@SAS443

I specifically said that I would take it back if I was wrong related to that very topic. I haven’t time right now but will look more into the links you provided. At first it seems that they are talking about the pressure-altitude and not the density-one (affected by temperature differences to ISA-conditions).

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

obviously decided by a 3:1 or 4:1 margin (using the numbers you deploy so often!!!!

I am just taking the published data, nothing else.

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

that MSFS is the better simulator

I entirely disagree and you ignored my point. It only means that for a bigger part of those what we call « serious » simmers, MSFS is the prefered sim. That doesn’t mean that it simulates core aviatic better, many other factors playing a role in deciding why using a sim over another.

2 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

That doesn’t mean that it simulates core aviatic better, many other factors playing a role in deciding why using a sim over another.

Oooooh! Keep going! You’re nearly there!

9 hours ago, scotchegg said:

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.

This fundamentally misunderstands how Laminar Research functions as a company. You might as well proclaim Harvard University targets a narrower audience than Asobo. I mean sure, technically you can make that case and find plenty of evidence for it, but probably don't expect us to take you seriously when you go on to use it to proclaim that Asobo is "better" than Harvard University at anything ever, which is pretty much what you did there.

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

Oooooh! Keep going! You’re nearly there!

Same. If you’re stucked in your beliefs, it’s useless to try having a rational discussion. You will simply believe what you want. Again: there are many other reasons why simeone prefers a sim, not all being part of core-aviation (even within « hardcore simmers »)

I challenge you to ask 3-4 airliner-pilots streaming which of both sims do simulate aviation more in depth and with greater fidelity. And then we can have a real conversation again. Spoiler alert: McDo’s aren’t the best restaurants simply because they are the most visited 😉

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by Franz007

On 9/25/2024 at 6:06 AM, strider1 said:

I threw my Head-tracker in the trash after purchasing the CL. There is no going back to a 2D monitor. I had my 80-year mom simming in the CL the other day, she was blown away and did not want to take it off 🤪 I am surprised that only 10-15% of the simming enthusiast are using VR.

My experience with a Pico4:

• Preparation: Mount headset, switch on headset, start streamer app on headset, start SteamVR, start streamer app on PC, start X-Plane, switch X-Plane from 2D to VR mode.
• Usage: Fumble for controllers in the blind, get aircraft ready to fly, fumble to grab HOTAS in the blind, forget a switch and fumble again for the controllers in the blind, image quality is absolutely awful due to streaming compression and X-Plane not being made for VR, 35 FPS at best. Leave chair, headset complains about leaving play area, do something else and unmount headset, headset goes to standby, having to reset the play area, reset play area, streaming app lost connnection due to standby.

Contrasted by Opentrack and neuralnet (face tracking):

• Preparation: Start Opentrack, start X-Plane.
• Usage: Just an occasional recentering required, 1440p image quality, 80+ FPS. Leave chair and return, press recentering button. Just switch it off when no tracking is needed.

 

Don't get me wrong, VR is enjoyable if (and only if) the app was made with it in mind from the ground up. I have several VR games (standalone or streamed) and they're a hoot and and a half, but X-Plane has been nothing but awful (and I bet MSFS and DCS are no different).

I'm curious if Aerofly FS fares better, but it lacks some features I need in a civilian flight sim (such as ATC).

33 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Don't get me wrong, VR is enjoyable if (and only if) the app was made with it in mind from the ground up.

My VR (almost complete) setup for the last few weeks.

turn on the PSVR

start AutoATC

./vrs tab enter (executes vrstart.sh)

that fires up monado with xgears in the headset and starts xplane with vr specific preferences

load into a flight, press insert key to switch xplane to VR.

put on the headset

press spacebar to reset the view.

grab the cockpit controls and do a 30 min to an hour flight in the R44/R66/F14/744

close xplane and get back to work.

 

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by mSparks

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

At first it seems that they are talking about the pressure-altitude and not the density-one (affected by temperature differences to ISA-conditions).

they are talking about true altitude mismatch vs older sims (P3D v5 and Xp11), due to the fact that MSFS takes into account non-standard pressure lapse rates with altitude. This means true altitude is affected by variations in air density. (I believe this is what you mean by "not the density-one"

Older sims were completely unaware of this physical phenomenon.

Now  just to clarify with you....the term Density Altitude has nothing to do with the aircraft's height above ground. We care about DA for performance reasons, whereas True Altitude is important for terrain clearance.

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

This fundamentally misunderstands how Laminar Research functions as a company. You might as well proclaim Harvard University targets a narrower audience than Asobo. I mean sure, technically you can make that case and find plenty of evidence for it, but probably don't expect us to take you seriously when you go on to use it to proclaim that Asobo is "better" than Harvard University at anything ever, which is pretty much what you did there.

My dear Sparky, if you look carefully you’ll see that I didn’t say Asobo IS better, I said the serious simmers market that Franz likes to point to as XP’s niche clearly perceives it to be better. I’m very serious when I say your English is (assuming it’s not your first language) unusually good, but man, your deductions sometimes….

3 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Same. If you’re stucked in your beliefs, it’s useless to try having a rational discussion. You will simply believe what you want. Again: there are many other reasons why simeone prefers a sim, not all being part of core-aviation (even within « hardcore simmers »)

 

Yep! Keep going! You’re so close!

31 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

I said the serious simmers market that Franz likes to point to as XP’s niche

if the xplane.orgs 1.1 million registered users is a niche then what do you think that makes the msfs in sim stores 1 million registered users?

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by mSparks

17 hours ago, Franz007 said:

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 😉

You're so tired of hearing...facts?

The point is that both of you obstinately refuse to give any credit to TOS, while acting as though XP is largely above reproach.

You have your list of inaccuracies that you trot out every time, yet I never see any mention of XPs.

Why are your opinions so obviously one-sided? It's as if you two can't possibly stand the fact that other simulators are genuinely good...?

Is you confirmation bias that cemented in your psyche...?

We know XP is a great simulator. And we know it's not perfect.

And if this one is the one that best meets your simulation/entertainment needs, that's fantastic. There are quite a few experiences in XP that I find above those I can get elsewhere, too.

But not always. Because XP simply isn't perfect, and doesn't cover all simulation scenarios.

The key is recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the various solutions and then choosing which combinations thereof will get you the results you're looking for.

Rather than blindly and dogmatically assuming that one, and only one, solution is the "best" simulation for every situation, and that all others are merely games unfit for "serious simmers".

You two are simply ridiculous in your blindered, provincial, dogmatic and laughably simplistic assertions.

 

17 hours ago, Franz007 said:

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 😉

You're SO unfamiliar with other sims that you can't tell the difference between MSFS and P3D? 🤣

5 hours ago, Bjoern said:

My experience with a Pico4:

• Preparation: Mount headset, switch on headset, start streamer app on headset, start SteamVR, start streamer app on PC, start X-Plane, switch X-Plane from 2D to VR mode.
• Usage: Fumble for controllers in the blind, get aircraft ready to fly, fumble to grab HOTAS in the blind, forget a switch and fumble again for the controllers in the blind, image quality is absolutely awful due to streaming compression and X-Plane not being made for VR, 35 FPS at best. Leave chair, headset complains about leaving play area, do something else and unmount headset, headset goes to standby, having to reset the play area, reset play area, streaming app lost connnection due to standby.

Contrasted by Opentrack and neuralnet (face tracking):

• Preparation: Start Opentrack, start X-Plane.
• Usage: Just an occasional recentering required, 1440p image quality, 80+ FPS. Leave chair and return, press recentering button. Just switch it off when no tracking is needed.

 

Don't get me wrong, VR is enjoyable if (and only if) the app was made with it in mind from the ground up. I have several VR games (standalone or streamed) and they're a hoot and and a half, but X-Plane has been nothing but awful (and I bet MSFS and DCS are no different).

I'm curious if Aerofly FS fares better, but it lacks some features I need in a civilian flight sim (such as ATC).

You should have infested in the CL. It's a 4K VR headset with a DisplayPort cable, no wireless radiation or compression. The CL looks amazing. Little details like scratches, reflections and rain drops come to life! Stuff like that I would barely notice on my 4K OLED display.

VR in XP was an afterthought I guess. As an example, the UI border is white and the 'settings' menu letters are white. In other words, the menu is not visible. What were they thinking! Do the devs not test their simulator!   

VR in MSFS is wonderful compared to XP.

 

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by strider1

19 hours ago, mSparks said:

2020 hit pretty much all the risk takers (those who buy stuff without a personal recommendation) - and they didn't recommend it to their friends.

They didn't recommend it to their friends? 🤣 I mean, come ON, when was the last time X-Plane was ever on the evening news and other general interest media? There has been more, and more consistent buzz, about TOS than XP has ever had. And your ongoing fantasies that MS is just throwing good money after bad literally don't add up.

You shoot yourself in the foot every time you make ridiculous, obvious mis-statements like this.

Quote

2024 announcement has for sure made buyers accross the board hold off, because that devalued anything not 2024 on the optimism that something better will replace it soon.

Same exact thing happened with XP v12. Turned out fine, didn't it?

Quote

IMHO, the problem with the org store is not that addons vanished, but that the developments that are going on are simply invisible. (huge shift to discord has contributed a lot to that)

The problem with XP devs in general is a glacial pace of development. For e.g., why did it take FF almost 10 years to deliver the (excellent) 777v2, when that is one of the most popular airliners, and they have a particularly strong base of Boeing technology?

Why hasn't Hot Start updated their sublime TBM for v12 yet?

AFL haven't done anything of note in quite awhile.

Aerobask is struggling to push their Falcon across the finish line.

And Toliss are finally releasing Yet Another Airbus after a long hiatus.

It doesn't matter what's going on in Discord. What matters is what's actually releasing. And that's not really a lot...even if it's updates to v11 addons.

The only XP devs who are doing anything interesting lately are vSkyLabs and maybe Thranda.

Quote

 

~20 million Android

~30 million iPhone

>1 million Win/Lin/Mac (1,097,921 registered on x-plane.org)

 

🤣

Smart Phones are not "serious simmer" PCs by any stretch of the imagination.

Look, it should be painfully obvious that I'm not here to argue that TOS is a superior sim (one has only to look at my X-Plane addon purchase history to prove it).

But this "Emperor's New Clothes" perspective you've got is simply ridiculous.

Do yourself a favor: if you want people to take your words seriously, you've got to have an objective, balanced viewpoint. Or at the very least, have ACCURATE information to back up your claims.