43 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

I have no addon scenery pay or free.

Me neither. And I also enjoy X-Plane.

But that does not mean that I would not enjoy it even more if the scenery was better, especially if this came at no effort or expense to me. 

Would you actually dislike it if the scenery was improved? 

1 hour ago, Litjan said:

Would you actually dislike it if the scenery was improved? 

Only to start another pile up. Youd be a fool not to. Problem is people get into xplane, before they even get a chance to enjoy it, people get on telling them they need this and that.

Funny this is. on other forum, guy comes on complaining about better pushback, and than he crashed his plane on take off. Tube of course, but has no interest in learning the basics of flying, jumped into the deep end with the sharks.

Reckons all he needs is his checklist.

Edited September 29, 2025Sep 29 by mjrhealth

As Jan said, it‘s all about where the Laminar-devs put energy on and what they priorize. I find it personnally very good to see them  puting more efforts into the technical aspects of flying before other things, although they have done an amazing work with the atmosphere, weather and lighting. At the end, I don‘t think it makes sense to have two sims offering the exact same. Want to have photogrammetry? Simply use MSFS. And I do also think that it is absolutely fine to have MSFS being more for the masses. Both sims don‘t have to be the same but to complement each others.

14 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I find it personnally very good to see them  puting more efforts into the technical aspects of flying before other things

I'm genuinely curious:  IYHO, what 'technical aspects of flying' still need significant attention?  

2 hours ago, Noel said:

I'm genuinely curious:  IYHO, what 'technical aspects of flying' still need significant attention?  

Some weather-related stuff, windshear in real-weather, cross-wind-landings being too strong or the ailerons not effective enough, variable winds being wrongly modelled (as far as I know should be fixed in one of the next updates) and others that have been reported. And I do also think that the effects of CB's should be a bit stronger because I haven't experienced any A/P disconnect when flying into the heart of them (but that was with non-default addons, so could be addon-related).

2 hours ago, Noel said:

I'm genuinely curious:  IYHO, what 'technical aspects of flying' still need significant attention?  

From a developer’s standpoint (And I've spoken to several, as well as looking at it myself), MSFS 2024 still has gaps in the flight model that go beyond “pilot perception.” Roll rates are sluggish, pitch stability feels inconsistent, and trim remains far too sensitive to be realistic. Inertia modeling is another weak spot. Aircraft don’t always carry energy the way they should, which leads to performance numbers in-sim not matching published data. That’s not just immersion breaking, it makes validation against real-world numbers more difficult when building complex add-ons.

To Asobo’s credit, they’ve made progress with updates and some of these issues are aircraft-specific rather than fundamental. But until the core behaviors, such as stalls, post-stall aerodynamics, ground handling, and momentum are dialed in, it’s hard to claim the flight model is truly “study level.” The visuals may be spectacular, but for developers aiming at accuracy, those gaps stand out.

@GoranM I think he asked about XP 🙂

58 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Some weather-related stuff, windshear in real-weather, cross-wind-landings being too strong or the ailerons not effective enough, variable winds being wrongly modelled (as far as I know should be fixed in one of the next updates) and others that have been reported. And I do also think that the effects of CB's should be a bit stronger because I haven't experienced any A/P disconnect when flying into the heart of them (but that was with non-default addons, so could be addon-related).

Don't forget the "wrong roll torque direction in propeller aircrafts" bug, as often mentioned by our @jcomm 🙂

3 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Don't forget the "wrong roll torque direction in propeller aircrafts" bug, as often mentioned by our @jcomm 🙂

Yes exactly, that was the one I also had in my head but didn't remembered 🙂

4 hours ago, Noel said:

I'm genuinely curious:  IYHO, what 'technical aspects of flying' still need significant attention?  

If you ask this specific 😉 and it was actually discussed ad nauseam (even with video evidence) - apart from the above mentioned:

1. Braking distance on contaminated rwy - still not there (although it seems they have improved that to a halfway extent)
2. Strong crosswinds behaviour on ground
3. Icing conditions
4. No failures at all (heck - I don't want my plane to fail 😄). OTOH - even 2020 had a few, whereas XP has hundreds.
5. ... to name a few (I haven't checked EVERY aspect on EVERY plane)
6. What they indeed have omproved - e.g. water physics which were laughable in 2020.

But, hey ... they are improving slowly. So, you can acknowledge that.

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Yes exactly, that was the one I also had in my head but didn't remembered 🙂

According to Austin, in an email he sent me early March 2025, it has been fixed and actually further improvements were made to prop physics but they had to wait to be "assembled" into future updates.

Austin actually invited me to test the Alpha with those fixes, but the LR team had to decline that offer due to other priorities, which I perfectly understood.

Until now (12.3 beta) there's still no fix. Maybe it'll come with 12.4(?)

Edited September 29, 2025Sep 29 by jcomm

5 hours ago, GoranM said:

From a developer’s standpoint (And I've spoken to several, as well as looking at it myself), MSFS 2024 still has gaps in the flight model

I was only asking about XP12.3 because Franz007 seemed to be saying he would rather see LR prioritizing the technical aspects of flight, over scenery enhancement focused work per se, and that because being smaller in size LR has to be mindful how it prioritizes and budgets for their development pathway.

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

If you ask this specific 😉 and it was actually discussed ad nauseam (even with video evidence) - apart from the above mentioned:

1. Braking distance on contaminated rwy - still not there (although it seems they have improved that to a halfway extent)
2. Strong crosswinds behaviour on ground
3. Icing conditions
4. No failures at all (heck - I don't want my plane to fail 😄). OTOH - even 2020 had a few, whereas XP has hundreds.
5. ... to name a few (I haven't checked EVERY aspect on EVERY plane)
6. What they indeed have omproved - e.g. water physics which were laughable in 2020.

But, hey ... they are improving slowly. So, you can acknowledge that.

Sorry, wasn't clear enough I was asking about XP12.3, not MSFS.

On 9/29/2025 at 11:28 PM, Noel said:

Sorry, wasn't clear enough I was asking about XP12.3, not MSFS.

So then - that was a misunderstanding from my side. But you can flip it, what I wrote above is things which XP is capable of, whereas ... you know what I mean.

6 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

So then - that was a misunderstanding from my side. But you can flip it, what I wrote above is things which XP is capable of, whereas ... you know what I mean.

Interested only in what XP is not capable of, at this point, justifying Franz007's statement he would rather LR focus on the 'technical aspects of flight' rather than scenery enhancement.