You are about 6 years late, all Xplane does this, you miss the point of XP12 is xplane 11 with small addons, there is no need to justifie yourself using it with a laptop and repeat your post.
Just another things to make 3rd party developer go away from Xplane, you are comparing apple with candy, I don’t think you understand technologie, license and revenue for 3rd party.
Look at it this way. MSFS is just getting better over time and when it matures(2-3 years from now, hopefully less) there will be no reason for most people to use XP. I mean why would they?? The only thing supposedly keeping XP hanging on is that “FAA Certified” reputation, which in my opinion is just a marketing strategy they use to claim themselves as the ones with better flight physics. If you look up what it requires for sim to be FAA Certified, it talks about having steady fps and certain required hardware. So it’s not even, that it has to have the “realistic” flight modeling.
At the end, most of that realism has to be achieved by 3rd party devs when they make the planes. XP has many years of 3rd party devs bringing products to them and maybe that’s why most thought XP has better flight physics. It has nothing to do with XP themselves. If you fly a Cessna 172 in a vanilla XP, it flys like it’s on rails. At least in MSFS, there is some realistic representation when flying Cessna 172, and I can confirm that as I myself have my own PPL and fly the 172 occasionally.
So if MSFS has the visuals and has the best representation in flight physics, why would anybody want to use XP? And there lies the big dark cloud over all those devs you mentioned. If XP dies, so will they. Aerosoft, iniBuilds, PMDG, etc. understand this. They won’t admit it, but XP is done for.
XP needed to match MSFS visuals somehow and they failed at that.
XP is a sinking ship I’m afraid. I do appreciate all the great years I spent using XP and do hope they somehow give MSFS a challenge, but let’s be realistic, it doesn’t look like it.
And? Who cares? Get better cooling. GPU’s are designed to run at full capacity and will get hot. I don’t know what this obsession is with GPU temps in here.
It’s been my 50 plus years of experience that the cooler electrical components can be kept the longer they will last. I don’t think the physics have changed any since I worked in the electrical field, the hotter an electrical unit gets the higher the resistance goes, and it’s a vicious circle after that. A near vacuum is perfect for electrical things, but that is not cost effective. If your statement is correct, why cool any processor period.
Yes but not sure if that extra longevity is meaningfully relevant in today’s fast paced iteration cycle and efficient electronics design. Sure running at 70 degrees any make your CPU/GPU last for 25 years and running at 86 degrees may make it last for say 10-12 years. But does that matter? Are you going to use these for 25 years or even 10-12 years? Long before that you will probably upgrade to the latest CPU / GPU. That’s why it’s OK for CPU / GPUs to run near 90 degrees. Not that might make your room harder to keep cool and that’s a perfectly valid concern. But I don’t think the potential extra longevity is useful for most of the people.
Ground handling , ground handling, ground handling, MSFS has got to sort it out ASAP, it’s unacceptable at the current state. Once this is done, xp hasn’t got much else going for it.
Absolutely spot on, all what you said. XP diehards have been harping forever about the default aircraft in MSFS to try and equate their flight handling to the core capabilities of the MSFS aerodynamics engine (like you said however, the default C172 since SU9 is pretty darn good). XPers also parrot these sorts of absurdities since Austin himself does, where he tries to push the false narrative that MSFS is about visuals and “eye candy” while XP is about flight dynamics (which is ironic since in the last two years they’ve been desperately trying to improve the visuals with XP12 only to release this poor showing in their beta).
Once Asobo implements the planned improvements/rework of ground handling in MSFS then the entire range of taking off to flying to landing will be modelled properly… pair that with the advanced helicopter physics and CFD-based atmospheric airflow simulation coming in SU11, along with the high fidelity aircraft being added to the default fleet (i.e. iniBuilds A310), gliders, the next iterations of realistic aircraft from 3rd party devs like PMDG/Fenix/Milviz/iniBuilds/A2A/etc, the continuing sim+world updates from a relentless team at Asobo… ya great stuff to look forward to in MSFS during the rest of the year and beyond, while XP sadly not much at all.
Yup, agree with you. It will be interesting to see if XP 12 will follow the same trajectory as P3D v5.3. When P3D v5.3 was released, there was a brief surge in interest in P3D again, but over a few months, that interest died down, and eventually, most of the P3D v5.3 users moved on to MSFS. Now P3D is a ghost town for home consumers, very few people play it.
I get the feeling that XP 12 may also follow P3D v5.3. By next year, after MSFS has a few more Sim Updates and improves further, XP 12 may also become a ghost town. What a huge failure by LR.
I think you make good point, Squibby. Even if there are differences between the two Sims, the flight models of the 150/152 and 172 in both Xplane and MSFS feel plausible and correlate well with my IRL experiences in those planes.
I just watched this video on YouTube by easyjetsimpilot, who has a good reputation on YouTube. He is a real life pilot and has experience flying the Cessna 172 in real life. The overall takeaway I get from the video is that the 172 in MSFS flies slightly more realistic than the XP 12 version of the 172: https://youtu.be/ZzokcKkEyuE
This video really lowers the credibility of XP having a better flight model, if what easysjetsimpilot is saying is true. If MSFS has equal, or an even slightly better flight model than XP 12, there is no point to use XP 12, other than planes XP has that MSFS doesn’t have, because the graphics of XP 12 is from 2013/2014, and the geography of XP 12 looks nothing like MSFS when ortho isn’t used (and even when ortho is used, XP 12 scenery is still inferior because it doesn’t have photogrammetry and it doesn’t have proper 3D buildings and 3D houses generated by Blackshark AI).
I was hoping to see a reason to consider switching to XP when I looked through the YT videos today - but didn’t.
I’ve already invested too much in MSFS to make that kind of change unless XP had really just blown me away…and as much as I hope XP can remain a viable alternative civilian flight sim (anything can happen) I just didn’t see or hear anything to give me pause.
I mainly fly VFR so when I fly over familiar ground I want to see familiar ground.
And while XP will get better over time - MSFS continues to make improvements too, which should keep this platform ahead of that one for quite a while. At least for the type of flying I like to do.
The misconception about flight physics accurate representation on Desktop Flight Simulator platforms IMHO has been vastly overvalued and in many cases overplayed - cough, cough X-Plane forum circles. Their golden goose argument (superior flight model) has become laughable and they bring it up every single time MSFS is brought up to discussion.
In all honesty, the brutal truth is that the only place where you KIND OF experience real world fluid behavioural physics at this point is on a NASA based virtual sim platform (Ames Research Center facilities for eg).
Real life fluid dynamics parameters are extremely hard, near impossible, to be simulated by any home computer let alone run in a flight simulator with so many other variables, in real time. We are talking about fluid states that are bound by advanced differential equations (eg: Navier Stokes) by the second.
CFD software takes minutes to hours sometimes to mesh, render and calculate atmospheric fluid behavioural results that take place within the boundary layer (let alone further away) on specified conditions over bodies. This is the ONLY way you will be able to accurately approach a body’s behavioural characteristics and forces acting on it when going through a fluid.
Anything else used at our level is a very very rough approximation and in some cases yes it does come close to reality but in most cases it doesn’t. So you’re looking at very inconsistent results with most cases.That applies from games (yes games) like XP and MSFS to Level D type FAA rated Simulators with flight model data tables (acquired by CFD analysis, Wind tunnel data. Flight Testing data) from the manufacturer (Boeing, Airbus etc). This is why you have even professional type rated pilots with many hours arguing back and forth in both forums (MSFS, XP) about how realistic or not an X type aircraft is on one software or the other based on their experience.
That’s why Flight Sims of any level are used primarily as procedural Flight Training Devices (FTDs). Aircraft system representation and functionality is the paramount element of a flight training device. Obviously other parameters also come into play by FAA requirements: uninterrupted and reliable handling qualities, system architecture representation etc but when it comes to flight model accuracy nothing is “realistic” at any FTD level let alone desktop PC software/game.
So to all of those who are so fixated about the flight physics and proceed on trashing or praising a sim/game/software X (where “X” insert any product in question) about how accurate or not the flight model is to real life you are wasting your time and most importantly missing out the essence of why Flight Simulators in aviation training (not R&D sector) exist and the purpose they actually serve.
Note: having said that ground handling does need work on MSFS. Other than that the current flight model modifications coming with SU10 and SU11 will suffice to establish the platform’s “seriousness” and respect it deserves on that aspect in the community circles. Aircraft system representation is FAR MORE IMPORTANT but that is expected from Study Level aircraft coming by Third Party developers.
I doubt that is happening very often, if at all. This isn’t 1975, with the kid’s parents going to Sears to ask the sales clerk about what “new flight simulator” to buy for little Johnny (just to make the point; I know that flight sims weren’t available in 1975). Today, the kid himself just downloads the sim, though maybe with some cash provided by mom and dad.
Yup, although hopefully flight sticks and pedals is what they want for christmas
If you haven’t XP11 there is no reason to buy XP12. I tried free XP12 demo and VR is bugged. In 2D it have good improvements about graphics but not great if you have propers addons in XP11. MSFS is graphically better, VR works better and XP needs payware sceneries or Ortho4XP in areas you fly.
MSFS will get helicopters and its flight model will be fixed. I will buy XP12 because I have XP11 addons but if you start zero I recommend MSFS. Maybe if you want some special airplane which is not modeled good in MSFS then you should choose XP12.
Stay off of r/flightsim for a while.
It’s an absolute warzone right now. 
They’re literally making memes of the Sim War of 2022.
I’ll just stick to here and r/MicrosoftFlightSim.
Only real pilots can decide if the representation of flight physics in one sim or the other is accurate, nobody else has any frame of reference and therefore their opinion has no value whatsoever.
No worries. The world is certainly big enough for two flight sims.
Have you tried spins recently?
I agree with you on ground handling. That feels much nicer in XP.
I don’t really use Reddit, but it made for interesting reading. I liked the Vancouver comparison.
That is a very narrow view. Real pilots can judge based on the feel and behavioural feedback of the flight characteristics but the majority of them no nothing about the inner workings of aerodynamics, aeroelasticity and general fluid mechanics principles; unless they also majored in Aeronautical Engineering. Therefore they are unable to explain the reasons behind why the flight model “doesn’t feel” as they know it from real life experience.
So since the flight model in all the desktop PC products is determined by a very approximate, and not detail enough, method the inconsistencies of what feels real and what doesn’t are many. And that is clearly reflected by real pilots’ feedback in both XP and MSFS forums where their opinion many times, about a specific aircraft they know well (usually Cessna 152,172), differs.