If speaking about the 172, that’s more due to aircraft configuration than the base flight model. I forget the exact line off the top of my head but there’s a line in the flight_model.cfg that dynamically reduces elevator deflection down to a maximum of 51% depending on airspeed. When that value is adjust to 75% or higher you can hold it in a spin all the way to the ground.
Even so, I’m not unloading the wings by pushing the yoke forward, I have it fully back.
It does the same thing in the WBSim 172, so it may not be as simple as that. I don’t think I tested that in other planes, in either sim, so may be worth revisting.
It’s more the other way around. How will XP12 compete with MSFS.
4 Likes
That really gave me a chuckle. You clearly didn’t see the XP12 preview video where Austin talks about the XP helicopter flight model. It’s basically fudged. The much vaunted XP flight model doesn’t work with helicopters, and he said he has to “fudge” the flight model. His words, not mine.
1 Like
Ultimately they are competing for users. If they aren’t, then why are they settling to the public? Whether LR survive or not is not in question. The real question is will XP devs survive.
Would an XP dev. bother to create a product for XP11, as well as one for XP12? That’s one benefit that MSFS devs. have, a single platform to work with.
Who can say what will happen in 10+ years time, though. Will the sim look just as it does now in 10 years time. It’s doubtful. Whether they will develop a new sim to replace MSFS, or whether MSFS will continuously evolve I can’t say.
In 2016, the release of X-Plane 11 was a godsend for me, and has brought me back into flight simming. Back then all we had as a comparison really, was FSX which was 10 years old by that time, and which was probably still based on an engine that was a good couple of years older on top of that. Of course, there was P3D, but as far I was concerned, all P3D ever did was showcasing, that one can polish and optimize the old FSX code for years on end, without improving significantly on anything substantial like the physics, lightning, or the scenery render. Speaking of beating a dead horse…
I remember being hugely disappointed when P3D v2 came along, and abandoned ship then
Imho, jumping forward to 2022, the situation has quite simply flipped around. MSFS now is the sim with the modern engine and X-plane is showing its age. Unless LR decides to rewrite all the code for XP13, all improvements we’re going to see will be minor, just like have been the improvements of the numerous iterations of P3D over FSX over the years.
Given the mammoth task it seems to be to write a new engine from the ground up, and having seen, how long it took LR to make the switch to Vulcan/Metal, it just do not see it happen at all.
But for me personally, I’m not too concerned. In comparison to MSFS, I like the clarity of the textures in X-Plane, and the roads, signs, and road traffic are exceptionally well done. Specially around dusk and in the night time, the X-Plane world looks pulsating with live from above. Then PBR is there, volumetric clouds are there, seasons are being implemented now, believable water physics are there, and performance should hopefully improve during beta phase.
The VFR train has probably left the station, thanks to Microsofts utilization (and possibly acquisition) of Azure and blackshark.ai technology, and I do not see XP12 replacing MSFS as mainstream sim, like XP11 partly did with FSX/P3D, but XP is otherwise one immensely capable simulator, and hopefully LR can still carry this franchise forward, despite XP12 probably not ending up with the market share, that it may have been envisioned for by LR.
I for one may not participate in the XP12 beta right now, but will for sure buy once the program has reached a more mature state. I’m actually really looking forward to having two fantastic products to roam the virtual sky 
P.S As for the actual flying, they are both very very good imho. Speaking of the default 172, I could not fault either sim. Both XP and MSFS are realistic way beyond the level that I could point out flaws at. MSFS has very convincing simulation of the atmospheric air currents that XP (currently) still lacks, so to me the way the plane flies seems more natural in MSFS, while XP seems to be better optimized to perceive the plane moving through the air in one seamless fluid motion, so requires less FPS then MSFS for the perception of actually sitting in an aircraft flying.
8 Likes
XP11 was never good enough visually for me to drop FSX back then.
FSX still looks better than XP12.
7 Likes
No, I didn’t see it. Would love to though, do you have a link?
However, helicopter flight dynamics have been really good in XP for many years. I doubt helicopter flight dynamics will be great when helicopters are made available for MSFS in SU11. Time will tell, but most likely it will take several sim updates for the flight dynamics to be on par with XP or DCS as helicopter flight dynamics are complex. Luckily, we have AirlandFS in MSFS.
Btw, have you tried helicopters in XP12 or flown a helicopter in real life? It’s pretty challenging.
And yet it (the flight model for helis) is fudged, as per Austins own words - the MSFS flight model, as far as shown in the dev q&a’s, is not… 
I am very convinced that the flight model for helicopters in MSFS would be a leap ahead of XP, same i suspect for gliders and the modelling of the thermals …
Anyway, since I am a GA (low and slow) pilot I’ll stay happely with MSFS, since XP faar off in this case
1 Like
To me it seems logical that if pulling the yoke backwarts that speed reduced until stall which pull the plane in a spin, while keep on pulling back and the plane goes down as this result in picking up speed it will recover as effectiveness in elevator/lift will be increasing.
Now it can be that natural its just on how this blunt works this way on input and may change when assigned in flightmodel cocearned effectiveness.
So what im try to make clear is the our computer yoke or periphal imput is a dumb potentiometer which need programmed to behavior of this.
Assigned and or programmed in flight model compare to speed.
Sorry for my expression in english
I’ve flown them in XP11, but not IRL. I’ve been flying the HPG H145 since first beta, and flew the H135 freeware. The latest version of the HPG H145 for MFS is pretty good, considering there aren’t supported heli’s in MFS yet.
I don’t have a link to Austins comments. I’m pretty sure it was one of the FSElite pre-release interview series they did a few months ago.
Try it in both sims yourself, and see what happens.
2 Likes
Peak x-plane.org moment. The community leader, who I didn’t mention in my comment, decided to come out and make it clear there for everyone to hear that I criticized him here.
I believe this just proves that this thread is being closely watched by XP lovers. Some might be holding themselves to write a comment in defense of XP, but they know that their typical low-effort MSFS bashing, which would earn you a lot of positive reactions on the other forum, said here, if not deleted by the mods (and rightly so), it would get unpleasant replies for them, which they would basically have no way of counter it with arguments.
On my earlier comment about leaving X-Plane, I decided to give XP12 one more try. Let’s see if they are able to at least bring performance improvements, which I would even say is an area that deserves as much attention as scenery and graphics in my opinion, and for LR, an area that is easier to fix.
Flight Simulators have always been a niche. MSFS has done an excellent job of opening the frontiers of flight simulation to an audience beyond the niche and captivating people who never thought they would be interested in flight simulation. But compared to other games like CS:GO, MSFS numbers, while impressive for the niche, are still considerably below other genres and AAA titles.
4 Likes
Yet, it’s still pretty accurate (helicopter flight dynamics) and fully on par with DCS. We’ll soon find out about the helicopter dynamics in SU11. I don’t want to sound negative, but I highly doubt helicopters will be state of the art in their initial release in SU11. MSFS still has issues with fixed wing after 2 years of development, so I will be very surprised if that is indeed the case. Not to mention the lack of engine simulation and the completely flawed turboprop simulation. These are my biggest complaints with MSFS.
I’m an ex airline pilot, but now I mostly fly GA. What exactly is far off in XP regarding GA?
Even though MSFS has made huge progress in the flight dynamics area, it still has a long way to go in terms of ground and water physics, engine simulation etc. Hopefully Asobo will continue to improve on this.
With the following change made to the [FLIGHT TUNING] section of the default MSFS 172
elevator_maxangle_scalar = 0.75
instead of the default 0.51 you get the following results;
The problems encountered with spinning the default 172 is lack of elevator authority due to a configuration issue, not a physics engine issue.
Did that carry on all the way down to the ground? This is what happened to me. I honestly don’t remember whether this was the WBSim 172 or not.
Do you have a link to that thread where the community leader criticized you? I don’t really see posts at x-plane.org where they are watching this thread. If you are worried about sharing the link to the thread publicly, you can PM me the post/thread at x-plane.org. Thank you.
Edit: Oh, nevermind. I found it. LOL.
It’s a niche community, but a surprisingly large community and engaged. I’m not at all surprised about the behavior on the XP forums, as it’s quite clear they feel threatened from MSFS. They should use that energy to further improve their product rather than focusing on the competition.
To the ground or removal of pro spin control inputs, but only with the tweak included in the same post, otherwise the end result is the same as you’ve shown.
1 Like