29 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Please highlight where the super-duper authentic/perfectly realistic airplane is mentioned.

In order to get one of these

https://rsgpublicfiles.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/faa-setup/Signed+07-27-2021+RealSimGear+RSG-BG1%2C+RSG-CG1+and+RSG-CC1+BATD+Revision+LOA.pdf

Or similar.

different authorities have different requirements.

e.g. the Canadian CAA requires never less than 100fps explicit in their certification documents (whole system always <10ms) -which imho is overkill, FAA is 60 aiui.

unigine destroys both msfs and xplane in gfx, but the few devs I have heard that tried (spending multiple 6 figures in the process) to get one of them, failed to, miserably.

So yeah, if you are interested in aircraft simulation, having good chunks of the setup gone through that trial of fire is a big deal. Not a blanket approval of any and every aircraft thrown at an XP sim store, but a very, very important prerequisite if you want to take any claim of "simulates perfectly, can be used for training" seriously.

 

 

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by mSparks

How do the Reality Expansion Packs stack up against Accusim?

3 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

How do the Reality Expansion Packs stack up against Accusim?

Very good. It's as competent as the C172 for P3D v5. Landings are even better imho since accusim version in P3D tend to simulate excessive elevator wash out during landings. 

I'd pick REP if I had to choose one.

But REP is slightly a different product since it is tied to default model whereas accusim is not. Tbh a more honest head 2 head would be AFL172 vs A2A 172.

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by SAS443

4 hours ago, scotchegg said:

indulging in weapons grade reaching again

Ha! Milk exiting my nostrils is never pleasant, even if it was saucered.

Yes, we boffins do use colored lines all the time and I can assure you that we tend to agree that that "CFD" doesn't deserve such a dignified and distinguished tool (note the majestic hand waving for the latter adjectives).

It's also not hard to conjure up other ways of displaying the same information that don't look so XPish. But yes, yes I suppose you're right. LR should take pride in the many engineering lessons they've taught -zilla's makers. All fun and games for everyone involved, right?

27 minutes ago, mSparks said:

different authorities have different requirements

Well you just quoted the FAA being picky about aircraft simulation design - caring about human lives and all.

Facts: I can legally purchase an FAA AATD that ships with Prepar3d default fleet.

Also facts: A2A Comanche absolutely destroys anything in default P3D.

27 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Facts: I can legally purchase an FAA AATD that ships with Prepar3d default fleet.

Are you saying the P3D default fleet have been certified for flight training. 

Or were you just shooting for a future strawman to get away from accusim 1, 2 or the msfs simulation engine never having been near an official, aviation authority inspection and assessment, which would be fairly essential for anyone to beg them to bring it to xplane, which I very much suspect the poster that threw them in the ring of "aircraft people are begging the developers to bring to XP12" hadnt actually done themselves.

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by mSparks

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

actually, we were 100% discussing aircraft, aviation authority oversight of the quality of the simulation design is absolutely relevant as to whether Accusim 2.0 is on a similar level to what Austin and team have been developing for the last ~30 years

Accusim 2.0 is far beyond default aircraft in any sim, including XP. It simulates engines to the level of cylinders like never shown before. The start of your engine is never the same; it's all based on the circumstances. It is truly amazing. So what you are saying is true:

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

Accusim isn't even for MSFS, A2A is basically using MSFS as a visualisation tool, it demonstrates exactly how much faith A2A had in the MSFS flight model, by putting everything (afaict) Asobo have done there in the recycle bin and starting from scratch

Indeed Accusim stands on its own, it did since the start. Accusim goes way back, it started in 2008. A2A decided to write their own FM and more for specific aircraft from the start, choosing to override the FM of whatever sim. Also behaviour of engines and much more is included. They wanted to literally do things in simulators that have not yet been done before, as they describe on their website. So you are flying an Accusim airplane with a very specific Accusim FM, overriding the FM of FSX, P3D or now MSFS.

But guess what? It would also override the XP FM, if A2A were ever to decide to plunge into the XP market. What Scott Gentile and his team have achieved by creating their Accusim engine, which makes it possible for them to create a virtual counterpart of a specific aircraft with the most complete and accurate level of detail is very admirable and in my view exceeds what the X-Plane team has done for aircraft modelling, FM included.

Having said that, as it stands now and as I understand it, Accusim 2.0 would perform exactly the same in X-Plane as it would in MSFS. If, as a developer of Accusim 2.0, I had to make a choice which 'visualisation tool' to use... Hmmm

Edit; anything I said above is assuming we're talking about flight simulators for home entertainment.

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by Rimshot
Sparky is involved :-D

17 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Edit; anything I said above is assuming we're talking about flight simulators for home entertainment

And for "real simmers" ™ there is always an FAA AATD with Prepar3d default aircraft.

15 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

It simulates engines to the level of cylinders like never shown before.

You mean like this

or

Not that special anymore tbh, pretty much the minimum standard for xplane if a dev wants to charge more than $15 for a GA aircraft.

 

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

Are you saying the P3D default fleet have been certified for flight training

Are you saying FAA have super high, picky requirements when you can use the following?

•Compatibility:
• Microsoft Flight Simulator X
• Prepar3D
• Cessna C172SP Skyhawk (FSX default).
• Cessna T206

https://jetlinesystems.com/product/solo-pro-g1/

FSX was released in 2006. Maybe you could tell the FAA that? Lives are at stake.

Is this the FAA perfectionism you spoke about? 

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by SAS443
Old URL exchanged to new one.

12 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

Ahh the bit that only possibly 5%  of users ever fully utilise  which doesnt include me. That doesnt make it worse.

Yes, because using the FLIGHT MANAGER COMPUTER that manages your flight on an airliner including telling it where to go and how to get there is not important AT ALL. Got it. 

Can we perhaps summarize what this discussion was actually about?

I think the question was wether X-Plane is currently increasing or decreasing its position with XP12. Which leads to the question if there are more X-Plane exclusives that people desperately want in MSFS (lets say the C300) or vice versa

To answer such questions there should be surveys. People claiming their personal opinion governs everything will get us exactly nowhere.

Having said that, I have seen countless developers come to MSFS from X-Plane/DCS and the news ratio on addon websites is something like 20:1 in favor of MSFS. Not a single developer left MSFS for X-Plane. That could change in the future but the situation with compatibility seems to be a major factor - Laminar first claimed all addons have to run by design - then released 12 as a beta - then called it "release" in December - and - 1 year later calls it "WIP very early in development" again and recommends to not use 3rd party addons. If that would not be annoying to a developer who doesnt want to work themselves to death then I dont know what would.

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

You mean like this

 

 

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

or

Name the products, especially the one with the piston engine. I'd like to read about what they can do.

I believe he was refering to the Airfoillabs Cessna which I happen to use myself. It was a very good addon when it had just come out but not in the way of Accusim 2. Notably there is no documentation and the developer has a proven track record of not communication with anyone,

So who knows what still works and what not. He is releasing a new version every year that you have to buy again, and I have a hunch that after the Cessna 172 Analog for XP11, Cessna 172 Digital for XP11, Cessna 172 Digital for XP12 and Cessna 172 Analog for XP12 he could now be already working on a 5th version instead of improving the old ones.

So yes I would always chose A2A on the base of having Scott as partner. My prediction is that the Comanche wil still be working great in 15 years even when most of us have long removed MSFS from their computer.

39 minutes ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

es, because using the FLIGHT MANAGER COMPUTER that manages your flight on an airliner including telling it where to go and how to get there is not important AT ALL. Got it. 

No you didnt get it at all, what I said was that not every one uses all the fancy features of the FMS, not hard to fly A to B just using LNAV.