Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

66 Good

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

1,164 profile views
  1. Good to hear there's a dialogue between both LR and PMDG! Can't blame PMDG for making sure there's a large enough market and revenue potential before assigning resources - I think we all understand that. I certainly don't mean to presume to tell PMDG how to run their business, but in terms of market assessment I wonder how much weightage are they giving to the performance of the DC-6 as a benchmark for X-plane market potential. I for one, used to be a PMDG customer but the DC-6 never attracted me given its more of a legacy/niche aircraft. While I am sure there are plenty of users who want the DC-6, I can't help but wonder if a newer aircraft (for e.g. the 737, 747 or 777) with much broader potential might be a better way to evaluate the market potential. I certainly appreciate the fact that the development resources for the 737/747/777 are likely far greater than the DC-6 given the systems complexity - but if you're gonna give it a real go, might as well put your best foot forward instead of dipping your toes! Regardless, appreciate the update and clarity in how you guys are thinking about this stuff interally. We'll wait!
  2. The opaque glasses have a notch that allow you to peek into the real world and touch your hardware (thus the not groping). You also have muscle memory built up at that point so you know exactly where everything is. And no - I disagree with your point that VR doesn't add any particular realism to swimming because of the added spatial awareness which is a massive aspect! How someone can argue that sitting in front of a 2D monitor is more immersive than a spatially accurate visual depiction is beyond me (and I suspect you haven't had more than a few hours at max in a VR simulator). So please do us all a favor and give it a real shot before telling us that its inferior. FWIW - my instructor himself uses VR instead of 2D and has repeatedly encouraged use of it. And I repeat - its not as good as real life training (nothing is), but it is BETTER than 2D.
  3. That shows you haven't used the VR much at all. I use all my hardware (yokes, pedals, buttons) and no I am not groping around anything. Nor do I use a pointing device. The touch controllers allow your hands to be used as you would in real life by turning dials, flicking switches etc.
  4. Geez, we are still talking about this? Seems like we are just arguing semantics at this point. VR gives you spatial awareness. The main aspect that is missing in 2D simulation. That's all really. Oh and its a heck of a lot more fun than 2D. For my own real-life flight training, I find VR flying to be tremendously beneficial as it increases immersion, "presence" and spatial awareness - all valuable to me when simming. Its not actual training (I agree with you there), but its way higher quality experience than 2D. Said another way - if you agree than simulator experience is at all helpful in your real-life training, then you may find VR to be an even more immersive. At least most of us do. And again - its a lot more fun than 2D and there's something to be said about that! Also you have to keep in mind that VR is still a very new technology and FAA and training certifications may just not have caught up to it yet.
  5. Well, tbh it seemed like you were trying to rain on others' parade. People here were commenting they are enjoying something and you were dismissing it as you are not a user/don't see value. Totally fine that you don't. Let others enjoy it. I am not trying to convince you to like it. All I am saying is don't dismiss value that others are getting from it. With that, let's all say PEACE! :)
  6. Been following this and I don't understand why non-VR simmers or real-life pilots are against VR sometimes. Its not like someone is taking other options away from them or increase pricing...you can always fly 2D if you'd like. And of course nothing will come close to real flying. It's not even a question. So lets not compare with real-life. That tends to shut down all arguments. We are simmers here at AVSIM. Its all about relative simulation experience vs. a 2D monitor and vs. a physical sim cockpit. And to me personally, I get the sensation of flight in the pit of my stomach when in VR. And nothing can match that other than real life. Yes, there are gripes about resolution etc. but as anyone who has witnessed the recent XP VR Beta releases, the technology is getting better in each release and in fact its easier for me now to manipulate switches with Touch Controllers than with mouse clicks on a 2D monitor. Yes - it costs $400 - $500, but the next best simulator option is a physical cockpit which is atleast comparable if not more highly priced!
  7. Is the JustFlight or vFltye version more VR ready? Is there one developer that is more likely to port over their aircraft to VR? I am only buying aircrafts that will be VR compatible for the future.
  8. Great! Any chance you have the steps needed for me to implement this?
  9. Has anyone been able to install the GTN 750 or 650 into the Lancair Legacy by Aerobask in XP11? This is the plane I am referring to: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/41357-lancair-legacy-fg/&tab=comments#comment-229715 Would love to hear if this is possible.
  10. ^ This. One of the reasons I find myself supporting XP so much is the way Austin, Ben and the entire LR team deal with their user base. While I have never had to deal with their customer service, the periodic blogs are fantastic and their willingness to share the roadmap ahead for the platform keeps the user base engaged. Some of the highlights for me are the video interviews with their team every few months or so where they answer user questions and talk about why and how a particular feature or bug is thought about internally. Even if I may not agree with them all the time, their openness in sharing their thinking is always such a refreshing change when compared with other developers in this hobby - most of whom come across arrogant or condescending to their users and too focused on marketing or building hype around their products.
  11. Couldn't agree more. In general I have seen exactly what you have (of course there are exceptions). For the most part, there are 2 very distinct simmers: a) the first is a more traditional, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. May or may not be correlated to age but their attitude is definitely one that is more resistant to change. They have a system that works, are not first adopters and prefer to wait and see the reviews before jumping in. In general, I tend to find these simmers more on the ESP platforms than the XP platforms. And hey, if it works for them, that's great! BTW, I think this is more AVSIM userbase. b) the second are the more adventurous simmers. They happily install betas of new platforms, new versions and are constantly changing things up. Sometimes, they make bad decisions by jumping into addons too early, but they have a better sense of what the "roadmap" looks like. They end up on reddit, twitch, discord, follow livestreams and are constantly learning new technological developments. Again, I think XP is better suited for these simmers given that the entire XP ecosystem is very "beta" friendly. I don't have the data to state if this is correlated with age, so will let that be. BTW, the above isn't unique to flight simulation. We see this bifurcation that in every area - whether its smartphones, media consumption, cars etc. From a purely personal standpoint, I used to be in the (a) category during my FSX/P3D days but have transitioned into the (b) category over the last year with XP and have found the hobby to be more rewarding than ever before. I am experimenting more, don't get bored easily, learning more, connecting more with twitch/discord/reddit and every month brings in something new and exciting!
  12. Great post OP. While I am hoping this doesn't devolve into a P3D vs. XP bashing thread (I use both), the biggest takeway for me this year was definitely the maturity of XP as a platform. The velocity of new add-ons, announcements, new developers, growth of the payware community is unparalleled in XP's history and credit goes to Laminar Research for a fantastic product. Their openness in dealing with their consumers (via their blogs, interviews etc. is also a refreshing change from the rest of the development community). It remains to be seen whether the XP platform can eventually evolve to provide ALL the features we need from a simulator (GA, tubeliners, weather, VR etc) but the platform as it currently stands today has the potential to do just that. The upcoming Vulcan transition is a great example of further modernizing the simulator. Frankly its exciting to be an XP user at this time. P3D is the already fully matured platform with all the bells and whistles available and nothing comes close to modern airline simulation experience (yet). But the problem remains that you need to spend a lot on scenery, textures, utilties etc. payware to achieve relatively similar results as XP11 + free Ortho. IMO one of their biggest competitive advantage vs. XP is their PMDG exclusivity and I am sure many users (such as I) are hanging on to P3D solely because of PMDG. The day quality modern tubeliners (FF A320 looking at you!) come to XP11, I will eventually let go of my ESP roots..why? I just find XP and its roadmap way more exciting.
  • Create New...