23 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Not sure what you mean by this?  My startup times in MSFS are 2 mins or less with about 20-30 sec to get into a flight … this isn’t relevant to me.  

About the only feature holding me back from using XP more frequently is the lack of Photogrammetry/streaming of world data.  Does anyone know if LR plan to implement anytime in the near future or even distant future?

Eye candy = more sales, more sales = more developers to hire = more features delivered more frequently.  Eye candy doesn’t represent “less serious”, it’s an important and critical part of simulator growth and sustainability.  

The idea that “eye candy = more sales = more developers” sounds neat, but real-world history shows it just doesn’t hold up.

Take Flight Sim World. It had modern visuals and flashy graphics, but it collapsed in under a year. Why? Because visuals alone don’t keep people engaged. Or look at Microsoft Flight.  Better looking than FSX, simplified gameplay, Microsoft’s brand behind it, and it bombed within months. So much for “eye candy = sustainability.”

Even today, Aerofly FS looks gorgeous, runs smooth, and has VR nailed. But hardly any third-party devs touch it, because the user base isn’t committed. On the flip side, DCS World doesn’t have global photogrammetry at all, yet its community happily spends hundreds of dollars per aircraft because the depth is there. That’s what actually sustains developers.

And let’s not forget MSFS itself. If your formula were airtight, it should already be overflowing with high-end study-level aircraft. Instead, progress has been slower than X-Plane, because a big chunk of those “eye candy” buyers aren’t sticking around long-term or funding deep development. Sales aren’t the same as retention.

Edited September 9, 2025Sep 9 by GoranM

I’ll disagree with you on every point.  MSFS sales numbers, user base, and volume of developers supporting it are several magnitudes higher than XP.  The only “study level” aircraft I don’t have for MSFS 2024 is the MJC  Q400 (currently in development), PMDG, FSLabs, Leonardo, A2A, etc. all there.

But I really don’t want to start a Sim vs. Sim debate, too many of those and they go no where.

If you think FSW (based on FSX) or Aeroflot FS looks better than or the same as MSFS 2024, then it’s unlikely this discussion will progress into anything useful for XP developers/users.

If LR implement Streaming scenery that can be cached, I’ll use XP more frequently.  If they’re happy not implementing that, then that’s fine too.

If “eye candy” didn’t matter or wasn’t a significant selling point, then why is LR putting effort in improvement of visuals?

Edited September 9, 2025Sep 9 by SayAgain

20 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

I’ll disagree with you on every point.  MSFS sales numbers, user base, and volume of developers supporting it are several magnitudes higher than XP.  The only “study level” aircraft I don’t have for MSFS 2024 is the MJC  Q400 (currently in development), PMDG, FSLabs, Leonardo, A2A, etc. all there.

But I really don’t want to start a Sim vs. Sim debate, too many of those and they go no where.

If you think FSW (based on FSX) or Aeroflot FS looks better than or the same as MSFS 2024, then it’s unlikely this discussion will progress into anything useful for XP developers/users.

If LR implement Streaming scenery that can be cached, I’ll use XP more frequently.  If they’re happy not implementing that, then that’s fine too.

If “eye candy” didn’t matter or wasn’t a significant selling point, then why is LR putting effort in improvement of visuals?

Nobody’s denying MSFS has bigger numbers. But the point is why. Microsoft leveraged a 40-year franchise name, bundled it into Xbox/Game Pass, and poured tens of millions into marketing. Big name content creators like Jayz2cents, DrDisrespect and iJustine were paid high 5 figures to promote it on their channels, and also the marketing included flying content creators out to Seattle, and paying those content creators, and maybe even some more, to stream ONLY MSFS.  It's no secret Chewwy is now employed by Asobo.  That scale is what created the “several magnitudes” lead.  Not photogrammetry by itself. Like I said, If visuals alone guaranteed growth, then sims like Aerofly FS or Flight Sim World (Which looked even better than MSFS) would have thrived. They didn’t. That directly undercuts the “eye candy = sales = devs” formula.

And yes, MSFS has PMDG, FSLabs, Leonardo, A2A, etc..., but notice they all arrived after release, once the SDK matured and the simmer demand proved stable. If visuals alone sustained the market, those devs would have been there on day one. They weren’t, because eye candy might sell the first copy, but depth is what funds the long-term ecosystem.

As for Laminar... of course they improve visuals. Nobody’s saying visuals don’t matter. They just aren’t the primary driver. They’re a hook. Realism and fidelity are what retain users, keep pros onboard, and sustain devs. That’s why X-Plane has outlasted sims with “better” visuals and why Laminar balances realism first, visuals second.

(FSX was cancelled 2 or 3 years after release, and Flight came some time around 2012/2013, and was a dismal failure that didn't last much past its release.  After that, nothing was heard from Microsoft about MSFS for, I think, 7 years.)

If your claim is that “eye candy = sustainability,” then the counter-examples stand: plenty of sims had visuals and still collapsed. I'm not sim-bashing, I'm just stating history.

 

In the end, let's just agree to disagree.

Edited September 9, 2025Sep 9 by GoranM

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

Not sure what you mean by this?  My startup times in MSFS are 2 mins or less with about 20-30 sec to get into a flight … this isn’t relevant to me.  

About the only feature holding me back from using XP more frequently is the lack of Photogrammetry/streaming of world data.  Does anyone know if LR plan to implement anytime in the near future or even distant future?

Eye candy = more sales, more sales = more developers to hire = more features delivered more frequently.  Eye candy doesn’t represent “less serious”, it’s an important and critical part of simulator growth and sustainability.  

I turn PG off on MSFS, but OFC I do use streaming...

For each ... It's own...

12 hours ago, tonywob said:

However, people are free to use either sim as they please

I make it easy for myself and just use both 😎🤙

12 hours ago, mSparks said:

as XP has really also started to do a very good job of catering to casual sinners,

How so…? To me, it’s pretty much the same experience as it’s always been, just looks a heckuva lot better than it used to…

Edited September 9, 2025Sep 9 by UrgentSiesta
Autocorrect correction

9 hours ago, Rimshot said:

Agreed though that the career mode and other stuff suits 'gamers' more.

I gotta tell ya, one of the reasons I fly in DCS World so often is all the available Missions, Campaigns, and content generators available. 

heck, people have gone so far as to write carrier ops qualification scripts, etc!

 

X-Plane is unkillable until Microsoft decides to invade the Mac and mobile market and gets serious about Linux. MSFS is unkillable until Laminar decides to tackle consoles. Both will not happen. Windows users are just the overlapping part of the Venn diagram.

 

 

9 hours ago, FPVSteve said:

Until MSFS has Jorg on a billboard at Dubai in an Emirates cabin crew uniform I don't see how it can possibly compete with X-Plane. 

...

When you think that Laminar just can't surprise you anymore, lol.

 

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

Even today, Aerofly FS looks gorgeous, runs smooth, and has VR nailed. But hardly any third-party devs touch it, because the user base isn’t committed. On the flip side, DCS World doesn’t have global photogrammetry at all, yet its community happily spends hundreds of dollars per aircraft because the depth is there. That’s what actually sustains developers.

Aerofly doesn't have the dev manpower behind it to be a serious threat to MSFS or XP as it still lacks core features like ATC and real weather.

 

11 hours ago, mSparks said:

XP has really also started to do a very good job of catering to casual sinners

Heee, heee, heee!

 

Edited September 9, 2025Sep 9 by Bjoern

Also don't underestimate the motivation factor from a feature that adds a bit of progression to your flying. It doesn't have to be some kind of license and mission grind like MSFS, but even just implementing a gradual degradation of systems from continuous usage and an increasing risk of failure already goes a long way to make things more interesting than just watching a Hobbs timer click.

38 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

How so…? To me, it’s pretty much the same experience as it’s always been, just looks a keckuva lot better than it used to…

Have you tried the flight lessons that dropped in January?

https://www.x-plane.com/2025/01/whats-new-in-x-plane-12-1-4/

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

DCS World doesn’t have global photogrammetry at all, yet its community happily spends hundreds of dollars per aircraft because the depth is there. That’s what actually sustains developers.

Entirely agree with your overarching idea, however…

DCS addons top out at $80 rather than hundreds (that honor goes to PMDG’s 747-8i at ~$215😁). And there are quite frequent 30-50% discount sales.

also due to the constant Early Access sales model of all DCs devs, even brand new Tier 1 addons are frequently discounted 30%.

E.g., I’ve only ever paid full MSRP for ONE addon (the excellent OH-58D - one of my all time IRL favs). Most of the rest were purchased literally 50% off MSRP.

and generally speaking, DCS addons receive free updates for many years (like 6-8). In the cases where a paid update is offered (they’re never mandatory), it usually comes with significant updates/additions to systems and graphics. And the upgrade price is nominal - I think the most I ever paid was $10.

finally, since the simulator itself is free, Eagle Dynamics takes 30% of ALL sales right off the top of every dollar spent. 

which has both strategic and tactical downsides, but on balance, I’m quite satisfied with the value provided by DCS devs. 

IMHO, most of them sweat the details every bit as much as the best civ sim devs (like those crazy guys who run Hot Start 😁👍).

29 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Have you tried the flight lessons that dropped in January?

https://www.x-plane.com/2025/01/whats-new-in-x-plane-12-1-4/

Yet another reminder that I don’t fly the Lancair enough!!!!

I have to say all I really fly anymore is XP and am loving the new beta and Thranda F33 (but still enjoy the jets in XP12, often will take them out VFR KBFI to KPAE or something just for practice and fun).

XP12 is just so smooth for me and even though not photorealistic there are also no jarring clouds in the textures not massive “rubber banding” stutters etc.

My wife is interested in us going to Boston to visit so I showed her around first in XP12 then MSFS as the idea of photogrammetry was interesting to her but have to say comparing the two identical flights the XP12 was far more enjoyable- no stutters, no melted anything, excellent weather ambiance and lighting etc 

But to @jcomm ‘s point I’ll keep both sims installed and even go nuts with model train and pinball simulation - I’m not an “uninstaller” 😉  

My thing is “go back to all-default clean install guy” - then I lose my resolve and add things then purge again.

In any case it’s all WAY better than my first experience with FS98 now almost 30 years ago (!?!) and THAT was insanely exciting - even looking at the empty BOXES of FS98 on my honeymoon! 😂🤦🏻‍♂️

 

I just started using XP12 , the atmosphere, the trees / treeline , aircraft sounds , very  nice , i hope they dont go the streaming route  ,

I hope XP does not go the photogrammetry/ortho route.  They could do so much better with their “plausible world” approach, and I think that’s the trajectory they are taking.  We can already see a glimpse of this with the new trees and seasons.