UrgentSiesta

Well, it wasn't a very clear point, then... The point is they have enough information. And a Level D sim is an excellent way to fill in the gaps. 99% of the people who will fly this addon won't be able to point out whatever deficiencies there are, and the 1% who can are experienced pilots who will know it doesn't matter.

Umm. No, not at all... Level D simulators are as close as you can get to operating the real aircraft without buying gas. The FMS, avionics, and other systems are what sells airliners add-ons, and those are fully represented in an IRL training tool like that

I'm not an Airbus guy, but as the drivers for IRL airliners are the same across the industry, I'm gonna bet that the 350 is very similar to the 320 in the same way that a 777 is similar to a 737. So while there are undoubtedly differences, they were hardly starting from scratch.

Then you should know better, right? And like I said: You do You.

Unless your computer is never connected to the Internet, your "understanding" is incorrect.

That definitely "a" viewpoint, even if most of it's incorrect. I could quote you just as many reasons local backups are anachronistic and risky, but you do you.

I can highly recommend BackBlaze. All you can eat for $5/mo.

I can highly recommend BackBlaze. All you can eat for $5/mo.

I can highly recommend BackBlaze. All you can eat for $5/mo.

I agree. However, there are many highly active developers for MSFS, and if we were to use frequency of addon updates or releases as a measure, then I'm not sure we'd see much difference between the two.

Black Square has only embraced a very small percentage of CFD's abilities, in contrast to iniBuilds, FSR and others. And that has shown up in the reviews, as well. And it's referenced in the release notes, as well. The addons fly decently enough, but it's their systems - by far - that are the star of the Black Square show (and they are very well developed, indeed). So, I've avoided them since the beginning since my interests are largely inverse to Black Square's value prop: I care a LOT more about flight model than systems. So far my reference addon remains A2A's Comanche (which also includes stellar systems). The closer a given addon handles to that, the more I enjoy it (particularly in MSFS' environmental wonderland. 🙂 I'm practically dying for an all around Hi Fi turboprop in MSFS that's as good as AFL's King Air 350 in XP. Right now, i'm still feeling out BlackBird nee MilViz's new T-6A Texan II Advanced (with its external flight model). So far, so good, but I've only just a couple hours in it, so too early to tell.

Yes, I'm well aware of X-Plane's transition into a predictive engineering tool, thanks! Given that, I'd bet that XP's primary roled in Alia is, well, aerodynamic predictions. It is a rather complex & unconventional design. And it speaks volumes to XP's aero engine having a fundamentally sound design. And that focus bleeds over into more realistic flights for the rest of us - which presumably is/has been/remains X-Planes primary draw for the vast majority of users. Obviously MSFS has upended that apple cart as X-Plane is now heavily focused on First Principles for environmental representation (one that's heartily welcomed by me), and though the gestation seemed a bit long and rough, it's paying off in spades now. However, the point of the matter is that XPs use as an aero engineering tool is rather immaterial to most desktop flight sim enthusiasts (quite the opposite for me, personally, but my use case isn't the point). This is amply proven by the historical success of the various iterations of MS FS over the last 3-ish decades, including the short primacy of P3D in the consumer space. It's also evident that BET/CFD doesn't matter when it comes to large scale Multi-Domain Training via networked desktop "flight" sims like Prepar3D. We all know that P3Ds general aero model is the (in)famous "on rails" amusement park ride. So if - as amply evidenced - it doesn't really matter for the hordes of consumers, nor for the Serious Business of IRL military flight training, how much, then, does it justify your ongoing derision of other flight sim platforms that aren't as advanced in that one, relatively tiny, area of BET/CFD? I'll give you three guesses. And the first two don't count.

It's almost like there might, maybe, occasionally, be more to serious flight training than "muh realz CFD".

Please provide evidence. I fly both on a regular basis. Other than on-airport property (and even then...), I have yet to find a single out of the box area where X-Plane scenery is more authentic than MSFS. X-Plane is great, and in terms of scenery & other visuals is significantly better than before, but its focus is on things that are important for aviation, not for sightseeing.

I was gonna say about your screenshot that I thought it was pretty dang good for 2017 (and I mean that as a compliment). 🙂 I've said in many "but muh VFR!" debates that X-Plane has everything one needs for "serious" flight training (a loaded phrase, for sure) for years. X-Plane is and has been a great flight simulator - hence its ongoing survival for the last quarter century, almost always laughing in the face of the many who have continually predicted its impending demise. So, no, you surely do NOT have a case of confirmation bias, because your choice of sim is genuinely great! 👍 Buuuuuut...there are other flight simulators out there, from genuine arcade-level to legitimate "serious simmer" grade. And we should evaluate them for their Pros and not just their Cons when comparing to XP.