owned one (?)

Just to name one of the inconsistencies modelled in the XP version, a huge pitching up from flap deployment is notorious, while the MFS version reproduces, according to documents in the Net and rw pilot reports the slight pitch down even if some balooing takes place depending on the speeds... Also, details like the modelling of the combined throttle / prop system.

The be fair, the MFS SU14 Cirrus SR 22 happens to be produce by the Working Titles team of freeware volunteers (correct me if they are hired). It does so, much is the similar fashion as Zibo does with the default 737 where they are able do their research to improve the overall characteristics of the aircraft based on manufacturing documentation. The big difference in terms of perception is the LR is not calling or offering the Zibo mod as a default aircraft but is considered as a modified version 737 where as in MSFS is consider as their default aircraft and distributing it in their SU as the default aircraft where under any other circumstances it would be considered a modified version of the default aircraft.  

LR offers these default aircraft in the sim but are not expected to spend as much time devoted to making the aircraft with all the bells and whistles (it would be great if that are able) unless there is some change in the flight dynamics that requires a change or if there is a team modelers willing to extends their efforts across the remainder of the aircrafts that are offer in the sim. Most of those volunteers are scattered throughout the Org where in MS it is concentrated into one group.

That is what MS has going for themselves which really was an answer to having a Zibo equivalent which may explains the difference in the quality of aircraft. But that is not the fault of LR simple because neither MS or LR are going all out offering all the bells and whistle by doing it themselves. Their job is to considerate on the sim with their own priorities and approach as to what they are willing to offer.

I think it would be wise to inform LR of the findings that you observes and let them know about it where they can do some fine turing if its added in their support ticket. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by BobFS88

[BostonJeremy77 519]

1 minute ago, BobFS88 said:

The be fair, the MFS SU14 Cirrus SR 22 happens to be produce by the Working Titles team of freeware volunteers (correct me if they are hired). It does so, much is the similar fashion as Zibo does with the default 737 where they are able do their research to improve the overall characteristics of the aircraft based on manufacturing documentation. The big difference in terms of perception is the LR is not calling or offering the Zibo mod as a default aircraft but is considered as a modified version 737 where as in MSFS is consider as their aircraft and distributing it in their the SU as the default aircraft where under any other circumstances it would be considered a modified version of the default aircraft.  

LR offers these default aircraft in the sim but are not expected to spend as much time devoted to making the aircraft with all the bells and whistles (it would be great if that are able) unless there is some change in the flight dynamics that requires a change or if there is a team modelers willing to extends their efforts across the remainder of the aircrafts that are offer in the sim. Most of those volunteers are scattered throughout the Org where in MS in is concentrated into one group.

That is what MS has going for themselves which really was an answer to having a Zibo equivalent which may explains the difference in the quality of aircraft. But that is not the fault of LR simple because neither MS or LR are going all out offering all the bells and whistle by doing it themselves. Their job is to considerate on the sim with their own priorities and approach as to what they are willing to offer.

I think it would be wise to inform LR of the findings that you observes and let them know about it where they can do some fine turing if its added in their support ticket. 

Working Title is on Microsoft's payroll. They started as freeware independent dev, but MS have hired them and they are now 1st party, essentially. 

[BobFS88 648]

3 minutes ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

Working Title is on Microsoft's payroll. They started as freeware independent dev, but MS have hired them and they are now 1st party, essentially. 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[BostonJeremy77 519]

If I were Austin, I would do the following:

- Use OSM - the way X-World does, but 1st party

- Weather Radar - that's coming

- G1000 - bring that in line with WT standards

- Screw ortho - seasons will suffer with that. I don't think even MS knows what they will do with it. All their data is sat - can't change ground textures to be seasonal. Good luck! Autogen will win with BETTER autogen. I don't care about your house and what it looks like. Just give me accurate streets and buildings. Expand the architecture library to be regionally believable. 

- Keep going. Folding isn't an option. Yes, the "enemy" is powerful, but utilize their weakness - catering to X-Box. 

[BostonJeremy77 519]

Also... and I have voiced this and they ARE aware. Give us the whole planet. I should be able to fly to Svalbard and have mesh in the north and south. They said it is an artifact of how ancient XP's scenery model is. So they KNOW. That's Step 1 - acknowledge your weak areas. MSFS Forum overlords take themselves WAY too seriously - their stuff is the BEST, right? Well, that's where XP comes in and shows otherwise as they have done in multitudes of factors - environment, physics, good god... don't get me started. Taxiing! One of the most stressful aspects of flying feels better in XP! I actually somewhat enjoy it. It's a circus in MSFS. Let's not forget the feel - a 737 LOOKS big compared to GA in XP. In MSFS something is off - you just don't get the scale of grandiosity - you can be in a 777 and everything around you looks to be way too big. Hop into the A330 in XP - the scale is much better. THAT is a huge advantage. The default airports feel alive. I can't say that with MSFS. 

[CarlosF 1,243]

I second jcomm's comments.

The way I see it, if LR claims to have the "The World's Most Advanced Flight Simulator" and "Simulation Done Right" then prove it by providing at least one airplane with all the bells and whistles and as close as possible to the real life counterpart. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by CarlosF

[BostonJeremy77 519]

12 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

I second jcomm's comments.

The way I see it, if LR claims to have the "The World's Most Advanced Flight Simulator" and "Simulation Done Right" then prove it by providing at least one airplane with all the bells and whistles and as close as possible to the real life counterpart. 

I mean... to what extent? I feel the 172 is pretty good. It's not A2A level, but you can't judge default against years of dev work. 

[GoranM 3,772]

21 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

I second jcomm's comments.

The way I see it, if LR claims to have the "The World's Most Advanced Flight Simulator or Simulation Done Right" then prove it by providing at least one airplane with all the bells and whistles and as close as possible to the real life counterpart. 

How close?  

Edited December 18, 2023 by GoranM

[CarlosF 1,243]

3 minutes ago, GoranM said:

No flight sim does that.

Exactly my point!

The difference is that LR claims to have the most realistic flight sim, it's like saying "come and buy the fastest car there is" then turns out you have to purchase the engine from a third party vendor in order to prove that statement to be true. Don't get me wrong, I've always supported XP throughout  the years of development and will continue to do so, but so far the default AC are far from "Realistic and Advanced"

[GoranM 3,772]

10 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

Exactly my point!

The difference is that LR claims to have the most realistic flight sim, it's like saying "come and buy the fastest car there is" then turns out you have to purchase the engine from a third party vendor in order to prove that statement to be true. Don't get me wrong, I've always supported XP throughout  the years of development and will continue to do so, but so far the default AC are far from "Realistic and Advanced"

Your level of realism differs to mine.  Do I want Laminar to make something as detailed as the CL650?  Of course not.  That will kill the 3rd party add on market for others who can't code at Saso's level.  The CL650 is an example of what can be made, though.

Austin has always set a bar for default aircraft, to make room for the payware market.  You know they're capable of making high fidelity aircraft.  Between Sid, Ben Supnik, Jim and the other coders, who I won't mention, they can make default aircraft that will make your head spin.  

X-Plane as a flight sim, as you know, is extremely flexible, and whatever can't be done, can, for the most part, be added if the request is put in.  

Edited December 18, 2023 by GoranM

[CarlosF 1,243]

2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Your level of realism differs to mine.  Do I want Laminar to make something as detailed as the CL650?  Of course not.  That will kill the 3rd party add on market for others who can't code at Saso's level.

Austin has always set a bar for default aircraft, to make room for the payware market.  You know they're capable of making high fidelity aircraft.  Between Sid, Ben Supnik, Jim and the other coders, who I won't mention, they can make default aircraft that will make your head spin.  

X-Plane as a flight sim, as you know, is extremely flexible, and whatever can't be done, can, for the most part, be added if the request is put in.  

A totally differ Goran but a can understand your point since you are a developer. One default AC with all the bells and whistles is NOT going to kill anything. Come one Goran really.

[jcomm 5,961]

2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Your level of realism differs to mine.  Do I want Laminar to make something as detailed as the CL650?  Of course not.  That will kill the 3rd party add on market for others who can't code at Saso's level.

Austin has always set a bar for default aircraft, to make room for the payware market.  You know they're capable of making high fidelity aircraft.  Between Sid, Ben Supnik, Jim and the other coders, who I won't mention, they can make default aircraft that will make your head spin.  

X-Plane as a flight sim, as you know, is extremely flexible, and whatever can't be done, can, for the most part, be added if the request is put in.  

I would expect that they can, at least, have the pitching moment due to flap deployment consistent with the real aircraft - don't think that is asking too much...

It can surely be done, with a little editing and fine tuning, and they would look much better in the shot... People wanting to try / compare XP12 will find it strange that after all, such a sophisticated sim reproduces one of it's default prop aircraft so far from reality ...

OFC the G1000 fine tuning and additional features is another story and I believe someone from the LR team said they will dedicate time to avionics for the upcoming updates. I'll see what we get.