Murmur

I said "almost", and not in absolute terms but in comparison to DCS. At least quote me right. But don't take my words for it, just do a flight in even a default DCS aircraft and then tell me it's on the same level of realism and attention to details of MSFS. 🤷‍♂️

MSFS has very nice scenery (with its flaws) and I look forward to improved scenery for XP12. What many non X-Plane users can't understand, is that X-Plane users may prefer X-Plane even if it hasn't the best absolute scenery of them all (and yet, they're of course still looking forward to improved scenery!) I recently spent a lot of hours in DCS, and despite its scenery being significantly worse than MSFS (and XP12), the immersion I felt in it was absolutely incomparable. I tried MSFS afterward and it almost felt like a kids toys. I find X-Plane halfway between the two, maybe closer to DCS. And yet, the simple fact that someone can prefer X-Plane over other products, is enough for people like you to use derogatory terms like "cultists". But sure, the toxic community is the X-Plane one. 🤷‍♂️

Uh? X-Plane 11 had its first sale less than 3 months after Steam launch, same thing for X-Plane 10. X-Plane 12 has been launched on Steam 3 months ago, so it's nothing unusual...

I 100% agree. Given how unrefined XP12 is in the present state, those sales numbers are actually even better than people think! That is very promising for the future, when XP12 will be further developed and much more refined than it is now.

I don't know if MS will abandon FS again, maybe not. However, in the past FS4 (PC only version) + FS5 + FS5.1 + FS95 + FS98 sold 21M units in a 7 years timespan, that'd be around 3M/year on average. So it's reasonable to say that the vastly more popular FSX sold more than that in its first few years. Those numbers are comparable to those of MSFS today, and yet MS pulled the rug on FSX. And I'd think any reasonable person would agree that the budget of FSX was much smaller than that of MSFS.

Honestly, I'm personally not that worried by sales numbers. Of course I'm glad if X-Plane is selling well, and I would be happy if its numbers keep on growing. But I prefer X-Plane because it has a more capable flight model, a more realistic ground handling, and because it devotes a lot of attention to realistic details that most other sims are lacking, and to which most simmers are oblivious to. Those are the things that give or destroy immersion for me. It's a subjective matter, and I still can't understand why many MSFS fan---s are driven crazy by these things... 🤷‍♂️ So the only thing that counts for me is that XP sales numbers are enough for its financial sustainability, and I don't think there's anything to worry about at the moment. I almost only use default aircraft, so I'm not that bothered for the viability of 3rd parties, although I understand that many simmers aren't like me, and I'd therefore be glad that sales numbers will be good enough to keep the widespread addon ecosystem of X-Plane alive and thriving.

For such a recent release, those are nice numbers! It already has more users than P3D v5. I did not expect that. With the development it will have in the immediate and medium-term future, I expect it to gain a solid userbase. I'm laughing hard at all those people who have been proclaiming, since 2.5 years ago and still continuing today: "ThAt'S tHe LaSt NaiL iN x-PlAnE cOfFin!!1!" 🤣

It's not a bug, it's a (realism) feature: https://developer.x-plane.com/article/vacuum-gyro-limitations-and-caging/#Limitations_of_the_mechanical_attitude_gyro_instrument You've discovered one of the (many) realistic details present in X-Plane, often mistaken for bugs because people don't experience them in most other flight sims. 😉

Yes, a video would help. Meanwhile, make sure the weather is set to "Clear" to rule out turbulence.

What FPS do you have when the bouncing happens? ( SHIFT + CTRL + F to show FPS, first number on the left)

The scenery looks remarkably good, despite not being based on satellite photos. Airport details also look very good! I agree, even considering the differences between a digital camera and the human eye, I think X-Plane 12 still looks too dark, both on the outside and in the cockpit. Looking forward to the ongoing tuning of photometric engine and tone mapping. IMO they should tune the tone mapping to give a more dynamic range than the static range of the human eye. In reality the eye quickly adapts to the different levels of light between cockpit and outside world, but this cannot be realistically done in a monitor because the software doesn't know where your eyes are looking at.

You are right of course, Vne and other envelope speeds are equivalent airspeeds, not true airspeeds.

I'm just happy to fly in a flight simulator where "everything feels more authentic". 🙂 You prefer other aspects in a flight sim? Legit! Different priorities for different folks...

Maybe we can turn this thread about the F14 top speed into some useful suggestions for XP improvements. 🙂 The issue, as it is now, is that turbojet engines in XP are able to continue working at higher EAS/Mach than their RL counterparts, without melting or blowing up. That is the reason for excessive speeds of jet aircraft at low altitude in XP. So, just as one can specify max structural speeds (Vne, etc.) in Plane-Maker, Austin would also need to add a couple of limit parameters for jet engines as well. I'm thinking max EAS and max inlet temperature. So that the virtual turbojets would fail just like the real ones if attempting Mach 2.0 at sea level.

It was suggested in other threads that the reason the F14 can do Mach 2 at low altitude is because X-Plane is calculating the wrong drag at low altitude (i.e. it is not taking account air density), that is completely wrong so it needed to be corrected. I tend to see aerodynamics, propulsion, ground physics, aircraft systems, etc. as separate things in a flight simulator, so that was I meant when saying it's not an "aerodynamics" issue. With all realism settings activated, the F14 in X-Plane can't reach M2.0. It will catastrophically fail around M1.5. And you're right, aeroelastic divergence is the cause of structural failures above Vne. Very hard to model in a flight sim: X-Plane will simply destroy the aircraft when significantly above Vne, or when G limits are surpassed. Not very realistic from a visual point of view. Still better than the other sims though.

Real 737 pilot praises X-Plane flight model @5:45 "Those of you who are using X-Plane 12 and have flown the Zibo737, but also have flown general aviation aircraft in X-Plane 12, will surely be familiar with the differences and will just be aware that in X-Plane 12 everything feels more authentic."

A lot of wrong info on the other threads about F14 max speed and supposed flight model flaws in X-Plane, so let's get things straight. The max speed at very low altitude is mostly limited by either max structural CAS or engine limitations (max EAS, max inlet temperature). Proof1: Proof 2: This is for the J79/F104. As you can see, at low altitudes the engine would _theoretically_ be capable of producing much more thrust than that needed to go past M1.2. The problem is that, in practice, a real turbojet engine would blow up if trying to do that. And even if wouldn't blow up, it would be the aircraft to have a structural failure for surpassing Vne. You can also experiment yourself with this nice applet: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/enginesim/ Load the F100 engine, and see how it will exceed temperature limitations just above M1.0 at sea level, while it can go to much higher Mach numbers at high altitude (the figures are not 100% accurate with the real engine data, but they give you a very good idea of the trends). ----- So, the issue in X-Plane is NOT the aerodynamic modeling: it correctly takes into account air density for drag, contrary to what some people claimed in other threads. The issue is that in X-Plane the engine can produce ever higher thrust at higher Mach numbers without blowing up, while a real engine would destroy itself. Honestly, I don't know if the thrust of real engines is "forcibly" limited at low altitude or not. For as we know, a real F14 could very well exceed M1.2 by far at low altitude, only to have its turbojets trashed or blown up. The airframe wouldn't structurally survive that speed though, as it _correctly_ happens in X-Plane if you have the option checked. (Speaking of which, are there structural failures for exceeding Vne in MSFS or DCS?)

That's the most ridiculous thing about MSFS flight model. When I found out it worked that way, I was like 😳😱

Challenger 650 from Hot Start and Saab 340 from LES

Works for me. What aircraft are you using?

I think it happens when the aircraft you are trying to use, and some aircraft in the AI traffic, both use the same sound banks. Probably you had the default Piper Cub as AI aircraft, and the sound banks of the two aircraft were conflicting. It must be a bug or something. Try deactivating all AI aircraft and see if that works.

Don't know if I'm allowed to post the link, but if you search for "Enhanced Flight Model" in the "General Aviation XP12" section at the .org, you can download a fine flight model mod for the default Super Cub, made by user Voidhawk9.

Is that an actual Level-D sim? The super low FPS and the mega stutter @9:37 is very suspect.

Legit! I do instead. 😉