4 hours ago, fsiscool said:

But there is no 70% lead in "anticipated releases". There is a 92% lead. And, as you mentiond Xplane, there is a 100% lead over XPlane in this category.

Math is hard, I know...

Quote

And no, bascially for none of the listed products XPlane users are covered well.

You're clearly unfamiliar, then. How predictable...

In any scientific or statistical inquiry, it's healthy to seek out independent data that tend to confirm or reject your primary method of investigation. For the following reasons, I have a high degree of confidence in the Navigraph Survey:

• The Navigraph Survey found that 70.8% of the respondents use MSFS as their primary flight sim, followed by XP at 13.1%, and P3D at 4.6%. So there are 5.4 times the number of MSFS users as XP users, and 15.4 times the number of MSFS users compared to P3D. To me, these numbers roughly correspond to the relative number of sim-specific threads and posts I see in various flight sim forums, both on and off AVSIM. MSFS gets by far the most attention, followed by XP at a very distant second, and P3D trailing still further in forum activity. In my view, this forum activity (or inactivity) provides independent evidence to corroborate the Navigraph findings.
• Then of course there are the publicly visible Steam numbers -- which I won't reproduce here, nor link to, because sim "election deniers" don't accept these results either. So you can check those out for yourself. But let me say that the relative numbers on Steam dovetail very closely to the Navigraph results, providing additional corroboration to the survey. I must point out, however, that P3D is not available on Steam and so is not expected to have a good showing.
• Finally, the people who know the true numbers for flight sim and add-on sales are all stampeding to MSFS. There's an old saying that, "If you want to know what people really think, don't listen to what they say. Just observe how they spend their money."

Edited December 23, 20232 yr by David Mills

2 hours ago, MM said:

I’m just going to emphasize the observations of @jrw4 when he cautions (here) about making inferences from a non-probability sample. That is to say, that neither we nor Navigraph have any ability to draw inferences from the sample about the broader public of flight simulation users.

--snip--

On the one hand, it is great fun to see real numbers. But it is impossible to say what we can reliably learn from them.
 

YES! But just because there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics doesn't mean real numbers aren't useful/informative.

Quote

It is possible (but not certain) that we are getting data heavily weighted by committed simmers who fly almost daily jet transport flights in complex Boeing/Airbus simulations using state-of-the-art hardware and Navigraph charts and flightplanning tools.

I'd say it's likely given what we know.

Sometimes it's helpful, or at least informative, to examine stats on similar items to both compare and contrast:

http://dashboard.x-plane.com/

E.g., while Navigraph's survey seems to indicate an overwhelming preference for Airliner flights, X-Plane's stats show an almost equal preference for Airliners as for Light GA flying.

OTOH, XPs sample is limited to...XP, whereas Navigraph spans multiple sims.

OTOOH, XPs data is based on actual usage, whereas any survey can un/intentionally exert it's own bias on those surveyed (esp with NG's introduction of AI in this year's instrument).

And so on...

Quote

 You knew this already ... 😉

"We" often forget - reminders such as yours are always welcome.

9 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

I just have seen a very interesting post "over there" in the X-Plane forum. It is about the age of the simmers, namely that earlier the average age of the community was around 50 years or even older. Currently, we have ... see below.

So, I rather would call these young people "kiddies" or at best "gamers". Undoubtedly, older simmers have and invest more money into their hobby and I would also claim that they are taking their hobby more seriously (i.e. flight/ground physics, failure simulation, ... etc. over scenery). But that's only my interpretation 😉.

 

I have a young son who can consistently outfly me in any complex airliner flight.

Just as age is no guarantee of wisdom, neither is it one of "seriousness"

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

UrgentSiesta just so I understand you correctly: You're trying to say despite the results of what factors the majority of respondents consider important in their flight sims and aircraft, and despite the majority's top choice of sim platform, that doesn't necessarily mean the top choice sim and top choices for add-on products are superior? And then given there are other examples outside outside the flight simming world where a majority of folks choose lower quality products, that it could apply to these Navigraph results from 2022 and 2023 too? So who's ultimately assessing the level of quality of products then? (be it flight simming or otherwise)
 

Abso-freakin-lutely.

People's choice in consumer products (particularly inexpensive ones where Impulse Purchases play a great role) are clearly driven by criteria far broader than "superiority". This is why I chose the easy (and undisputable) analogy of Dodge Ram vs Toyota Tundra.

Could I then use the (also indisputable) fact that there are no commercially certified flight simulators based on MSFS to "prove" that X-Plane is "superior"...?

Or more pointedly, that Prepar3D remains the 800lb gorilla of commercial IRL flight sim to prove its superiority over both...?

Or, as you yourself have so frequently stated, the "important considerations" are completely up to the 3PD addon devs and have little to do with what ultimate fidelity the sim is capable of...

The Navigraph survey only proves that MSFS is the most popular flight sim. The "why's" of that fact are many and varied.

44 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Math is hard, I know...

No, it is very easy. Which part do you think is hard to understand?

Many in the survey who stuck with XP did so because they use operating systems that can't host MSFS (i.e., Macs).

17 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

No, it is very easy. Which part do you think is hard to understand?

Have you heard that mountains make their own weather...? MSFS is a big one.

Not every 13-15 year old with Flight Sim is a 'kiddie' or 'gamer'. I've heard teens (or at least voices that sound like early teens) on VATSIM speak and act just as well as the adults.
I've also heard adults on VATSIM act like children, but that's whole other can of worms.

Edited December 23, 20232 yr by Tuskin38

7 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Not every 13-15 year old with Flight Sim is a 'kiddie' or 'gamer'. I've heard teens (or at least voices that sound like early teens) on VATSIM speak and act just as well as the adults.
I've also heard adults on VATSIM act like children, but that's whole other can of worms.

I bet the survey kiddies are more mature than the adults in the forums arguing over my sim vs. your sim. 

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

He asserted that for a couple of reasons. 2.6% of respondents using a console and the fact that it is often said that the xbox market is the more gamer/casual one. 2 thirds of respondents use navigraph charts, which is an expensive service one has to renew yearly. He looking at this data and concluding that most people who take the survey are what we would call hardcore or serious simmers. You are coming up with your own interpretation of what he THINKS that might mean.

As for people prefering lower quality products, that is usually due to them costing less. Until very recently, MSFS has had price parity with its competition (outside of optional upgrades).

His assertions are drawn from factoids proximate enough to enable his great leaps of logical fallacy.

The base choice of a cheap consumer item like a flight sim is usually based on consumer awareness/ignor-ance (take your pick), superficial popularity, and herd mentality rather than cool comparative evaluation. Later on, it's compounded by confirmation bias and tribalism, sunk costs, etc. And this is even before we get into the multitudes of reasons people start to, and continue on (or not) simming.

This is one of the reasons that manufacturers make their entry-level products relatively affordable. It's well established that folks will go on "buying up" rather than branching out in the future.

The main point is that there are far too many variables at play to accurately assert that "hard core" consumers choose MSFS because MSFS is better for "hard core" simmers...

Quote

A big reason for MSFS dominance is because it has the best QUALITY graphics. It trades blows with the other sims in various aspects but the big draw, the big eye catcher is the fact that it looks the best almost across the board.

Exactly (one of) my points. Does MSFS' undisputed top quality in graphics make it a superior game for 'hard core" flight simmers? Of course not...

Just ask the folks who used to fly P3D how much "graphics" matters to "hard core" flight simming.

Quote

That is still quality no matter what culinary comparisons Austin chooses to make lol.

My comments have nothing to do with a preference for a particular flight sim. Rather, I'm focused on deflating the amusing mal-assumptive predjudice of a few folks.

14 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

-words-

Why do you care so much? It doesn't effect you.

Edited December 23, 20232 yr by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, David Mills said:

In any scientific or statistical inquiry, it's healthy to seek out independent data that tend to confirm or reject your primary method of investigation. For the following reasons, I have a high degree of confidence in the Navigraph Survey:

• The Navigraph Survey found that 70.8% of the respondents use MSFS as their primary flight sim, followed by XP at 13.1%, and P3D at 4.6%. So there are 5.4 times the number of MSFS users as XP users, and 15.4 times the number of MSFS users compared to P3D. To me, these numbers roughly correspond to the relative number of sim-specific threads and posts I see in various flight sim forums, both on and off AVSIM. MSFS gets by far the most attention, followed by XP at a very distant second, and P3D trailing still further in forum activity. In my view, this forum activity (or inactivity) provides independent evidence to corroborate the Navigraph findings.
• Then of course there are the publicly visible Steam numbers -- which I won't reproduce here, nor link to, because sim "election deniers" don't accept these results either. So you can check those out for yourself. But let me say that the relative numbers on Steam dovetail very closely to the Navigraph results, providing additional corroboration to the survey. I must point out, however, that P3D is not available on Steam and so is not expected to have a good showing.
• Finally, the people who know the true numbers for flight sim and add-on sales are all stampeding to MSFS. There's an old saying that, "If you want to know what people really think, don't listen to what they say. Just observe how they spend their money."

You're missing the forest for the trees, though.

According to MS, there are over 12,000,000 FS v2020 players. Do you honestly believe the 27,000 Ng respondents are a representative sample?

You shouldn't, because Navigraph themselves correctly highlight the inevitable skew in their own sample. Please see p98 of the results where they explain it.

Steam is fine for comparison of...Steam players.

I am not represented there - are you? E.g., do you think Austin could afford his aircraft, sports cars, phat house and philanthropy if his true market share was accurately represented by Steam stats? Surely not...

"Election Deniers"? Ha ha ha - that population flip flops every time the other side wins - doesn't it?

What "enlightened people" are stampeding to MSFS? After a career in marketing/advertising, I assure you I could crush that assertion hundreds of time over.

 

1 hour ago, fsiscool said:

No, it is very easy. Which part do you think is hard to understand?

It's only hard to understand how superficial conclusions so frequently block deeper truths.

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

It's interesting that you seem to take more issue with my phraseology than the blatantly incorrect assertions they reference...?

Why don't you get in the game instead of sniping from the sidelines...?

No interest in this / your game, because it’s a rehash of a game that’s been played many times before with the same results. I just don’t like people trying to shut others down with superficially sophisticated phrases like ‘correlation is not causation’ and ‘false equivalence’ when they clearly don’t understand what it really means (or are willfully misinterpreting he logic of the claim), or have done the same thing themselves in literally their previous post.