2 minutes ago, turbomax said:

thanks for clarifying it is just your opinion with no facts, tests nor real pilot experience to support it. good to know.

Who told you I'm not a pilot or yes? I repeat what I said in the previous comment. I'm not interested in getting into a discussion with you. You are attacking. You are speaking aggressively. I just commented on an idea that LR could do and you want to make a problem where there isn't one. Greetings

21 minutes ago, turbomax said:

thanks for clarifying it is just your opinion with no facts, tests nor real pilot experience to support it. good to know.

well, since this is a XP12.1.2 thread, feel free to put up anything remotely close from any other sim that can compete with what was just added to XP12.1.2, e.g.

this update is a minor art update, 

huge bow waves from big ships you can surf a floatplane on is something available in another flightsim is it?

Is it really your opinion something else does that better?

56 minutes ago, turbomax said:

are you a pilot?

Don't even need to be a pilot to know that XP has superior innate capability. Math and physics tell enough of the story.

10 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Don't even need to be a pilot to know that XP has superior innate capability. Math and physics tell enough of the story.

Totally agree. Flight 152 and 172 but beyond everything it is, as you say, superior and innate.

12.1.2  So I was trying out a newly released old piston today, the Blackburn Beverley released as a beta I guess. Impressed so far given it is an FSX rebuild for XP. Yeah I am sucker for weird old pistons. What caught my attention is something I had not noticed before in the sim, namely the smoke from an engine start (Characteristic of these old big pistons) not only did it have the correct look and colour but it was being blown to the lee side of the where the wind was coming from in the sim at the airport concerned and slowly dissipating. Not sure how that was achieved but adds to that sense of realism! Guess Laminar are getting a grip on some fine details now!

As for the Blackburn Beverley, has a few issues but for a first pass it is about 90% - quite amazing really the amount of work that would have taken is serious. 

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by coastaldriver

5 hours ago, turbomax said:

thanks for clarifying it is just your opinion with no facts, tests nor real pilot experience to support it. good to know.

Exactly like MSFS looking better is also an opinion. The only difference is that XP-users agree with that in the vaste majority. MSFS-users however are staying in deny, for what ever reason and like to think that „their“ sim doesn‘t lack anything compared to XP. There is no doubt that XP simulates the technical part of aviation better. If your only reference are some gatekeepers-sheriffs in the MSFS-Avsim forum and you ignore the reports from professional pilots, then no wonder you‘re having difficulties to accept the reality. A simple test you can do by yourself by the way is taking the inibuilds-A300 and fly it empty and full. In both ways it will behave like a small GA. Difference of inertia isn’t being taken into account. Even the PMDG 777 has that problem according to a real 777-pilot.

7 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Exactly like MSFS looking better is also an opinion. The only difference is that XP-users agree with that in the vaste majority. MSFS-users however are staying in deny, for what ever reason and like to think that „their“ sim doesn‘t lack anything compared to XP. There is no doubt that XP simulates the technical part of aviation better. If your only reference are some gatekeepers-sheriffs in the MSFS-Avsim forum and you ignore the reports from professional pilots, then no wonder you‘re having difficulties to accept the reality. A simple test you can do by yourself by the way is taking the inibuilds-A300 and fly it empty and full. In both ways it will behave like a small GA. Difference of inertia isn’t being taken into account. Even the PMDG 777 has that problem according to a real 777-pilot.

Agree with you. You have said the right word and it is DENIAL. X-Plane is dedicated to the physics and flight dynamics part. And to the technical part. MSFS graphically.

X-Plane is superior in everything except the graphics. But we cannot give an opinion because it manifests itself in a very aggressive turbomax way.

I think you may find even professional pilots can get very opinionated. Can even get arguments going between them. Experienced people dont like to be told they are wrong even when its obvious.

MSFS offers functionality.

It's addons are easy to sell, so they're cheap to buy, compared to same level of complexity ones for other platforms. P3D may well be the opposite, XP stays somewhere in the middle (price vs functionality wise).

I use MSFS for playing being an airline pilot trainning for a RW flight to some airport I'm scheduled to in my next flight. I have to close me eyes to the "feel of flight", to pretty much everything from ground physics to flight dynamics...

I use XP12 for specific testing of aircraft flight dynamics, mostly helis these days. I pick a given model, sometimes search for an airport with bad weather, and I go flying there. I do like the colours and lighting of X-Plane airports, sometimes easily more than similar MSFS airports, but I use each sim with default scenery only, so, XP lags way way way behind in detail at most places I fly from or into... I know I could use Orthos or buy scenery...

I use DCS World or for the unique "feel of flight", for an incomparable simulation of flight of all of the ED Modules I own. I sometimes wonder what I'm doing just flying around, or hopping between islands in the Marianas, or exploring Afghanistan or Syria at low alt in an F-16, a UH-1H, a CH-47F or even the TF51 D or the Spitfire Mark IX, but heck!!!! nothing comes to the level of detail and feel of DCS, and even scenery and weather rendering is second to none.... I miss ofc civil flight operations functionality, flight planning like in civil operations, ATC... and a good Airbus or Boeing, but that's what I have to give back in return for amazing and by far the VERY BEST flight and overall physics modelling.

Long go the times I also used Aerowinx PSX for specific Boeing 744 flight simulation and operations. That is the **only** fully featured and AMAZING in all but World graphics 744 simulator. But after getting older I found it was too complex and "boring" to keep trying to learn all of the systems as if I was a true professional, and the lack of World visuals and many details even in airport rendering, so, it's shelved since years ...

I still start P3D v5.4 for a ride in the best Airbus simulation I believe it's there for Airbus lovers to use - FSLabs.

 

 

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by jcomm

8 hours ago, turbomax said:

thanks for clarifying it is just your opinion with no facts, tests nor real pilot experience to support it. good to know.

So ... we all know that flat-earthers “tend” to ignore facts. Example: they refer to the photos of the earth from space as CGI (computer generated imagery). As “counter-evidence” they bring ... CGI.

Or (just one more example ... please ... then I'll come to the actual topic): if the earth were a globe, the soles of our shoes would have to be concave in order to adapt to the curvature of the earth. But they are not, they are ... exactly!!! ...flat.
🤣

Ok, so ... Opinions, facts? Facts, megatons of hard facts.

Some people forget the facts very quickly when it goes against their narrative.

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by flying_carpet

2 hours ago, Guido1996 said:

X-Plane is dedicated to the physics and flight dynamics part. And to the technical part. MSFS graphically

With all due respect, but It is of course not as black and white as you put it here. X-Plane is also about visuals, why would they keep improving them? Just as much as the MSFS team is working very hard to improve physics.

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

I think you may find even professional pilots can get very opinionated. Can even get arguments going between them. Experienced people dont like to be told they are wrong even when its obvious.

This exactly! Being convinced X-Plane has the better flight model you will obviously ignore the numerous accounts of pilots stating the MSFS model isn't that bad.

to quote Matt Nischan, an expert developer who knows and understands both simulators instead of gamers "opinions":

"There’s no conclusive observation that can be made by looking at one specific aircraft flight model configuration and then applying that conclusion to the entire flight simulation. How well a particular aircraft meets book values is entirely dependent on how well the flight model author adjusted the values to make the book values possible.

This is exactly the same in both MSFS and X-Plane. X-Plane only uses geometry to the same extent MSFS does, for the most part. All the complex study level flight models developed in XP heavily use datarefs to adjust various tables and scalars to modulate the output of the simulation, because all simulations are imperfect.

If the flight model designer has not input the correct parameters into the model, then you get a ■■■■■■ simulation, both in MSFS and XP. It’s why the default 172 in XP flies like it has no idea what longitudinal stability is, while payware offerings are much better: that doesn’t mean XPs flight model overall is garbage, just that the configuration of it may be for a given airplane. Similarly, taking the default 787 which doesn’t match book and claiming it means something about the core of the MSFS flight engine is just misguided.

In the right hands, the MSFS modern engine is going to produce some seriously accurate aircraft. How do I know that? Because our Working Title CJ4 does actually hit those book values at all regimes, with correct N1s, fuel flow, climb rates, over various altitudes and ambient pressures. Not only that but we have stall speeds within a knot or two of book, proper approach angles, correct bank rates, etc.

Is the MSFS simulation completely perfect and without limitations or quirks? No, but neither is XPs, by a long shot. These strange questions and tests are apples and parsnips."

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by turbomax

"Additionally, MSFS categorically does not use Blade Element Theory. Blade element theory is the idea that you can slice an airfoil up into cross sections, evaluate those cross sections, and then come up with a single lift and drag component for each cross section. XP does this slicing across the defined lifting surfaces to generate a limited number of lift points. It is relatively coarse and doesn’t generate different values across each individual surface cross-section, but nonetheless it is used to great effect and the work done with it is quite good, as I’ve said before.

MSFS also starts with a base geometrically defined lifting surface, but then goes a completely different direction and discretizes the lifting surface into a large number (comparatively) of grid samples. Each individual grid sample receives its own airflow simulation that gets input from the airflow model in true 3d space: i.e. the atmospheric model is also 3d and thus the air itself is not a just a single scalar contribution but instead a varying 3d contribution across each grid sample where the atmospheric model and grid intersect. This means that each grid sample on any lifting surface contributes its forces individually and is also affected by a 3d atmospheric model individually.

Whether or not one believes the current aircraft flight model configurations use this well or whether enough parameters are exposed, the base grid sampling of the MSFS flight model is of a much higher resolution and the atmospheric contribution in 3d is a consumer sim first (to my knowledge, anyway). It also has the benefit of generating different lift values across the surface from front to back, which can be critical value differences at the flight envelope edges."

38 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

This exactly! Being convinced X-Plane has the better flight model you will obviously ignore the numerous accounts of pilots stating the MSFS model isn't that bad.

„Isn‘t that bad“ doesn‘t mean that it is as good as XP‘s one. It‘s better than FSX for sure.