On 12/15/2024 at 7:22 PM, Franz007 said:

Yes. And - as I said above - XP has the advantage of the airport sceneries because default ones are very good. In MSFS you will spend way more for airport sceneries. And since I am using way more different airports than addons, at least for me MSFS was more expesnive in general.

So outside of the advertised 100+ HD airports, are the rest basically badly generated generics?

 

21 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Thanks for the correction! 👍

Slight deviation, as I still see MSFS v2024 Standard as $70.00, and v2020 Standard as $60, and XP as $80.

As you say, though, practically the same price. 🙂

Looks like FS2024's pricing is heavily region locked and way outside of what can be attributed to currency conversion. Any country in the EU and its closer hemisphere basically pays a 20 % surcharge on the US $ price: https://steamdb.info/app/2537590/. A very questionable business practice if you ask me.

 

21 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

The Default aircraft in MSFS v2024 are of varying quality, with the older ones (generally) being the lowest fidelity.

Were the older ones carried over from FSX/P3D? So how many current gen, "good" default aircraft are there then? Still more than in X-Plane, I guess?

And I admittedly really envy FS2024 for having the Heart HS-30 in its lineup while X-Plane does not. I mean, it's basically perfect for X-Plane with the challenges its mixed propulsion bring...

 

21 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

XP v12's Defaults are, IMHO, somewhat similar. E.g., the old 737 definitely needs a refresh, but then we did get a good A330 added, and I genuinely enjoy most of the rest of them (except that ancient S-76. It should go to wherever the B-52 went).

As far as I know, anything that was part of a previous title and is more complex than a general aviation aircraft is basically dead meat after release. You get minor fixes and updates to incorporate a new feature (like the upcoming weather radar), but when it comes to implementing anything that requires more manipulators and more script logic, Laminar just nopes out, because those elements are subcontracted out to third parties during initital deveelopment of the major release. On the other hand, Laminar does not seem to have an issue with somebody picking up a default aircraft and modding it to make it more complex (as long as that somebody asks them nicely).

That said, I wonder which default aircraft XP13 will bring along. The 737 shows off the Boeing style, MD-80 shows off Douglas, the A330 shows off Airbus. By that logic, one of the next default airliners would be the C-Series or an E-Jet - or C919. Or Tupolev. 😅

And, keeping your remark about the S-76 in mind, there really should be a new turbine helicopter model in the default line-up.

@UrgentSiesta I've heard only positive things about the Comanche in MSFS and also its flightmodel (being entirely simulated from outside) is supposed to be very realistic.

Also we have to differentiate 2024 from 2020 because from what I've seen and heard, the flightmodel seems to have been improved. And that is a good thing. The C172 I tested felt quite good I must admit. But I think it's still to early to have a definitive opinion since it has many issues and it hasn't really been tested against XP's flightmodel by enough "professionals". I have only seen "V1 simulation" comparing the Fenix with the Toliss and he came to the conclusion that it was more acurate in 2024. However I am a bit skeptical about his statements; he already stated in the past under 2020 that "Fenix was as close to the real thing as possible". After his tests with 2024 he admitted that its flightmodel in 2020 had some flaws...and he also made some clearly wrong statements in the past. So he isn't really consistent and seems always a bit euphoric about flying the Fenix in MSFS, trying to satisfy his main audience. So I am waiting for more tests from other streamers. If really they have improved their model in 2024 that much, this would be a very good thing because it has been lacking in 2020 (although some will deny it).

Coming back to 2020: one of the biggest issues has always been the lack of inertia-simulation. Cpt BB711 has already stated during one of his streams a few months ago that MSFS was using a very basic flightmodel. Just today in his discord he added:

"Sure thing, we can go a bit deeper into MSFS2020 and its terribly basic simulation of inertia and aerodynamics. The real aircraft actually stops moving almost instantly when you neutralize the stick position (assuming calm air). I remember this behavior well when flying the real aircraft. So there is no continuing rolling motion after you stop the roll input. Same for the pitch axis. The problem in MSFS is the basic aerodynamic model and the „perfect“ atmospheric conditions it simulates. I.e. no little airflow disturbances like you have in reality".

On the other side, he always stated that XP did a better job. However during strong winds XP seems to overexagerate it and I think this is something LR should be made aware of. I just cannot say anything about that point because I haven ever flown an airliner and only small planes (and this not during strong winds 🙂).

PMDG themselves also stated in their forum that MSFS'atmosphere was pretty inacurate. So there is some kind of misconception (I won't mention the usual "sheriffs" repeating it again and again although it doesn't make it more true) that it depends only on the dev to make a better use of the FM...that is not entirely true as long as the atmosphere (density etc.) itself is not accurate. Even a perfect FM won't react as it should withing this atmosphere. I think that's where the main issue is coming from.

And talking about immersion; i think this is a very individual thing. I did use MSFS during 6 months and do also own 2024 (only did some few first flights with it, will have to dig more into it). I wouldn't say that I feel more immersed with MSFS. Because immersion depends on so many aspects; the turbulences and noises when flying through stormy clouds, rain being wiped out from the windshield, the clouds, the topography, the sounds of the engines, the Runway-lights and runway-contamination (snow builidng up under snow or melting into water), the cockpit-shaking, the flightmodel but also the camera-steering, being able to quickly change some camera-views, pass-by camera, tower-view etc. Of course the textures are also important but just one of many points. And when using Autoortho, even if MSFS's default textures are in overall still a bit better, it's not something that will change my immersion (the difference being just too small).

Just my 2 cents.
 

34 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

So outside of the advertised 100+ HD airports, are the rest basically badly generated generics?

I really haven't tested that much airports in 2024, since I have only used it for like 3-4 hours (90% of that time used to configure my key-bindings...). But compared to a few airports I'v tried, yes it seems to be generated that way with big boxes supposed to be buildings. Most of the default airports in XP clearly look better. As far as I know Asobo is working on a similar library of better default airports, based on the participatory method (like in XP with its "scenery gateway")

Edited December 16, 20241 yr by Franz007

Many of the default airports in X-Plane have been done by hand by users, but there are definitely some good and bad ones. However, the user submitted ones tend to be fairly accurate and the authors have made an attempt to use the building blocks they have (some masterfully).

The MFS default airports (not the handcrafted ones) were also done somewhat by hand using a tool to trace ground details, add lines and parking, however they weren't annotated (i.e. Taxiway numbers etc weren't added, parking spots were generic). It was more visual and a major difference to how the XP ones are done. As part of my work at Orbx at the time, we had a team of temps doing this (including my girlfriend, so you can blame her for some of them)

 

32 minutes ago, tonywob said:

we had a team of temps doing this (including my girlfriend, so you can blame her for some of them)

 

This is the dream of any simmer! Being able to put his/her half-face working for the "cause" 🤣

 

Another aspect where X-Plane 12 is already better in a default feature than FS 2024 is ATC.

Default ATC in FS 2024 is a mess, doesn't take many details into consideration, both in VFR and IFR flights. Yes it now offers an integration with the new EFB, but that does nothing for the end quality of the ATC services being simulated.

XP12's ATC started really bad! I was very critic about it, and actually stopped using it, tried a few alternatives (payware), didn't like them, am still considering SayIntentions which I never used with FS 2020 or 2024, but since the last two betas, and because ATC was mentioned in their descriptions as having been addressed, I decided to give that a go.

So far I am positively impressed. Have completed 5 IFR airline flights, with SimBrief used for the planning, and a couple VFR flights with FIS and area control, and I really liked it.

Of course it's not perfect, still needs fine tunning, but it's for sure in the right way, and in a track of coherency!

28 minutes ago, jcomm said:

So far I am positively impressed. Have completed 5 IFR airline flights, with SimBrief used for the planning, and a couple VFR flights with FIS and area control, and I really liked it.

It’s definitely a significant improvement, but there’s still room for further work, particularly when flying slower aircraft (e.g., being directed on a long 20NM diversion to align with runway final in a Cessna 152 is highly unrealistic). I also was unable to get ATC to give me an ILS approach with it saying "no runways available for my aircraft" whilst using a DA40.

While the AI solutions appear promising, their cost remains a major barrier for now.

@Franz007 @tonywob Thanks for the input on FS2024. It's interesting to read how they are doing things. Let's see how long it'll take them to catch up once they have their Gateway clone ready.

 

10 hours ago, jcomm said:

Default ATC in FS 2024 is a mess, doesn't take many details into consideration, both in VFR and IFR flights.

Is it still based on FSX' logic (as it was in FS20)?

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

@Franz007 @tonywob Thanks for the input on FS2024. It's interesting to read how they are doing things. Let's see how long it'll take them to catch up once they have their Gateway clone ready.

 

Is it still based on FSX' logic (as it was in FS20)?

I wouldn't go that far. It's an update and has potential, but it needs fixes and updates.

In VFR I found, specially when flying to airfields without a tower / FIS, it can be more coherent than Xp12's at it's present state.

I have been using FSHUD first with FS 2020, and now BATC with FS 2024. I'm satisfied with BATC because I only do "airliner" stuff, and my experience with VFR is rather limited for now, but I am willing to continue testing both default systems...

Edited December 17, 20241 yr by jcomm

I have stopped flying in MSFS today. Too annoying right now. I bought the iniBuilds A300 upgrade (native 2024 version) and after setting up the flight and pushing back, I couldn't taxi because the aircraft simply won't move. It moves half an inch when you toggle parking brakes on and off but that's it. Default aircraft is broken - XCub has no lights. B737 MAX also has no external lights. Constant messages about not being able to retrieve air traffic data. Blurry ground textures compared to 2020. 

I have been flying 2020 a ton (3000 hours)... and XP12 as well. But 2020 is uninstalled and 2024 needs time to sort itself out. It's NOT a good experience right now. I am sticking with XP12 for a few months while Asobo/MS get their act together. It should have never been released in its current state. 

Hey all im a 737 pilot but new to flight simming. I was wondering what would be the best sim to buy? Xplane 12 or mfs pmdg 737? I dont care too much about graphics but i would like that the 737 handles as close as possible to the real world and that all buttons work like the real world too. 

Additionately what would be the cheapest laptop the run the game on properly?

Thanx for the help in advance

4 hours ago, newsim737 said:

Hey all im a 737 pilot but new to flight simming. I was wondering what would be the best sim to buy? Xplane 12 or mfs pmdg 737? I dont care too much about graphics but i would like that the 737 handles as close as possible to the real world and that all buttons work like the real world too. 

Additionately what would be the cheapest laptop the run the game on properly?

Thanx for the help in advance

 

7 hours ago, newsim737 said:

Hey all im a 737 pilot but new to flight simming. I was wondering what would be the best sim to buy? Xplane 12 or mfs pmdg 737? I dont care too much about graphics but i would like that the 737 handles as close as possible to the real world and that all buttons work like the real world too. 

Additionately what would be the cheapest laptop the run the game on properly?

Thanx for the help in advance

Hi Newsim737,

Never typed rated on the 737NG series aircraft but I have spent some time in a few multi-million dollar simulators, I also run a full flight deck from Flightdeck Solutions (a company that makes commercial hardware solutions for real life entities) and I can say without hesitation that X-Plane 12 with the zibo mod, FDStoXP and ZHSI gives me the response I remember while in the mult-million dollar simulators.

As far as functionality, this is how far the zibo has gone system and sub system wise.
 

 

7 hours ago, newsim737 said:

Hey all im a 737 pilot but new to flight simming. I was wondering what would be the best sim to buy? Xplane 12 or mfs pmdg 737? I dont care too much about graphics but i would like that the 737 handles as close as possible to the real world and that all buttons work like the real world too. 

Additionately what would be the cheapest laptop the run the game on properly?

Thanx for the help in advance

Would never reccomend a laptop for gaming, they all suffer one common issue,  removing heat.  If you must get one, get a gaming one with decent ventilation. GPU needs a minimum of 10gig vram or you are wasting your time, and 16gig ram, prefer 32gig.

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

Would never reccomend a laptop for gaming, they all suffer one common issue,  removing heat.  If you must get one, get a gaming one with decent ventilation. GPU needs a minimum of 10gig vram or you are wasting your time, and 16gig ram, prefer 32gig.

He probably wants a laptop so he can play while away on a trip. 😉