Flightsky

Wow, so the percentage of XP users was way under 10%, with respect to the post that Sethos made: If there were 3 XP users out of several hundred users, and 2 of the XP users were developers, that's like really 1 XP user out of several hundred users that were using your product, if the developers are excluded. That's far less than 10%.

Another positive step by SayInentions.AI!

Interesting announcement from OpenAI. A reduction in the price of SayInentions would be nice.

Thanks for the clarification! This makes more sense.

So that slide meant that in the first 18 months of Xplane 12's release, Xplane 12 outsold Xplane 11 in the first 18 months of Xplane 11's release? This topic and that slide is very confusing.

Nice airport!

Yes, MSFS is very stable for me too, even if I leave it running for 7 hours or more.

Nice release!

Merry Christmas everyone!

What an amazing mod!

Yes, this is my interpretation too.

I agree. FG makes a huge difference, even if the FPS is low in the 30 FPS range. It's badly needed in XP 12.

I am not surprised by this. And I would even guess that other 3rd party developers for XP 12 are experiencing the same thing that Just Flight is experiencing, but those other 3rd party developers haven't made a public statement about this yet.

I think A2A has other commercial and military projects going on as well where they are making money off of. I don't think they are solely relying on the Comanche for their revenue/profit for the last 3 years.

Ahh, I hope the fix this soon.

I don't want to be the naysayer, but look at the bottom left of the photo you posted. The quality of the textures for the mountain on the bottom left hand side is terrible. Mind you, the textures from far away have always looked pretty good. Whether XP, P3D, or even FSX, textures from far away for mountains have looked good. It's when it's close up, that's where the issue is. And you can see on the bottom left of our photo, that's a close up texture than the texture of the mountains from far away in the setting. MSFS 2020 has way better textures than the mountain on the bottom left of your photo. But what was interesting from Jorg's presentation is that MSFS 2024 may have even better textures than MSFS 2020, including close up textures, because Microsoft is using machine learning to improve the textures. This is what is exciting about MSFS 2024.

If some of the people here at Avsim frequent the flightsim subreddit at Reddit, people frequently post pictures comparing MSFS pictures to real life pictures in that subreddit. Here is an example of such a picture comparing MSFS to real life from a thread there: There are giveaways that this picture is not real life, but for most people, with a casual glance, it's not obvious. People post pictures of MSFS, comparing the pictures to real life, all the time in the flightsim subreddit. Few, if any people, will try to post the same pictures comparing XP 12 to real life pictures in that subreddit, because they will probably get laughed at for posting such pictures. That's how good MSFS lighting is compared to XP 12 lighting. It's not even close.

The lighting in XP 12 is terrible. It's infinitely worse than MSFS. I can always tell it's XP 12 because the lighting is so bad.

If you are in the AAU2 beta, try asking on the Working Title Discord forum.

Your choice of simulator can also have very awful looking clouds: What is that? Black clouds? I know people made fun of MSFS's volcanic ash looking clouds in the past (which have been largely improved by now), but look at clouds like that. No offense, but if you try to compare graphics, MSFS wins by a mile. And this isn't even factoring in frame generation with the NVidia 4000 series, which is something XP 12 may not even support for many years down the road. Not only does MSFS yield better graphics overall, it gives better FPS as well.

The other civilian flight simulators competing against MSFS are just disappointing, IMO. They are running on technology that is a decade old. For example, MSFS has frame generation now with the 4000 series cards, you can get crazy impressive FPS in MSFS, and it's butter smooth with frame generation. Meanwhile, for the competition, if you add in the other add-ons (including ortho) to try to bring the graphics level up as best as possible, so that it can be compared to MSFS, the FPS is just terrible. Aside from the other civilian flight simulators, DCS is alright, but the ground graphics and textures (including buildings, etc), need way more work. And while I think DCS is the next best flight simulator for clouds, MSFS is still #1 when it comes to clouds. DCS clouds are good, but still not as good as MSFS clouds.

I tried the XP 12 demo. XP 12 is like a decade in technology behind MSFS. The rendering engine for XP 12 is horrible, I could not even get near the FPS that I get for MSFS. MSFS also has frame generation now for NVidia 4000 cards, giving NVidia 4000 users even more FPS and a smoother experience.

I just want to say, some of the projects being spun off of the FBW source code are amazing. Probably most people know about the Headwind A330, which is based off the FBW source code: https://eu-server.flightsim.to/file/18198/airbus-a330-900neo-conversion. But there is also the LVFR A321, also based off the FBW source code: https://flightsim.to/file/36395/lvfr-a321neo-fbw-compatibility-mod A big thanks to the teams working on the spinoff projects based on the FBW source code. But of course, also a big thanks to the FBW team for making their source code available to other project teams to use. This is how a successful freeware community should operate. New projects shouldn't have to re-invent the wheel. But at the same time, new projects should give credit if they are using source code so that they don't have to re-invent the wheel. And above all, hopefully there are teams, such as FBW, that are gracious enough to allow the community to make projects off their source code, and FBW has allowed this. Thanks to all involved for their hard work!

MSFS's lighting is light years ahead of XP 12. I agree with @Bdub22. To each, their own opinion, but I agree with Bdub22 that XP 12 lighting is behind MSFS, by a lot.

If you downloaded the SU, SU meaning Sim Update, then it's a beta you downloaded. Sim Update 12 has not been officially released yet. The World Update for New Zealand has been released. World Updates these days (as opposed to the first year of MSFS) generally have no code changes. Since your flight was from EGLL - LGAV, it's highly unlikely (although not impossible, since there were bugs with World Updates in the past) that the New Zealand World Update is the reason why MSFS CTDed on you.