2 hours ago, SAS443 said:

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.

Yes with « air density » I meant the effect of the air-density (being the pressure-altitude corrected with temperatures) on the true altitude.

My resarches were based on this issue being discussed back in 2021: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/indicated-vs-true-altitude-in-msfs-is-not-affected-by-temperature/358174/4

And less than 2 years ago, Cpt. BB711 explained in a stream that he has tested it and that the temperature was (still) not being taken into account in MSFS but in XP12 (which I tested myself). Since then I have not heard about any fix made but may have missed it in case it got fixed later on. I searched about a temperature-related fix in one of the SU’s but couldn’t find any related to that topic. I would be curious to see an official bugfix related to that and when it has been corrected. Even in the SU5 mentionned by yourself I haven’t seen it in the releases notes, other than « Fixed big temperature spikes at high altitudes » that is something else.

So I keep wondering when that has been fixed.

9 hours ago, mSparks said:

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.

If you can't shine a positive light on one good thing without crapping on another good thing, you obviously don't have a good grasp on the facts.

And you CAN'T have a good grasp on the facts because you can't even run any of the alternative simulators. You have NO first hand experience with them to generate an objective, balanced opinion.

And not to denigrate XP, but if IRL aviation training is the Gold Standard by which flight sims should be judged, why is Prepar3D still the 800lb gorilla in that market...?

27 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

So I keep wondering when that has been fixed.

It's been fixed for years. I mean I don't know what to tell you. 

I have provided links from credible, independent news outlet aswell as a statement from the author of vPilot addressing the issue. But that is still not enough? Really?

I know you dont have much faith in the man, but Matt Nischan also explained it briefly in this Avsim post.

A few posts further down it was verified by a real pilot who also happens to be a licensed A&P and works avionics on business jets IRL (JRBarett).

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

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...?

First of all, from which facts exactly are you speaking? The facts that « MSFS simulates core-aviation as good as XP » being an opinion and not a fact at all, because many airliner-pilots using both and streaming said the opposite fyi. So the facts are that these professional pilots disagree with what you call « facts ». But you must know better than them for sure. That’s exactly the problem with you guys. And you appear as simply not wanting to accept that for whatever reason.

Second, the navigraph-survey is the only one we have and is usually used to consider it being filled out by rather « hardcore simmers » (frequent flyers). That doesn’t mean that they don’t weight up visuals above other things more. Many of them are still mostly using their sim for entertaining reasons but it already shows that from this unique group the preferences for MSFS vs XP melts down to 3:1 - 1:4 when MSFS is supposed to have how much 10x, 20x, 30x more users in total? So what really would be a better indicator is to have these results filled out only by people making at least a PPL, having professional interests for aerodynamics or advanced aviation physics. That’s what I mean with having interests in core-aviation. But we don’t have such statistics.

If you compare a level D-sim and most « hardcore simmers » at the end prefer using MSFS if they had the choice (because professional sims use to look quite bad in general), does this mean that MSFS simulates core-aviation better? I hope you recognize your thinking-mistake.

Third, you didn’t really went into my points and prefered to make generalized comments like that, talking about facts (that you didn’t really mentionned or debated) and accusing me of not giving any credit to…(sorry but what does TOS mean?) when the debate has been coming from your assertion made that « MSFS » was not more gamey than XP. I gave you many reasons why I disagreed with that and you didn’t really debated any of them. Instead you react with toxic smileys because I could not clearly recognize if the link posted was from MSFS or another sim. That is also a point; the toxicity of that community…but let’s keep that for another exchange.

Last but not least, if you read my posts, you should notice that I questionned the infos about PMDG having no success with MSFS, you just have to read above.

And if you need to be reinsured again’ I have always said (not in that forum) and can state it here that I would recommand MSFS to any user being new to the flightsim world because I perfectly get why it is the most attractive for them out of the box (big advantage). And MSFS has another big advantage of his graphics (I was the first one excited about that 5 years ago and couldn’t wait testing it). But again, I absolutely disagree that MSFS offers the same level of depth and fidelity when talking about core-aviation, the better flight dynamics alone being a reason enough. And I simply don’t get why this is being denied, during no ones denies MSFS having better ground-textures and autogen.

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by Franz007

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

you can't even run any of the alternative simulators.

That's their problem, not mine. I need my Desktop and Server PCs to be stable, reliable, performant, productive and friendly members of the team. Windows is incapable of meeting any of those criteria.

That also doesn't mean I can't, it just means that I have no need to, mostly because windows simply can't run any of the other software I rely on. Even MSFS's scenery servers run Microsoft Linux these days for exactly that reason.

Then people will act surprised when

https://support.hp.com/th-en/document/ish_10013170-10013236-16

Finally arrives. and anyone who can never go back to 2D won't be able to run any of the other simulators either.

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

I have provided links from credible, independent news outlet aswell as a statement from the author of vPilot addressing the issue. But that is still not enough? Really?

Yes really. Simply because they didn’t mention any temperature or density in their explanations but were talking about pressure altitude (being a different things as I assume you are aware of).

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

I know you dont have much faith in the man, but Matt Nischan also explained it briefly in this Avsim post.

How do you know that I don’t have faith in a guy I haven’t heard about before?

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

A few posts further down it was verified by a real pilot who also happens to be a licensed A&P and works avionics on business jets IRL (JRBarett).

That’s really interesting and it looks like I have been wrong indeed. I still find it weird that I couldn’t find any official statement about that in the SU-release. But in that case I have to take back my wrong assumption. So as some explained abobe, the confusion came from the fact that this only seems to work with live weather but not when setting it manually? You will agree that this is enough confusing because to test it the easiest way to test it is to set the temperature manually. But for me it’s enough to have it in live-weather since I always fly with live weather. Still a small disadvantage compared to XP but at least the most important for me has been fixed and I am happy that they did implement that. I’ve learned a new thing 😉

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by Franz007

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

First of all, from which facts exactly are you speaking? The facts that « MSFS simulates core-aviation as good as XP » being an opinion and not a fact at all, because many airliner-pilots using both and streaming said the opposite fyi. So the facts are that these professional pilots disagree with what you call « facts ». But you must know better than them for sure. That’s exactly the problem with you guys. And you appear as simply not wanting to accept that for whatever reason.

Second, the navigraph-survey is the only one we have and is usually used to consider it being filled out by rather « hardcore simmers » (frequent flyers). That doesn’t mean that they don’t weight up visuals about other things more. Many of them are still mostly using their sim for entertaining reasons but it already shows that from this unique group the preferences for MSFS vs XP melts down to 3:1 - 1:4 when MSFS is supposed to have how much 10x, 20x, 30x more users in total? So what really would be a better indicator is to have these results filled out only by people making at least a PPL, having professional interests for aerodynamics or advanced aviation physics. That’s what I mean with having interests in core-aviation. But we don’t have such statistics.

If you compare a level D-sim and most « hardcore simmers » at the end prefer using MSFS if they had the choice (because professional sims use to look quite bad in general), does this mean that MSFS simulates core-aviation better? I hope you recognize your thinking-mistake.

Third, you didn’t really went into my points and prefered to make generalized comments like that, talking about facts (that you didn’t really mentionned or debated) and accusing me of not giving any credit to…(sorry but what does TOS mean?) when the debate has been coming from your assertion made that « MSFS » was not more gamey than XP. I gave you many reasons why I disagreed with that and you didn’t really debated any of them. Instead you react with toxic smileys because I could not clearly recognize if the link posted was from MSFS or another sim. That is also a point; the toxicity of that community…but let’s keep that for another exchange.

Last but not least, if you read my posts, you should notice that I questionned the infos about PMDG having no success with MSFS, you just have to read above.

And if you need to be reinsured again’ I have always said (not in that forum) and can state it here that I would recommand MSFS to any user being new to the flightsim world because I perfectly get why it is the most attractive for them out of the box (big advantage). And MSFS has another big advantage of his graphics (I was the first one excited about that 5 years ago and couldn’t wait testing it). But again, I absolutely disagree that MSFS offers the same level of depth and fidelity when talking about core-aviation, the better flight dynamics alone being a reason enough. And I simply don’t get why this is being denied, during no ones denies MSFS having better ground-textures and autogen.

You can't see the forest for the trees.

I NEVER said that MSFS is a better flight simulator.

And I'm still not saying it.

What I'm saying is that your ongoing dismissive denigration of what is widely regarded - even by IRL ATPLs - to be a very good flight simulator is based on emotion and cherry picked facts.

Say it with me, "I prefer X-Plane for my simulation priorities. But there are good flight simulators other than XP."

There that's not so hard, is it? 🙂

20 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Simply because they didn’t mention any temperature or density in their explanations

 As a licensed pilot like you are, what other deduction can you make out of this snippet from one of my links earlier:

"...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"

😶

 

24 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

How do you know that I don’t have faith in a guy I haven’t heard about before?

Because you dismissed his aerodynamics knowledge just some couple of weeks ago. Pity you do not remember that. But let me refresh your memory. 😎

 

42 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

. I’ve learned a new thing

A good pilot is always learning!

14 hours ago, mSparks said:

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:

 

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?

I'm lumping you two together because of your overwhelmingly negative attitudes towards other sims. And a LOT of your collective attitudes are basically binary "Good/Bad" "Win/Lose" opinions when we all (should) know that the real world operates in shades of gray.

I'm willing to bet money that a significant number of people who "switch" from XP to MSFS, or from MSFS to XP, actually KEEP using their original sim along with the new one.

Because, like me, they get into it and after a bunch of hands-on time, that neither sim does all things well. And that is especially true when you dial it down into individual add-ons.

E.g., I love flying AFLs King Air and C172 MUCH more than their counterparts in any other sim.

And I love flying helos in XP waaaay more than every helo I've tried in MSFS.

But the best turboprop single isn't in XP v12. So I fly it elsewhere.

And the best combat aircraft aren't in XP (and completely aside from simulated combat), so I fly them elsewhere.

And in all honesty, airliners are largely a toss up for me at this point. Comes down to which liner I want to fly. And that opinion is backed up by a number of IRL pros.

The fact is that there's no necessary code differences between PC add-ons and Xbox add-ons.

The different versions are due to devs preferring to code using non-compliant frameworks or components for various reasons.

And even then, there are only a very few add-ons that end up being PC-Only.

///

You can't compare forum user count to addon purchaser count.

I'll go take a look at comparatine numbers and edit them in here in awhile.

37 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Because you dismissed his aerodynamics knowledge just some couple of weeks ago. Pity you do not remember that. But let me refresh your memory. 😎

Ah I remember now. Was that the guy superspecialised in aerodynamics? The one that stated that without any data he couldn't take me serious? And then stated having the data of both flightmodels but then refused to share them because he didn't have the need to "educate me"? And the one who at the same time stated that a professional airliner pilot was not able to judge which one of boh were more accuaret (although all of them having compared came to the same conclusion)? Yeah...I feel sorry for you guys having to rely on such funny and highly "plausible" users having not been able to prove any of his point other than dismissing professional airliner pilotsand appearing as a clown breaking his own principles 😅

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by Franz007

46 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

What I'm saying is that your ongoing dismissive denigration of what is widely regarded - even by IRL ATPLs - to be a very good flight simulator is based on emotion and cherry picked facts.

If only you could quote me where exactly I have stated that (without having been attacked with trolling and denigrating comments by the usual suspects and MSFS-sheriifs being hurt each time as their sim is not the best)? I have always said that both have pros and cons. And the reason I am appearing in the MSFS-forum from time to time is because many are convinced that it is so much above everything else and to set the records straigh (such as flight dynamics being as good as XP, against all expertises of professional airliner-pilots against those claims). Your reality seems a bit distorted.

54 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

You can't see the forest for the trees.

I NEVER said that MSFS is a better flight simulator.

Talking about forest and trees, can you quote me where I asserted that you said MSFS was better?

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

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?

1) A niche is a specialized subset and can be any size. Counting the civil and military sims, it’s possible we’re looking at a hobby of about 20m. 

2) Users registered at the org?! *******, you really do grab at any old number floating around. Once you take away all the dead accounts and duplicate accounts from people who got banned before (😅) you’re probably left with about 50,000. Even I’m still registered there!

16 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Ah I remember now. Was that the guy superspecialised in aerodynamics? The one that stated that without any data he couldn't take me serious?

I don't feel it's anyones responsibility other than your own to keep track of your altercations with other forum members. 

 

28 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Yeah...I feel sorry for you guys having to rely on such funny and highly "plausible" users having not been able to prove any of his point other than dismissing professional airliner pilotsand appearing as a clown breaking his own principles 😅

Classy response. I hope you own up to it in the future. Quoted simply for posterity 

17 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

2) Users registered at the org?! *******, you really do grab at any old number floating around. Once you take away all the dead accounts and duplicate accounts from people who got banned before (😅) you’re probably left with about 50,000. Even I’m still registered there!

Its grown by 600,000 since March 2018, and 50,000 in the last 9 months.

grabbing any numbers you can find is probably a better strategy for understand what is going on than your method of pulling them from where the sun dont shine...... IMHO

 

Edited September 27, 20241 yr by mSparks