Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

867 Excellent

1 Follower

About BiologicalNanobot

  • Rank
    The Installer

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Looks absolutely gorgeous, love AviationLads trailers.
  2. Human factors - perfection is impossible to achieve and every implementation has its own shortcomings. I’m a huge Airbus fan so I tried all major Airbuses (Started with FF, got Toliss, FSLabs and now Fenix) and all had some shortcomings. FF was a huge disappointment as its ECAM and FBW implementations are pretty off outside normal use cases. Toliss was significantly better, however it was still disappointing in various aspects. I was quite impressed with both FSLabs and Fenix on the other hand - FSLabs has excellent navigational capabilities and flies by the numbers a bit more while Fenix has an excellent modeling of ECAM actions, failures and many edge cases which FSLabs simply didn’t get right.
  3. Definitely, Fenix A320 is not the best option if flight modeling is all you care about, X-Plane Airbuses would likely be a better option for that purpose. However for people like me who also value systems simulation, a more complete implementation of flight computers, practicing failures etc. Fenix is currently quite ahead of any Airbus available for X-Plane. So I guess it is a case of pick your poison - do you want better flight modeling or better systems modeling?
  4. Then there are the users of both simulators who visit both forums and all they see are people telling how awful both simulators are. I guess I will just use FlightGear as both X-Plane and MSFS are awful and bound to die if I go by what I'm reading here 🤷‍♂️ I'm also pretty tired of the same people downplaying X-Plane in every single opportunity, but some of the X-Plane people here are not helping either.
  5. I think it is possible, however WASM modules still "link to" the inNative environment as inNative acts as a bridge between WASM code and the OS by providing "system calls", which means with every simulator update that changes the inNative environment, the compiled binary would need to be updated too, which is indeed the case for MSFS add-ons right now. If add-on developers end up having to provide pre-compiled binaries, they would have to do so with every update which is not developer friendly I guess. Of course Asobo can combine both approaches and allow add-on developers to provide pre-compiled binaries if they want, but I guess they didn't want to deal with possible complications. I'm not sure how much security plays a role in this case as Asobo could still enforce the pre-compilation to be occur in MSFS, maintaining the security provided by inNative. Also regardless a locally compiled binary could be replaced by a rogue software the same way if Asobo doesn't have checks preventing something like that from happening. It is an interesting topic indeed.
  6. I perfectly understand and respect the value of X-Plane for designing aircraft from scratch with no known performance numbers. However you should realize that your initial comment pretty much sounds like you were talking about the realism of a procedural simulation setup (which is the case for home and pilot training) that can be achieved with both simulators. Your initial comment pretty much reads as "All you care about is visuals, simulation realism doesn't matter to you" when this is simply not the case. Simulation requirements of a home / pilot training environment is completely different than an aircraft design environment. For a home / pilot training workloads MSFS can be as realistic as X-Plane, while for aircraft design workloads ESP simulators have traditionally been unsuitable as the flight model in ESP simulators require a lot of empirical data about the aircraft unlike X-Plane, which is obviously not available until the aircraft design is finalized. However this doesn't mean that MSFS is all about visuals and doesn't offer a realistic simulation experience that can even be used for pilot training, like your initial comment implied.
  7. Meh, I disagree with that one too. X-Plane 12 will feature a new shader-based sky, volumetric clouds, photometric lighting, 3D trees and water, weather effects like shader-based snow and water puddles, screen space reflections, improved night lighting, improved autogen, new default assets and much more. I wish both sides were more fair about strengths and weaknesses of both simulators.
  8. You definitely have all the rights to mention what you like more! Just keep in mind that you are in the MSFS forum, which means you will encounter much more people who prefer / use MSFS, which also means there will be a lot more people who will disagree with you. My "backlash" only comes from your remarks (which were phrased more strongly than an opinion) about MSFS SDK and avionics, which are frankly simply inaccurate and some of the evidence like Leonardo MD-82 speaks for itself. There is nothing wrong with expressing opinions, but basing these opinions on facts is very important.
  9. People "jumped in" not because you said something nice about X-Plane, people "jumped in" because you made inaccurate statements about MSFS to say something nice about X-Plane. I have lots of nice things to say about X-Plane, especially the upcoming X-Plane 12, but I can do that without repeating the same inaccurate "MSFS for visuals, X-Plane for simulation" stereotypes which are based on no facts whatsoever.
  10. How can X-Plane be better at avionics when avionics quality is a property of an aircraft add-on and not the base simulator? Avionics quality is determined by how well it is implemented by the particular developer, it has nothing to do with the simulator. Have you even looked at the SDKs of both? I develop add-ons for both simulators and I would refrain from making a bold claim like that, both have their distinct advantages and disavantages. Also, given that you don't want to hear about "LMDG" 737, what about Leonardo MD-82? It is easily one of the most realistic (in terms of systems) airliners for any simulator, from physically based implementations of several systems and working circuit breakers to persistent aircraft state and maintenance. It is a great example of what can be done with MSFS SDK. I'm not even talking about the upcoming Fenix A320, which is based on ProSim, an A320 implementation that is used for pilot training by various airlines worldwide. X-Plane indeed has a better flight model, but this was pretty much the only thing you were accurate about. However quality of a simulation is not only measured by flight model, systems are as important for a realistic simulation experience, and both simulators are more than capable enough for simulating aircraft systems. In fact, if I had to choose between the slightly better flight model of Rotate MD-88 and much better systems of Leonardo MD-82, I would go with Leonardo MD-82 without a doubt.
  11. LOL. You are not alone, I like very small and very large planes due to their uniqueness. So I will likely only get -600 (or -700 as it has cargo too) and -900.
  12. The aircraft looks very exciting! How does it compare to PA-28 by JustFlight which also has a good amount of custom systems and persistence, maintenance etc. features? Lastly, will the aircraft be available through Orbx like other Milviz aircraft? If so, do you have a time estimate for that?
  13. It must feel great when people are constantly speculating about everything from legitimacy of your company to who you are working with and what relationship the people you work with have with you, even going all the way to look for your company's shareholders. As a developer myself sometimes I feel bad for you guys, but I guess it is just the way things are when lots of impatient people are involved. Keep up the good work!
  14. They work for me, they only work if you are on ground.
  • Create New...