22 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

but their controls are still a mess!

ok, so we don't discuss clouds any longer in the clouds thread. as long as it is about criticizing the other simulator no one here has a problem with it. clouds, flight model, yokes, response curves, full motion multi million dollar simulators. anything else?

I just fly, dont care about all the male hormone stuff, and ir egos. That doesnt belong here.

Edited April 15, 20251 yr by mjrhealth

50 minutes ago, turbomax said:

ok, so we don't discuss clouds any longer in the clouds thread. as long as it is about criticizing the other simulator no one here has a problem with it. clouds, flight model, yokes, response curves, full motion multi million dollar simulators. anything else?

You're the one that brought up the "MSFS modern engine is going to produce some seriously accurate aircraft", that has what to do with clouds?

1 hour ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

that has what to do with clouds?

you are preaching to the choir. if you read the thread, you will notice that was a replique to correct a false statement of another xplainer who introduced MSFS, not me. and further "cloud" posts that I will not comment:

Goran:
"It's quite well known that X-Plane has the better flight model."

Litjan
"We use geostationary satellites to communicate via CPDLC and Inmarsat"

jcomm
"If only they (working title for MSFS) could do the flight dynamics too..."

UrgentSiesta
"And if MSFS' physics were truly "perfect", then companies like A2A Simulations wouldn't exist "

 

etc.

 

Edited April 15, 20251 yr by turbomax

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

as long as it is about criticizing the other simulator no one here has a problem with it

I imagine many folks reading these threads are at peace with this tone regardless of the topic.

Also amusing that you paint the picture to be that Goran started it all.

You are unable to resist your own "war". Do you not have any more wow-cloud screenshots to share? Why does it make you uneasy to post more good cloud screenshots than buggy ones?

6 hours ago, Bjoern said:

If you need more contrast for the clouds: Decrease "sim/private/controls/scattering/multi_rat".

I personally don't recommend changing it, the current value of it is physically correct and anything else is going to be inaccurate. It was calculated based on the luminance ratio between double scattering and all multiple scattering orders.

The reason I don't recommend changing it is because there is a better dataref to change which creates the same effect - scattering/hack_cloud_shadows. This controls the shadowing of the multiple scattering due to the clouds. The correct value for it 0.5 (or slightly below, technically the physically correct value is supposed to be 0, but due to the nature of the approximation we use to calculate the shadowing of the multiple scattering, it often underestimates the brightness levels, and 0.5 sets a limit to the attenuation based on the mathematical worst case scenario. It was not set to 0.5 because the art team felt that even 0.5 is too low in some cases, and they're almost always right on this kind of stuff (massive shoutout to the art team especially to Daniela), so it was decided to be set to its current value until we found a better approximation. This is one of the very few remaining hacks in the lighting model, but thankfully it often doesn't have a major visual impact. We're still working on a better approximation for it.

Also I need to add the mandatory disclaimer (for my own safety 😅), editing private art controls is discouraged.

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by Maya2

On 4/14/2025 at 12:55 PM, Franz007 said:

That means that at least on Steam, 1/4 of users have completely stopped using any MSFS-version.

And yet still, when I looked last evening still XP12 had less than 10% of users active at that moment in time as did MSFS20/24 on Steam.   Sounds like XP12 continues improving nicely so that should grab more market share as more become familiar with its current and future offerings.

7 hours ago, turbomax said:

ok, so we don't discuss clouds any longer in the clouds thread. as long as it is about criticizing the other simulator no one here has a problem with it. clouds, flight model, yokes, response curves, full motion multi million dollar simulators. anything else?

There's nothing wrong with mature discussion in any facet of X-Plane, where people can be fair, courteous and objective.  It's safe to say you've failed in all three, on several occasions.  You choose to participate.  If it bothers you so much, you can freely see your way out of the discussion.  We (the X-Plane community) welcome comparisons, as long as they're discussed in a mature fashion.  We (the X-Plane community) have no problem admitting that MSFS excels in some things, while X-Plane excels in other things.  We (the X-Plane community), have never called the MSFS community a "cult".  The same can't be said of the MSFS community.  

I've also seen the MSFS community eat their own when the slightest criticism is made by one of their own.  

You've made constant complaints in here for the sole purpose of simply complaining.  You've been told several times, Laminar support does not come here.  No one will take your issues to Laminar and "jump the queue".  You've been told several times, if there is a problem with X-Plane, submit a support ticket.  That is the ONLY way your issues will be addressed.  If you want to share a problem you're seeing, it helps to add context.  If you accompany your issue with negative context, expect a negative reply.  

5 hours ago, turbomax said:

Goran:
"It's quite well known that X-Plane has the better flight model."

True.  With facts and data to back up the statement.  

5 hours ago, turbomax said:

Litjan
"We use geostationary satellites to communicate via CPDLC and Inmarsat"

Not even sure why you quoted @Litjan, when he replied to someone else.  Besides, he's not wrong.  He is literally stating a fact.  Not an opinion.  

5 hours ago, turbomax said:

jcomm
"If only they (working title for MSFS) could do the flight dynamics too..."

@jcomm is paying WT a very high compliment.  Why you have a problem with that, I have no idea.  He's acknowledging their extraordinary talent.  

5 hours ago, turbomax said:

UrgentSiesta
"And if MSFS' physics were truly "perfect", then companies like A2A Simulations wouldn't exist "

Again, and even I acknowledged this, no flight sim FDE will ever be finished.  A2A have even said the MSFS SDK doesn't allow them the freedom to create more accurate flight models, so they came up with something in house.  

The way you're carrying on, reminds me of a person poking a bear, then screaming for help when the bear wants to defend itself.  

The question I want to ask is, Why??

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by GoranM

https://photos.app.goo.gl/o1nUwcA12PULLyLV7

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ty19aj6zAs23T84Y9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PPYxfnueFkWQLyuF7

 

Arriving to the capital of Lesotho on a beautiful early morning in a Toliss A321CEO. Love the weather today!

 

12 hours ago, GoranM said:

Agree to disagree.  

I think this addresses your jet engine concern.  But also, don't forget that Austin also fixed critical mach and wing sweep issues, as explained in this video.

I do agree with you, however, that X-Plane's flight model is in a constant state of refinement, and will never be "finished".  

But back to my disagreement, X-Plane's flight model has far more elements that are not included in MSFS.  

Here is one (of many) of my favorite videos, that I believe prove my point.

 

I think you're mistaking me for someone else 😉

I've seen all those and keep up with most of what the XP team publishes - I AM a fan, after all.

Your answer kinda rankles me, tho.

The problems with Fast Jets (not jet engines...) in X-Plane has been a known problem for decades.

Yet it was only "fixed" in v12, which is still a new version.

In fact, I believe the reason we got the F-14 Tomcat as a V12 Default had a lot more to do with replicating its IRL aeros than that we just needed a "new" mil jet. If the latter was the game, there would've been quite a few more appropriate choices that would've been cheaper to produce and more representative of modern military jets. E.g., the F-14 was retired over 20 years ago, while the F-16 soldiers on for dozens of countries.

And the F-14 is really quite nice for a Default addon. But it wasn't really finished, and it's rather frustrating to try to fly it "by the book". My main gripe being the lack of controllable spoilerons/Direct Lift Control, which is a critical aero feature for aircraft carrier landings. But there's a couple others.

But hey, it's included with the game, so I'm not "angry" in the least. But it sure would be nice for it to really have those few uniquely Tomcat FM items in a simulator that is all about the FM, no...?

But I digress, slightly.

In sum, it doesn't appear that many of the Fast Jet devs have really honed in on those only recently available available improvements, particularly in Edge of Envelope maneuvers.

So the end result is still that Fast Jets in XP aren't fantastic, at least relative to the Gold Standard Baseline for fast jets.

Now, this isn't Austin's fault, nor is it his problem - any longer, other than that it took 20+ years to address.

But it is still A problem that affects the customers.

The bottom line being, as before, that just because an addon is flying in XP, doesn't automatically mean it's flying correctly, nor necessarily "better" than in another sim.

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

You've been told several times, if there is a problem with X-Plane, submit a support ticket.  That is the ONLY way your issues will be addressed.

I agree with most of what you said, but you may want to change the word "WILL" to "MAYBE" and you may want to add not to hold ones breath in the process of waiting!

I've been waiting for something that should of been fixed at the end of the XP11 run and yet I as well as others still wait! The problem has been reported numerous times during both XP11 and XP12!

 

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by Mike_CFII_MEL

7 hours ago, turbomax said:

you are preaching to the choir. if you read the thread, you will notice that was a replique to correct a false statement of another xplainer who introduced MSFS, not me. and further "cloud" posts that I will not comment:

Goran:
"It's quite well known that X-Plane has the better flight model."

Litjan
"We use geostationary satellites to communicate via CPDLC and Inmarsat"

jcomm
"If only they (working title for MSFS) could do the flight dynamics too..."

UrgentSiesta
"And if MSFS' physics were truly "perfect", then companies like A2A Simulations wouldn't exist "

 

etc.

 

That's some SERIOUS cherry picking, dude.

From what I can see, most of us are having a pretty good CONVERSATION in this thread. And conversations that are rigidly held to a narrow subject quickly become BORING.

I already posted a couple XP 12 Beta cloud screenshots here, too. How about you, now...?

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I think you're mistaking me for someone else 😉

I've seen all those and keep up with most of what the XP team publishes - I AM a fan, after all.

Your answer kinda rankles me, tho.

The problems with Fast Jets (not jet engines...) in X-Plane has been a known problem for decades.

Yet it was only "fixed" in v12, which is still a new version.

In fact, I believe the reason we got the F-14 Tomcat as a V12 Default had a lot more to do with replicating its IRL aeros than that we just needed a "new" mil jet. If the latter was the game, there would've been quite a few more appropriate choices that would've been cheaper to produce and more representative of modern military jets. E.g., the F-14 was retired over 20 years ago, while the F-16 soldiers on for dozens of countries.

And the F-14 is really quite nice for a Default addon. But it wasn't really finished, and it's rather frustrating to try to fly it "by the book". My main gripe being the lack of controllable spoilerons/Direct Lift Control, which is a critical aero feature for aircraft carrier landings. But there's a couple others.

But hey, it's included with the game, so I'm not "angry" in the least. But it sure would be nice for it to really have those few uniquely Tomcat FM items in a simulator that is all about the FM, no...?

But I digress, slightly.

In sum, it doesn't appear that many of the Fast Jet devs have really honed in on those only recently available available improvements, particularly in Edge of Envelope maneuvers.

So the end result is still that Fast Jets in XP aren't fantastic, at least relative to the Gold Standard Baseline for fast jets.

Now, this isn't Austin's fault, nor is it his problem - any longer, other than that it took 20+ years to address.

But it is still A problem that affects the customers.

The bottom line being, as before, that just because an addon is flying in XP, doesn't automatically mean it's flying correctly, nor necessarily "better" than in another sim.

Please don't misinterpret my reply to you as malicious or aggressive (if you are).

I admire and respect healthy discussions, as long as they remain mutually respectful and courteous.  And I took your post towards me as such.  I have no problem with disagreements, but perhaps I may have missed some context in your response.  If you're referring to jet engines that are capable of propelling an aircraft beyond the sound barrier, then I admit I don't know much about their physics in X-Plane, or what their flaws are.  Keeping in mind, it was about 2am when I posted that reply to you, and the brain was feeling very cooked after a long day.

If the fast jet engines (Mach 1+) are not performing accurately, then sure, I'll take your word for it.  I haven't spent any time looking into those types of engines within the X-Plane environment.

I simply assumed because of the F14, that the fast engine physics were working correctly.  

Again, apologies for any misunderstanding.

56 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

I agree with most of what you said, but you may want to change the word "WILL" to "MAYBE" and you may want to add not to hold ones breath in the process of waiting!

I've been waiting for something that should of been fixed at the end of the XP11 run and yet I as well as others still wait! The problem has been reported numerous times during both XP11 and XP12!

My main point was that there is only one channel of support that issues should be reported.  And avsim is not it.

Hopefully, the networking problem will be addressed.  In saying that, you're not alone.  We (Hot Start) are waiting for a few things from Laminar.  They prefer working in order of importance.  

In the meantime I created my new png background.
I think this is more appropriate for 12.2.