On 1/11/2024 at 5:53 AM, History said:

 

 

It is well known the FD of Xp birds are arguably more realistic although I havent tried any of them. If I may know, what's the total disk size XP12+ the two addons you mentioned in your rig? If you can also comment on the fps, it would be much appreciated.

That's a myth - it absolutely depends on the addon.  Both high quality addons from either sims can be the most realistic.  But they must be coded correctly.  For instance the Hot Start Challenger is probably the finest addon in any sim.  But in MSFS, the C700 Longitude is a close second for flight model and avionics/systems.  Another superior addon is the JRollon SF260 - excellent flight modelling imo.  And comparable is the A2A Comanche in MSFS.

4 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

That's a myth - it absolutely depends on the addon

It’s also a myth that MSFS looks better than XP12. With the right addons XP can look amazing and as good.

How good is the ground? A few shots of default scenery in Central Mexico region. No Simheaven (There are parts of the Globe where SimHeaven does not do it right and South America and all of Oceania is another area - the default scenery with Global Forests from ORBX is much better to my eye nor is there any other scenery addon in this record. This is with the last scenery update. 

I thought the weather rendition was excellent along with the real time weather, Lighting and shadowing (cloud shadows) quite noticeable. General look is ok for the area - I dont know never flown over or been to this part of the world. The one thing that sticks out is the roads, I think general placement and accuracy of that is pretty spot on but the roads themselves are these terrible grey ribbons everywhere and no distinction what so ever for dirt roads. I do know that in this part of the world the roads would be predominantly dirt and probably a slight red orche colour. 

Default airport scenery for Ponciano Arriaga (MMSP) seemed authentic enough. For a stock airport renditions pretty word not allowed good really. Airport and surrounds. 

7 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

But in MSFS, the C700 Longitude is a close second for flight model and avionics/systems.

You just stuck the C700's neck out soooooo far against Saso's coding and flight model.

😛

Speaking a little more seriously, the MSFS flight model is pretty good.  It does have issues, though.  I haven't really gone deep into it, and I haven't tried it in a couple of months, but it seems like things go weird below 50ft, and ground handling is a bit iffy.

Determining actual differences, will take quite a lot of research.  For now, we can just say opinions will vary.  I'll keep my own opinion to myself.

 

Edited January 14, 20242 yr by GoranM

3 hours ago, Franz007 said:

It’s also a myth that MSFS looks better than XP12. With the right addons XP can look amazing and as good.

I mean, in the context given in Ryan's post, you have a very valid argument.

8 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

That's a myth - it absolutely depends on the addon.  Both high quality addons from either sims can be the most realistic.  But they must be coded correctly.  For instance the Hot Start Challenger is probably the finest addon in any sim.  But in MSFS, the C700 Longitude is a close second for flight model and avionics/systems.  Another superior addon is the JRollon SF260 - excellent flight modelling imo.  And comparable is the A2A Comanche in MSFS.

Um...Nope.

There are exemplars in both sims, and you've pointed out a few that are indeed "peer level".

But generally speaking, X-Plane's intrinsic/inherent/mandatory BET flight model delivers a higher fidelity flight handling experience than in MSFS default flight model (which is still heavily rooted in old school FSX/P3D physics).

What most folks in these debates forget is that X-Plane's entire raison d'etre is, in fact, as a predictive engineering tool for flight dynamics. This is why organizations such as NASA and Alia (and others) are using X-Plane to prototype real world aircraft BEFORE they start bending metal, etc.

MSFS on the other hand, started as a (very good) home entertainment flight simulator rather than having taken X-Planes approach. For a variety of reasons it still uses an old school table look-up flight model by default.

Perhaps if/when MSFS CFD/NPS/SBS becomes mandatory (as BET always has been in XP), or at least default, we'll see general/overall parity. But until then, the vast majority of MSFS addons are using the old-school flight model, and it's rather easy to see when comparing apples to apples.

p.s.: I'd say A2A Sims Comanche/et al can't be counted simply because they entirely bypass MSFS' flight model and systems. They're essentially isolated sims within the flight sim (as they have been since FSX days).

For apples to apples, you'd have to only compare addons that use the native flight model in each sim. Like Thranda Kodiak vs SWS Kodiak, Just Flight Pipers available in both sims, et al.

 

Edited January 14, 20242 yr by UrgentSiesta

29 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

But generally speaking, X-Plane's intrinsic/inherent/mandatory BET flight model delivers a higher fidelity flight handling experience than in MSFS default flight model (which is still heavily rooted in old school FSX/P3D physics).

Putting my neck out, Im sure Austin and the team would give far more credit to the xplane community; testing, complaining, collecting evidence, retesting, complaining even more, waiting not at all patiently for the last 20 odd plus years - than the specific method/s used to address their concerns. Its those invaluable contributions that have made xplane truly unique imho. Anyone can download a game engine, stick a model from 3dwarehouse in it, and tie it to JSBSim. But nothing else comes close to incorporating the relentless contributions from insanely experienced aviation professionals that has gone into making xplane what it is today.

And since we are talking specifically about the ground detail, from a question from someone new to the game. that more than anything has been and continues to be a mammouth community effort:

All the airports in Xplane come from:

https://gateway.x-plane.com/

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 20242 yr by mSparks

In terms of ground object detailing, XP is perfect for low and slow. Lots of noise on the ground to provide a sense of speed and very detailed urban areas (parks, trash bins, benches). Some suspension of disbelief is required regarding representation because building height data is inaccurate and the underlying road and land use data dates from 2016 or so, but I never failed to find my way in either familiar or unfamiliar areas when navigating visually with default scenery.

If all else fails, there's still the free SimHeaven X-World, which does not look as organic as default (because it uses its own - sadly, slightly long in the tooth - art assets), but has much more varied, up to date and better interpreted data.

I wonder if it would be possible to remap X-World assets to use the default ones instead which are much better.

Misterx is going to do something similar but it might be a long time before it is ready

 

On 1/13/2024 at 5:25 PM, GoranM said:

You just stuck the C700's neck out soooooo far against Saso's coding and flight model.

😛

Speaking a little more seriously, the MSFS flight model is pretty good.  It does have issues, though.  I haven't really gone deep into it, and I haven't tried it in a couple of months, but it seems like things go weird below 50ft, and ground handling is a bit iffy.

Determining actual differences, will take quite a lot of research.  For now, we can just say opinions will vary.  I'll keep my own opinion to myself.

 

https://youtu.be/y0j_yQrZS4E?si=VlWKoItfTIaGKbY2

5 hours ago, peroni said:

I wonder if it would be possible to remap X-World assets to use the default ones instead which are much better.

Theoretically, yes. "Library.txt" in "6-sceneries" contains the mapping. The third column (the first one that refers to "obj" files) is the one that is called by the terrain data (i.e. dsf files), the fourth column (the second one pointing to objs) one is the object that is drawn in XP for said call from the dsf. So far, so easy. Editing the file, however, is guaranteed to turn into a huge, time consuming puzzle.

One other minor advantage of the default XP12 buildings: Seasonal variations for quite a few of them.

8 hours ago, Bjoern said:

In terms of ground object detailing, XP is perfect for low and slow. Lots of noise on the ground to provide a sense of speed and very detailed urban areas (parks, trash bins, benches). Some suspension of disbelief is required regarding representation because building height data is inaccurate and the underlying road and land use data dates from 2016 or so, but I never failed to find my way in either familiar or unfamiliar areas when navigating visually with default scenery.

If all else fails, there's still the free SimHeaven X-World, which does not look as organic as default (because it uses its own - sadly, slightly long in the tooth - art assets), but has much more varied, up to date and better interpreted data.

So, is fair to say, with the default scenery, landmark navigation (if such term exists) is reliable?

12 hours ago, peroni said:

I wonder if it would be possible to remap X-World assets to use the default ones instead which are much better.

It does to some degree, a lot of the models are directly out of the default autogen scenery, but just lack the detail around the objects.

10 hours ago, History said:

So, is fair to say, with the default scenery, landmark navigation (if such term exists) is reliable?

Basically, yes. Don't expect many wind farms, church towers, smoke stacks or antennae though. For that, you'll really need X-World.

On 1/11/2024 at 6:46 PM, peroni said:

Cheaper? The standard MSFS edition is 59.99 USD (it is all you need) versus 79.99 USD for X-Plane

Just saw it today it is indeed cheaper than MSFS according to my country's currency although the price appearing in USD is still 70+ (strangely, the 40th Edition MSFS is lower in USD currency but higher in my country's currency).