9 hours ago, Abriael said:

Brand new account... only 4 posts, almost immediately coming to the MSFS forum to try to advertise another simulator. Certainly an interesting debut. I considered not bothering, but this thread has played its course anyway (to be fair, its Karen take never had any validity to begin with). 

Here's the deal. Criticizing a product, saying that it's "inferior" or whatever one thinks about it is not equivalent to "disrespecting" the people who use it. A FIAT 500 is inferior to a Ferrari, but mentioning it is no disrespect to FIAT 500 drivers. It simply is. We are talking about products.

If you feel personally attacked because someone criticizes the simulator you use, you're the one who brings preference for a flight simulator to an irrational, religious level. I criticized a product made of 1s and 0s, and you're reacting like I bashed your religion. 

My opinion is that X-Plane is an inferior product. It's an opinion that has matured over almost 40 years of experience with all flight simulators starting on the Spectrum 48K and almost 25 years of professionally reviewing software. I'm certainly not the only one who feels that way, and the market certainly and overwhelmingly agrees with me. You disagree? Perfectly fine. Enjoy your FIAT 500. I have great memories of mine. My opinion of X-Plane's inferiority does not undermine its right to existing or to be enjoyed by whoever wants to. 

That doesn't make my opinion any less valid. Someone implied that the (assumed, not really confirmed) lack of a specific add-on at launch would cause people to jump to other simulators, and I simply responded with my view that it's a ridiculous assumption, as I see these simulators as inferior products, which you may want to realize, is a very, very widespread opinion. The number of people who are going to suddenly buy a different simulator that doesn't even come close to offering the same features and content, on top of all the add-ons required to make it even remotely passable, because they won't be able to fly on the Fenix for a few days is absolutely negligible if not zero. 

You think we're fortunate to have a variety of simulators to choose from, and that's your opinion. I think we're fortunate because MSFS came to yank this hobby out of the rut in which P3D and X-Plane shoehorned it with their developers' refusal to embrace new users and to keep up with bare-minimum tech that even small indie game developers have embraced years before. I think we're fortunate because Microsoft has decided that the investment is worthwhile and we're getting MSFS 2024 to continue that trend. 

This genre had become obsolete and insular to a level that was absolutely unbearable with not only chronic lack of new blood, but people quitting over sheer boredom, and we have Lockheed Martin and (albeit to a lesser extent, but they're not exonerated) Laminar Research to thank for that. It has now been renewed and rejuvenated, brought up to date, and is getting much-needed new blood, and we have only Microsoft to thank for that. Neither LR nor LM moved a finger in that direction (actually, they actively rowed in the opposite direction), and that weighs heavily on my judgment of their products, as it should.

It's great that you feel that all simulators are good and that kind of Kumbaya, but not everyone is required to feel that way. I don't, and I'm far from the only one. That's why I don't bother invading the P3D and X-Plane forums. As a matter of fact, I find that "ecumenical" view detrimental. Excusing other simulators for their lack of progress only encourages their developers to stick to that path, which isn't good for anyone. That lax attitude is part of the reason why we ended up in the horrible pre-MSFS situation to begin with. 

As for the rest, the fact that you'd consider Toliss on par with Fenix tells me all I need to know. There is an abyss between their respective levels of quality as products and the graphics have absolutely nothing to do with it. Toliss sells a good and respectable, albeit slightly outdated product, but Fenix's A32X line is absolutely excellent and one of the best add-ons in the history of flight simulation. 

 

Like you, I wasn't going to reply here, but you do seem to have become rather prominent here of late and I felt that your response in this particular post was a little disingenuous. Much talk of opinions, and your support for people being entitled to have such views, intermingled with what are obviously your own opinions, which are then stated as facts.

Most of the time, my own opinions actually concur with yours, but I recognise that people aren't waiting around with bated breath waiting to hear them. Your opinions are of course  perfectly valid when presented as such, and I'm sure many, many people agree with you. A 2kg bag of sugar is heavier than a 1kg bag. That's a fact. One brand of sugar being "better" than the other though, is an opinion.

(Oh, and the Fiat/Ferrari thing? Criteria matter. One is faster, but one is cheaper. One will corner better (probably), one is easier to park. Each is "inferior" to the other in different aspects)

(PPS - nothing personal here, I don't actually have any sort of opinion about you as a person - I don't know you, and I don't intend to continue any sort of dialogue about this)

6 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Microsoft Flight never got popular in the flight simulation market

A great shame. MS Flight is what got me simming. Prior to that I'd never seen the point as it all looked pretty ugly to me. I'd looked at the early wire-frame stuff back in the day and didn't see the point of it (or indeed pretty much any other game/graphic stuff), but by the time MS Flight came along the graphics hardware had improved to the point where it all became feasible for my own tastes. Unfortunately, I only discovered MS Flight around the time they canned it, so never did get any of the few addons they did produce. Just the bare-bones system and that disappeared within a year.

Even so, MS Flight has still cost me five figures over the years! Once I did get in to it all (FSX/P3D/XP/MSFS) I became a real addons addict! And I'm looking forward to the new trees!

Edited November 13, 20241 yr by andy1252
text

1 hour ago, andy1252 said:

Even so, MS Flight has still cost me five figures over the years! Once I did get in to it all (FSX/P3D/XP/MSFS) I became a real addons addict! And I'm looking forward to the new trees!

FS add-ons are like a season with a race car.  NEVER look back and total up your bills or you will cry LOL!!!

If I think about what I've spent on PC's, sims, add-ons, hardware etc I am fairly certain I could purchase a very nice car LOL  But FS has literally been my sanity at times and you can't put a price on that!!

I have purchased.....let's say a significant number of airport addons since I installed MSFS 2020 a year ago, and I have my eye on at least another 15!

Edited November 13, 20241 yr by Christopher Low

John Cleese is in the house 🙂  (Torquay)

Funny you mentioned MS Flight … the path Microsoft wanted to go was with “controlled” add-ons way back then … the same path Microsoft (specifically Jorg N.) wanted to go with MSFS 2020.  Jorg never really wanted to open the door to 3rd party unless they worked directly for Microsoft business model … which is why the SDK was released late and missing so much functionality compared to P3D/FSX/XP SDK/PDK.

The irony is that the 3rd party add-on model via the marketplace (25-30% cut on sales) is most likely what keeps the development team funded.  IMHO, a products longevity will be defined by how robust the SDK is or isn’t.  Visuals always sell, no big secret, longevity however is an entirely different business model.  MSFS 2024 SDK still has MUCH room for improvement … when you compare it to UE5 tools it’s still pretty far behind the curve.

25 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

… the path Microsoft wanted to go was with “controlled” add-ons way back then … the same path Microsoft (specifically Jorg N.) wanted to go with MSFS 2020.  Jorg never really wanted to open the door to 3rd party unless they worked directly for Microsoft business model … which is why the SDK was released late and missing so much functionality compared to P3D/FSX/XP SDK/PDK.

What a bunch of nonsense!!!!

34 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

John Cleese is in the house 🙂  (Torquay)

Funny you mentioned MS Flight … the path Microsoft wanted to go was with “controlled” add-ons way back then … the same path Microsoft (specifically Jorg N.) wanted to go with MSFS 2020.  Jorg never really wanted to open the door to 3rd party unless they worked directly for Microsoft business model … which is why the SDK was released late and missing so much functionality compared to P3D/FSX/XP SDK/PDK.

You certainly enjoy making a lot of allegations you present zero evidence of. Do you actually have any evidence of this or it's just another case of "look for it yourself!" 😂

6 hours ago, andy1252 said:

 

Like you, I wasn't going to reply here, but you do seem to have become rather prominent here of late and I felt that your response in this particular post was a little disingenuous. Much talk of opinions, and your support for people being entitled to have such views, intermingled with what are obviously your own opinions, which are then stated as facts.

Most of the time, my own opinions actually concur with yours, but I recognise that people aren't waiting around with bated breath waiting to hear them. Your opinions are of course  perfectly valid when presented as such, and I'm sure many, many people agree with you. A 2kg bag of sugar is heavier than a 1kg bag. That's a fact. One brand of sugar being "better" than the other though, is an opinion.

(Oh, and the Fiat/Ferrari thing? Criteria matter. One is faster, but one is cheaper. One will corner better (probably), one is easier to park. Each is "inferior" to the other in different aspects)

(PPS - nothing personal here, I don't actually have any sort of opinion about you as a person - I don't know you, and I don't intend to continue any sort of dialogue about this)

Everyone here is stating their own opinions. If I say "Microsoft Flight Simulator is superior to X-Plane" it's obviously my opinion. "superiority" is a subjective value. There shouldn't be any need to constantly mention "in my opinion" in every sentence to somehow protect people's fragile egos. It should be just as obvious that criticism of a product doesn't imply that everyone who uses that product is a nincompoop.

If that were the case, the continuous barrage of attacks MSFS receives on this very forum from the usual suspects should be grounds for everyone here to feel personally insulted. 

Incidentally, sure, the FIAT 500 has some perks compared to the Ferrari, but to say that it isn't overall inferior is a bit farfetched. There's a reason (actually many) why a Ferrari is considered an aspirational car among enthusiasts while a Fiat 500 is mostly considered something that carries you from A to B. Overall superiority doesn't mean that the other product is useless or worthless. It just means that one is superior to the other. 

Edited November 13, 20241 yr by Abriael

4 hours ago, psolk said:

If I think about what I've spent on PC's, sims, add-ons, hardware etc I am fairly certain I could purchase a very nice car LOL  But FS has literally been my sanity at times and you can't put a price on that!!

Totally agree! I've probably spent five to ten times on sim stuff than I'd ever spend on a car (old Mercs on eBay!)

3 hours ago, brinx said:

What a bunch of nonsense!!!!

With bells on!!🤠

22 hours ago, Abriael said:

You certainly enjoy making a lot of allegations you present zero evidence of.

Because I’m not looking to prove anything, you don’t believe, I’m ok with that.  But typically I don’t record any meetings without permission from those involved.  However, I do have meetings with my lawyer present to ensure legal compliance and my financial interests are covered.  Sorry not going to share those with some random person on a flight sim forum.

But some facts you can discover for yourself … or heck, just ask Jorg N.  One such fact was that the SDK wasn’t viable (considerable missing features and crashes and even the documentation had placeholders) on MSFS 2020 release day and why did you think it took so long for 3rd party to get products out (in some cases years later)?

You define yourself as “usual suspects”.  Providing an opinion of “superior” but not demonstrating you’ve even tried other flight simulators does make one wonder how you can formulate such an opinion.  Give you a hint, don’t use superior without context or experience.

Context: most energy efficient 

FIAT 500 … 36 MPG city/hwy

FIAT 500e … 128 eMPG

Ferrari  458 … 13 MPG city/hwy

Winner is FIAT 500e

Context: highest top speed

FIAT 500 … 129 mph

FIAT 500e … 94 mph

Ferrari 458 … 202 mph

Winner is Ferrari 458

Without context your opinions/statements are meaningless.  

16 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

Because I’m not looking to prove anything, you don’t believe, I’m ok with that.  But typically I don’t record any meetings without permission from those involved.  However, I do have meetings with my lawyer present to ensure legal compliance and my financial interests are covered.  Sorry not going to share those with some random person on a flight sim forum.

But some facts you can discover for yourself … or heck, just ask Jorg N.  One such fact was that the SDK wasn’t viable (considerable missing features and crashes and even the documentation had placeholders) on MSFS 2020 release day and why did you think it took so long for 3rd party to get products out (in some cases years later)?

You define yourself as “usual suspects”.  Providing an opinion of “superior” but not demonstrating you’ve even tried other flight simulators does make one wonder how you can formulate such an opinion.  Give you a hint, don’t use superior without context or experience.

Context: most energy efficient 

FIAT 500 … 36 MPG city/hwy

FIAT 500e … 128 eMPG

Ferrari  458 … 13 MPG city/hwy

Winner is FIAT 500e

Context: highest top speed

FIAT 500 … 129 mph

FIAT 500e … 94 mph

Ferrari 458 … 202 mph

Winner is Ferrari 458

Without context your opinions/statements are meaningless.  

So you only have your unsubstantiated allegations and complete speculation, which means you have nothing. 
 

I see. 👍

On 11/14/2024 at 12:51 AM, CO2Neutral said:

John Cleese is in the house 🙂  (Torquay)

Funny you mentioned MS Flight … the path Microsoft wanted to go was with “controlled” add-ons way back then … the same path Microsoft (specifically Jorg N.) wanted to go with MSFS 2020.  Jorg never really wanted to open the door to 3rd party unless they worked directly for Microsoft business model … which is why the SDK was released late and missing so much functionality compared to P3D/FSX/XP SDK/PDK.

The irony is that the 3rd party add-on model via the marketplace (25-30% cut on sales) is most likely what keeps the development team funded.  IMHO, a products longevity will be defined by how robust the SDK is or isn’t.  Visuals always sell, no big secret, longevity however is an entirely different business model.  MSFS 2024 SDK still has MUCH room for improvement … when you compare it to UE5 tools it’s still pretty far behind the curve.

You sound like a doomer on MSFS just as mSparks was:

Quote

They cutting it very close, while xplane 12 is just slated to start its new 5 year long journey in December, aiui Asobo has until December to secure the funding needed for further development beyond 23Q1. 

And mSparks was wrong on MSFS time and time again.

I'm pretty sure MSFS will be around after MSFS 2024, and there is going to be another version of MSFS after MSFS 2024 (perhaps MSFS 2028).  Furthermore, I think it's very likely that MSFS gains market share in the Navigraph survey over the next few years.  Yes, once the bugs in MSFS 2024 are ironed out over the next 6 months, I think even more of the "hardcore" flight simmer community will gravitate towards MSFS.  Right now, MSFS has a market share of 71% or so in the last Navigraph survey.  I am going to predict that by the Navigraph survey in December of 2025, when MSFS 2024 has been released for a year, the combined market share  of MSFS 2020 + MSFS 2024 in the Navigraph survey will be over 71%.

On 11/14/2024 at 12:51 AM, CO2Neutral said:

IMHO, a products longevity will be defined by how robust the SDK is or isn’t.  Visuals always sell, no big secret, longevity however is an entirely different business model.

Yeah, don't worry about the longevity of MSFS.  Like I said, there will be another MSFS after MSFS 2024, and watch MSFS gain market share in the Navigraph survey in the next few years.

Edited November 14, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

Navigraph survey is an interesting data point, but if anything it’s skewed towards the hardcore enthusiasts as keeping a Navigational database updated is more “hardcore” … so the 71% market share is likely larger, around 80%+.  But, market share doesn’t gauge longevity.

The number to be concerned about is survey respondents, in 2022 it was 25,427 (see pg 3 of survey details) … in 2023 it was 23,736 (see pg. 98 of survey details).  This is not showing growth.  Combined with other data I’ve seen from different sources, the market size has reached it’s max and suggests a slight decline.

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

So you only have your unsubstantiated allegations and complete speculation

No speculation, my actual experience, you have chosen not to believe because I haven’t provided you with video evidence and you’ve ignored the facts regarding the state of the SDK before and after MSFS 2020.

Sounds like you weren’t even on the Pre-release Dev team nor a listed partner?  Are you currently working the MSFS 2024 Dev builds?

Edited November 14, 20241 yr by CO2Neutral