"X-Plane 12 Airports Teased on Scenery Gateway"

[jarmstro 2,419]

@CarlosFWell they are a bit hard to understand if I'm honest? You keep shouting.

Edited December 14, 2021 by jarmstro

[jarmstro 2,419]

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

that it works as expected when I want to use it.

I agree. Entirely.

[CarlosF 1,268]

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

despite their claims to the contrary, they know MS needs a lot more investment to match even XP11

Really, and how did you arrive to that conclusion.  Are you part of their marketing meetings? Your are just assuming, which is fine with me. I could care less who has the most market shares, all I care about and look for is a platform that provides "as real as it gets" immersion, that is it! 

 

[uwespeed 547]

12 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I agree. Entirely.

Ok, glad to see that you finally agree that X-Plane (even XP11) is a dam n good flight simulator 👍.

Edited December 14, 2021 by uwespeed

[mSparks 2,168]

9 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

Really, and how did you arrive to that conclusion.  Are you part of their marketing meetings? Your are just assuming, which is fine with me. I could care less who has the most market shares, all I care about and look for is a platform that provides "as real as it gets" immersion, that is it! 

 

I'll not repost things that got the mods mad again.

This thread is a good enough example anyway.

The scenery gateway. Not cheap or easy to run, let alone set up, and so far MS attempts have all fallen flat.

50 cities or whatever of photogrammetry is nice and all, but its no competition for every airport in the world carefully hand crafted, and every city and village in the world close enough to photogrammetry, by default, especially when its also online only vs offline.

Edited December 14, 2021 by mSparks

[jarmstro 2,419]

7 minutes ago, uwespeed said:

Ok, glad to see that you finally agree that X-Plane (even XP11) is a dam n good flight simulator 👍.

I've never for one moment doubted it? I still use it. Its just out of date and I badly want XP12. And I want it now!!😀

Edited December 14, 2021 by jarmstro

[flyer47 48]

45 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I badly want XP12. And I want it now

What would happen if they came out with it now? All the people that are complaining about XP11 now would really have a field day that this don't  work, or that don't work. By the way I have had MS2020 since the beta. I have kept up with all the updates, and I still find it visually well done, but I don't fly it much at all. Every time I try to do a flight some thing is not working correctly.  I find it is trying to be all things to all people

By the way I want XP12 now too.🤣🤣

[mSparks 2,168]

8 minutes ago, flyer47 said:

All the people that are complaining about XP11 now would really have a field day that this don't  work, or that don't work.

Now or 3 months from now its going to be the same. Not a chance XP12 is going to compete with XP11 "for play time" until well into late next year soonest imho.

Almost the entire practical reason for the change in major version number is so they leave us something working while they fix all the things they broke.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

I badly want XP12. And I want it now!!😀

 

14 minutes ago, flyer47 said:

By the way I want XP12 now too.🤣🤣

I would to if I wasnt so dreading the nightmare that is xplane betas.

[flyer47 48]

3 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I would to if I wasnt so dreading the nightmare that is xplane betas.

Agree!!!

[jarmstro 2,419]

5 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I would to if I wasnt so dreading the nightmare that is xplane betas.

Why? I thoroughly enjoyed the XP Vulkan beta process and, let's face it, FS2020 is in beta and will be for the foreseeable future. But I am enjoying it as well.

Edited December 14, 2021 by jarmstro

[uwespeed 547]

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

I've never for one moment doubted it? I still use it. Its just out of date and I badly want XP12. And I want it now!!😀

Apropos outdated ... I can tell you a story: I was - non only once - in a full flight simulator of Lufthansa in Frankfurt (namely 2x MD11, 1x A380, 1x B737).

In the A380 sim, the outside graphics look quite nice. Ok, but is that really important? Well ... I don't know, please tell me.

In the B737 sim (by the way, graphicswise maybe FS 9 level), I told the instructor, I want to start and land (amongst others) in Innsbruck and Madeira. He agreed, but for the first, to get accustomed, he has let me start from my home airport Nuremberg EDDN. True story: so, we were on rwy 28, I looked outside and ... was confused. Are we really on rwy 28? The airport buildings were on the right side (in reality they are on the left). I looked again on the instruments, and they showed 277°. I told this observation to the instructor, and he laughed ... "Yeah ... many of my real pilot trainees have observed this as well and some of them refused to use the sim, as the outside looks ugly and is wrong."

Ok, let's move to the MD11 sim. That was, btw. my first FF sim, namely in 2011. Again, for accustoming, we started this time in EDDF (as EDDN is not an airport, where Lufthansa was flying to with the MD11). Well, what shall I say? The outside graphics were a mess. There were some basic buildings at the airport and the city of Frankfurt was a flat texture, with maybe 2 high towers. At least, even the 2 highways (A3 and A5) close to the airport were shown - as flat texture. I was very upset about this fraud, after all, I have paid a lot of money. But ... as I have paid so much money, I finally stayed and started and landed in Frankfurt.
Then, I asked the instructor to start in GCXO (Tenerife Norte), because I like the approach there. Unfortunately, Lufthansa didn't operate to GCXO, but he offered me to do GCTS (Tenerife Sur). And now I was really pis.ed off. Only a flat runway and not even airport buildings, let alone other scenery. Ok, at least the Teide volcano was depicted, hardly more than FS 8 level - after all on the right side of the runway (actually on the left side - no pun intended 😆). I complained very loud, and the instructor told me, he can understand it very well, as also some of his trainees, refused to work with this piece of sh.t. and moved out backwards :😂. So I got my money back * and ... what's the end of the story? I booked the MD11 sim a second time - with the refund I got *. But why the heck??? Do I need to explain ...? Yeah ... I know, these stubborn X-Planer's who ignore the importance of GRAPHICS **, and insist on simulation ....

BTW: The PSX 747-400 simulator has no scenery at all by default, and thus it's a horrible simulator, which no one uses 😆. Right?

* Who really believed that? 🤣

** And please remember ... AGAIN ... I'm not saying (and never said), nice looking graphics are completely unnecessary, but ... you get the point?

Edited December 14, 2021 by uwespeed

[CarlosF 1,268]

3 minutes ago, uwespeed said:

The PSX 747-400 simulator has no scenery at all by default

I can agree to an extent, it is true that for IFR flights, graphics/eye candy is unnecessary to experience immersion, but for some including myself, also like low and slow VFR, so graphics/scenery/eyecandy is quite important. 

[jarmstro 2,419]

43 minutes ago, uwespeed said:

but ... you get the point?

No I don't really? I only use flight sims for fun in the same way as I play RDR2 and TW3. For fun.  I realise this makes me unworthy. But I am not silly enough to imagine that any PC flight sim in any way resembles real life. In fact I know they don't. Enduring the legalised torture of being taken up in my daughter in laws family P28 is quite enough. (Well one doesn't like to say no..)😀

Edited December 14, 2021 by jarmstro

[Bjoern 1,196]

3 hours ago, uwespeed said:

Indeed ... same for me. However and unfortunately, X-Plane doesn't distinguish between "normal" railroads and S-Bahn. I don't know whether in other countries we have a similar constellation and if Austin is aware of that. But I hope you still have fun with X-Plane 😊, even though it isn't a railroad simulator 🙃.

If the network data in terrain DSF supports expansion with a new type of road (all railways seem to be defined as roads in roads.net), it should theoretically be possible to define a separate type for suburban railways with separate objects.

Maybe I should install MSTS or Open Rails for a quick train sim fix...

[uwespeed 547]

 

3 hours ago, Bjoern said:

If the network data in terrain DSF supports expansion with a new type of road (all railways seem to be defined as roads in roads.net), it should theoretically be possible to define a separate type for suburban railways with separate objects.

Maybe I should install MSTS or Open Rails for a quick train sim fix...

Indeed, it might be possible. However, the overall effect would be quite small.

 

Quote

I realise this makes me unworthy.

Where did I write that? It's what you have read out of it. I only wrote and described, that "flying" (well, in a simulator) doesn't need nice graphics, if the immersion of the simulation is very good. However, if the graphics are nice, well ... it's (attention - pun) ... nice to have. I think, I have written it already once or even twice 😋.

Quote

But I am not silly enough to imagine that any PC flight sim in any way resembles real life. In fact I know they don't. Enduring the legalised torture of being taken up in my daughter in laws family P28 is quite enough. (Well one doesn't like to say no..)😀

Who has ever claimed that a desktop simulator depicts reality by 100%? Even the supercomputers which are calculating for the weather forecast don't.

 

Ok, if I would be asked (but no one asks me 🤪), what is important - or at least more important - for me in a flight simulator, please see below. Frankly, much I'm writing is still based on FSX, as I had it myself and know it quite well. However, I don't know for sure, how much of that still applies to MSFS 2020, but if anyone can tell me, please feel free. I'm not ign orant enough, to not learn something new.

1. Wake turbulences : XP : FSX - 1:0
2. Flaps get damaged at overspeed: XP : FSX - 1:0 (in total 2:0)
3. Birdstrikes : XP : FSX - 1:0 (in total 3:0). In FSX (and maybe MSFS 2020?) birds may be depicted visually but not simulated. Capt'n Sully would choose X-Plane 🦆 😃.
4. Microbursts : XP : FSX - 1:0 (in total 4:0)
5. Blackout through hypoxia : XP : FSX - 1:0 (in total 5:0)
6. Blackout/redout through high g-load: XP : FSX - 1:0 (in total 6:0)
7. Midair refueling :  XP : FSX - 1:0 (in total 7:0). Please also be aware of the wake turbulences here - and the redout at 18:08.
8. Knife-edge flying : XP : FSX - 1:0 (in total 8:0)
9. Seasons and weather effects. It was since ever said, XP has no seasons, whereas the competitor has. Wrong. WHAT? Ok, it's true, that XP visually hadn't seasons (at least not by default), but on the other hand it is SIMULATED. Oh no ... and yet again ... SIMULATION. That sux ...
   1. Accumulating ice on the wings in respective weather conditions. XP : FSX - 1:0 (in total 9:0)
   2. Runways: in X-Plane at temperatures below 0° C and rain, you get an icy runway with very low friction, i.e. the braking distance is much longer. Same applies for rain at above 0° C, however the braking distance is shorter. FSX has indeed depicted wet runways visually, but ... had even below 0° C a braking distance of maybe 10% longer than on dry runway (as far as I remember, in FS9 it was even no difference at all). Everyone who has driven a car on ice, knows the braking distance can be double or even three times longer.  XP : FSX - 1:0.2 (in total 10:0.2)

And there are even more, I will happily share, if someone asks.
That's what I call FLIGHT simulation. Yeah ... this stubborn insistence on simulation ... but ... photogrammetry et al ... If someone isn't so much interested in simulation of flight - fine, so be it. However, X-Planer's are.

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by uwespeed