11 hours ago, Franz007 said:

I think the most « casual » oriented users will certainly stick with MS. The ones interested in core aviation will to some extend switch to XP. A good test is to discuss with the gamers about the true altitude based on density, a basic knowledge to pass a PPL. Completely missing in MSFS but they don’t care because they don’t even understand what it is. And they will weight group-flights where they can land with the B747 at Lukla and crash into other flying kiddies way above a thing that they don’t understand. That’s those who then seriously will claim stuff like « MSFS is by far the best sim around » when everyone with some aviation-knowledge knows it is not.

 

9 hours ago, mSparks said:

They gave numbers at FSEXPO, 2020 retention rate was about 7% (1 million of the 15million - see also that post about stagnation I linked earlier) - the ones who didn't switch to the likes of Cyberpunk 2077 have been and will continue to come to X-Plane (and DCS). - result, XP12 breaking all its past records. Learning how to use X-Plane will only increase the ones that switch to X-Plane, I expect that will be by a significant amount.

Very happy to see this develop, that was always the biggest issue with that dashboard, X-Plane had some 50 million users across all platforms (I did laugh a lot when she said 15 mill was unprecidented...) - but "global" retention has been abysmal (fractions of 1%) and that dashboard only ever covered a very tiny portion of the ones who got serious about flight sim and stuck around and enabled data sharing, plus interpreting it requires a lot more subtle knowledge of who is doing what that is very difficult to source.

Aside from all the well-documented falsehoods above, why is it that you two assume that there are no "gamers" in X-Plane?

The Navigraph Survey absolutely demolishes your assertions of "gamers" vs "serious simmers". 

We can have our preferred sims for our preferred reasons, but these tired old stereotypes are rather laughable at this point.

You guys need some actual facts without all the Red Herrings and word salad, and need to lose the downright narcissistic attitudes.

4 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Hmmm...pardon? I'm having big big big difficulties to believe that? Knowing that the org-forum (that we can assume has been visited by almost all of the XP-users at least once) has just 1,1 mio users and those are all users counted since +/- 20 years.

@mSparks seems to believe that X-Plane Mobile should be counted in the stats. 🤣

I would love to know the number of XP users. And I would hope that it's a BIG number, and I hope that it's quickly growing. 

All I can think is that if XP had a relatively significant number of individual users that would somehow have made it's way out in to the public by now.

It would make sense that it's in the millions, tho. Just would like to know how many (sans "mobile"). 👍

1 minute ago, UrgentSiesta said:

that X-Plane Mobile should be counted in the stats.

No different than counting xbox in the stats.

9 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Makes two of us - I've quit using MSFS 2020 long ago, and I seriously doubt I'll go 2024, but one or 2 years ago I did test the effects of T in the altimeter readings, with online weather, and they did present coherent results.

Anyway I guess this video was recorded using MSFS: A320 Effects of cold temperature on Baro Vertical Navigation VNAV Vertical Guidance (youtube.com)

 

I still fly both, plus a lot of DCS World, and a little bit of P3D (for A2A Sims & the T-38C Advanced).

All substantially getting better than ever in all aspects, IIRC. Same thing with the addons (though I do wish the older XP addons would get a meaningful graphics re-fresh, at least).

The good thing (for me, at least), is that I can choose to fly the very best aircraft addons ever created - I just have to rotate to the sim that has it.

 

54 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

 

Aside from all the well-documented falsehoods above, why is it that you two assume that there are no "gamers" in X-Plane?

The Navigraph Survey absolutely demolishes your assertions of "gamers" vs "serious simmers". 

We can have our preferred sims for our preferred reasons, but these tired old stereotypes are rather laughable at this point.

You guys need some actual facts without all the Red Herrings and word salad, and need to lose the downright narcissistic attitudes.

Oh God. So tired of hearing that again and again….Where to start? See above: no altimetry simulation (I still cannot believe it has been implemented into MSFS - or waiting for you to give me a source), no acurate ground-friction according to the contamination, less failures simulated, flight model (that at least should be better in 2024 but still waiting to see), no impact of stormy clouds on the plane (you can literally fly into a hurrcane and nothing will happen), no aircraft-editor allowing you to test a new model against the aerodynamics (that has been used by professionals using XP before building a real aircraft), icing-model not acurate etc. just to name a few.

On the other side gamey-stuff being implemented like races, aliens-games (w.t.f…) giving you points (game), an app called « XBox » needed to start the sim, the sim itself having been altered to be playable on XBox. Then the community itself; watch on Twitch the amount of people using the sim in the outer view with big instruments-overlays like in GTA V, POI-markers, big blue arrows showing where to fly or taxi (yes I know we can switch those off, that doesn’t change the facts)…to add to that I saw a question from a user starting with „when I play the PMDG 737….“. He is literally „playing“ an aircraft. It‘s a good example on how the majority approaches that software. They just care about nice-looking and gamey stuff (not even speaking about multifly with let’s call them kiddies flying into each others after landing a B 747 in Lukla). Not everyone but the majority of users will be the main source for Asobo to know what usergroup to adress as a priority. And last but not least, it has been made by a game-company with people who didn‘t really seem to have good knowledge about aviation. XP is made by real pilots and instructors as a tool to train for their flights, a whole different approach. Also here best last example: the possibility presented by Austin 2 days ago of being able to record the avionics of your real plane and let it be simulated in XP with all realtime-data. Or the possibility to use a certified version and the fact that it us used as simulator in flying schools. The amount of examples like that is overwhelming.

Seriously you cannot argue that and I don‘t really understand why some still deny what is obvious. Why do you think Cpt BB711 clearly stated when asked, that MSFS was the best choice for people interested in graphics but XP was the way to go for people more interested in aviation? Although MSFS has catched up a bit, best last example being: MSFS2024 won‘t have a true 3D weather-radar as presented by XP. It has been put in „backlog“…we know what that means, it will need years. And it‘s just another sign showing that they don‘t prioritize stuff that matters in aviation but eye-goodies and other stuff.

I never said that one is a sim and the other not. It’s not black and white. And MSFS has clearly catched-up but is still not on par. You cannot seriously deny that XP is closer to a flightsim and MSFS more gamey and entertaining. Otherwise you have simply spent too much time in the MSFS-forum and swallowed everything said there 😉

Edited September 26, 20241 yr by Franz007

52 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Anyway I guess this video was recorded using MSFS: A320 Effects of cold temperature on Baro Vertical Navigation VNAV Vertical Guidance (youtube.com)

I really don’t think this looks like MSFS. Must be P3D or any other sim. And I still haven’t seen any evidence of this being simulated in MSFS. I am not saying i cannot be wrong but am still skeptical because I know it didn’t work when I used it (BB711 tried it as well and confirmed it wasn’t simulated) and I haven’t seen any official notice of this feature having been implemented since then in one of the updates. Or a video being clearly from MSFS. If I am wrong I will if course take my statement back 😉

I think the other sim models density/pressure altitude deviations due to temperature only when using real weather (it likely plugs in the real weather data for density/pressure as well), while XP also models them when using manual weather settings.

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

The Navigraph Survey absolutely demolishes your assertions of "gamers" vs "serious simmers". 

It doesn’t « demolish » anything. In the contrary; although the survey wasn’t published/advertised on the org (main forum for XP-users), it still showed that the ratio of XP vs MSFS was like 1:3 to 1:4 (if looking at the chart where users have answered which sim was their prefered one; XP11/12 = 20%) for a sim supposed to have at least 10x less users (some think even more). So this proves my point that there is a bigger part of so called « serious » simmers in XP and a smaller part of those in MSFS.

Edited September 26, 20241 yr by Franz007

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

No different than counting xbox in the stats.

ENTIRELY different.

Xbox is literally a desktop gaming PC, replete with a variety of full size, full function flight sim peripherals.

It's no handheld smartphone...

 

55 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

So this proves my point that there is a bigger part of so called « serious » simmers in XP and a smaller part of those in MSFS.

That’s logical given its history, dev team, focus etc. MSFS is going for a broader audience, they say they’ve got distinct groups such as serious simmers, global tourists, goal / mission hunters. Obviously XP is only interested in the first group, and I don’t think anyone denies they do it very well.

What both data and common sense show though, is that even for that one ‘serious’ segment, the market overwhelmingly feels MSFS does it better for them. It was a new product suddenly dropped on the market, and from the get go the serious market immediately jumped to it, and have largely stayed, to a level of 4:1 by your own reckoning.

Certainly the pie is bigger which benefits everyone, and only fools wish for fewer companies participating in the hobby, but this continued grasping at EXTREMELY spurious numbers like the frankly daft PMDG revenue estimate provided by the ever credulous Sparky, or your wildly shaky interpretation that this navigraph ratio of 4:1 or 3:1 shows that serious simmers actually prefer XP, doesn’t alter the simple fact that even the serious simmers, the one market that XP excels in, as a whole don’t feel it’s good enough to move them away from MSFS. And neither is it a commercial failure for MS/Asobo, or 3PD.

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by scotchegg

8 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

why is it that you two assume that there are no "gamers" in X-Plane?

what on earth are you talking about? I never mentioned anything about gamers or non gamers, nor would that assumption change anything I've said.

In fact I even specifically identified "gamers" switching to X-Plane here:

18 hours ago, mSparks said:

the ones who didn't switch to the likes of Cyberpunk 2077 have been and will continue to come to X-Plane (and DCS). - result, XP12 breaking all its past records.

 

6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

ENTIRELY different.

Xbox is literally a desktop gaming PC, replete with a variety of full size, full function flight sim peripherals.

It's no handheld smartphone...

There is significantly more difference creating an MSFS addon for XBox than there is for creating one for Xplane on mobile. For XP this is pretty much all that needs changing:

https://github.com/X-Plane/XLua/blob/874b6d0a45d9cc549a20ecfe245217fe5704ec24/src/module.cpp#L38

Plus

How do you then explain that x-plane.org is larger than the MSFS in game store by some 100,000 users?

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by mSparks

@scotchegg

I really don’t think at all that the « new » MS is a commercial failure because from what i’ve seen it seems to be the opposite. And the navigraph-survey is the only one we have and just shows a tendency of the habits of « serious » simmers in the sense of « frequent » users. Many of them are apparently still weighting visuals above other things I mentionned previously. This exactly shows that it’s what appeals to them the most, even within those frequent user.

So if you want to ignore all my points mentionned and just stick to those numbers only, it’s a bit a wacky way of coming to the conclusion that MSFS simulates aviatic-things as good as XP when it doesn’t.

The fact that XP is less gamey and more of a sim about core-aviation is given by its features. And the fact that MSFS is more gamey is also given by its gamey-features missing in XP. And I pointed out to the fact that there wasn’t just black and white and that I wouldn’t consider the one a sim and the other not. But the tendency is there and cannot really be denied.

just in order to stop speculation and doubt, mostly to Franz since he seems incapable of google this up and demands to be fed with "evidence".

MSFS added realistic atmosphere conditions (where TRUE altitude can deviate significantly from INDICATED depending on conditions) in SU5 I believe, released in summer of 2021.

I remember this because VATSIM had severe issues with handling a Flightsim that was able to simulate it whereas older legacy sims at the time (P3d v5 and XP11) basically treated TRUE alt. == Indicated alt.

VATSIM ATC often corrected MSFS pilots for deviations of assigned altitudes, but the MSFS pilot flew the assigned altitude it was just that vPilot-client used old metrics which had worked just fine since no sim modelled this prior.

Read this article from FSnews.
https://fsnews.eu/editorial-altitude-feud-between-msfs-pilots-and-online-network-controllers/

Below is the author of vPilot elaborating further in the official MSFS-forum, again this is pre XP12.

Quote

The way it works currently on VATSIM is that pilot clients send two altitudes to the server. True altitude and pressure altitude. These altitudes are sent to both other pilots and to ATC...<snippet>

This has always worked just fine in the past because all sims prior to MSFS do not model non-standard pressure gradients in the atmosphere....Now MSFS comes on the scene with its more realistic altimetry model. It uses ambient air pressure at the aircraft’s location (including altitude) in order to simulate the pressure at the static pressure port, which feeds the altimeter. This is just like how a real altimeter works. This means that the true altitude read from the sim likely will not match the indicated altitude unless the ambient pressure outside the aircraft exactly matches what it would be in a standard atmosphere, which I gather is quite unlikely.

(full link: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/vatsim-ivao-pilotedge-users-be-aware-of-an-important-bug/426142/363 )

Is this sufficient for you, Franz? Can you admit you were incorrect and perhaps do more factual research before slandering users of another sim.

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by SAS443

49 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

it’s a bit a wacky way of coming to the conclusion that MSFS simulates aviatic-things as good as XP when it doesn’t.

I didn’t claim or deny that in part or in whole. I very clearly claimed the serious simmer market has obviously decided by a 3:1 or 4:1 margin (using the numbers you deploy so often!!!!) that MSFS is the better simulator.

52 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

But the tendency is there and cannot really be denied.

Dude, the XP devs literally put Austin on the crapper in a default plane. (NB, love it, always put Austin’s bobblehead on the dash of every flight I did in the 172 in XP11. Having Austin in my toilet or on my dash never made it less or more of a simulator, if you get my drift).

4 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

just in order to stop speculation and doubt, mostly to Franz since he seems incapable of google this up and demands to be fed with "evidence".

I dont think Franz is talking about any specific single detail, he's just, very rationally, and with examples, pointing out that it is quite silly to think 8 years of development by the creators of a plague tale is ever going to compare as a flight simulator to some 30 years of intensive research and development by pretty much all of the most experienced aviators in the industry globally, excluding lockheed martin, who went their own way.

Trying to claim otherwise is really very tiresome, and there should never have been any doubt about that.