Agreed, I think XP 12 is going to have a solid customer base in the future of people that:
Have invested a lot in hardware/cockpits and 3rd party titles, and it works today. That stuff is not inexpensive and XP-11 is a good platform for it imho. The retail on the FlightFactor 757 is $99, and you’re not going to get a decent 737-600 for $30 on that side of the island.
Those that have bad bandwidth or just don’t agree with the concept of a connected app. I think it’s a completely valid argument for them, and XP is going to be the best bet for that way forward I think.
‘David & Goliath’ tribal team stuff, as Laminar are clearly flight sim fans and Microsoft has had a pretty rocky track history over the last 40 years with the FS series (e.g. ‘Microsoft Flight’ and all that has been sort of pushed into the cupboard under the stairs). It’s fun to root for the little guy, and the world would be a lesser place with just a single flight sim franchise doing well.
The moats of helicoptors, ortho scenery, tubeliners is hard to defend over time, so the people that love XP-11 are probably solid customers of XP-12.
I’m sure the aircraft will be excellent. However that’s not really the point I was trying to make. My observation was regarding the accessibility of the different Sims, and the fact that for better or worse, one is limited to one platform, whereas the other is available to significantly larger potential user base spread across multiple platforms. Put it another way - the planes in XP12 may indeed be excellent but it doesn’t change the fact that you’d need a pretty beefy PC to use them. MSFS on the other hand can be used on a £250 Xbox, a £500 Xbox and many other probable devices via cloud gaming.
Several things I notice with that video. Firstly the water masking around the coast is a hell of a lot better than what I have in MSFS. Secondly the turbine animation is a lot smoother. And I have that scenery. You can follow vehicles on motorways for many miles with helicopters in XP11 and they move at realistic speeds in realistic ways, road vehicles are a total joke in MSFS by contrast. XP does have something to offer and lessons to teach Asobo/MS on how to do coasts and road traffic at the very least.
It does look good, but that’s a $28 scenery add-on that covers 42,000 square miles and takes 130 GB of install space - just for a slice of the UK. With those ratios (a semi-ridiculous argument, but you get where I’m coming from), the equivalent coverage of MSFS would cost $131,266 and take 609,452 GB of disk space.
I just what i try to say, both sims has good and bad things.
But there are members on this forum how only want to see MSFS as the holy grail.
Yes, MSFS is good on a lot of points, but there also are a lot of thing not so good.
I have a triple monitor configuration and in X-plane it much better to set it up then in MSFS.
Therefore i fly with both sims and enjoy the good things they have to offer.
I think the X-Plane market is sort of becoming similar to luxury goods, where people want to correlate a higher price with high quality, so that paying more is expected if you want to feel you are getting ‘the best’. It’s like a wrist watch that costs $50 to make, but if you pay $50,000 for it then you can show other people you like to buy quality things.
Seriously though, you are correct that a lot of the TrueEarth MSFS range is more about object placement rather than all the texture stuff that had to do for XP (I own it with XP-11, it’s very good but I dislike filling up my disks with ortho scenery, and don’t miss that).
My thoughts that it’s not a good comparison in terms of value or coverage with MSFS still sort of stands though? Yes XP-11 can be made to look good, but it’s always worth pointing out the costs and flexibility of that sometimes. I don’t think XP-12 will be a lot different.
A very good 737-800 for X-plane is for free (B737-800X (ZIBO mod).
Also for MSFS there is a good Airbus A320 from Fly by Wire.
Lots of scenery’s can be find for free on X-plane and i both the hole of GB on sale for 69 euro.
PMDG for MSFS cost me 60 euro’s.
If I had spent hundreds of thousands of hours building a cockpit for a particular plane (like the Zibo 737 or HotStart TBM for example) and have it 100% functional and it all works beautifully, there’s no reason to make the switch. Porting stuff over to MSFS would be a fool’s errand IMHO. Ditto for folks with thousands invested in ortho, scenery, planes, etc. They want to continue using what they have.
When it comes to online functionality, also completely valid. We’ve already seen tons of complaints about people with very slow / unreliable Internet connections complain about how bad MSFS is without that functionality. And I agree. XP would probably be a be a better offline experience.
The tribalism though is hard to understand. I hear many people - including 3rd party XP devs - who talk about MSFS as if it was still in the same state is was at launch. As good as MSFS may have looked at launch, it was buggier than week old roadkill on a Texas highway. And the SDK was horrible, and was for the entire first year after launch. Anyone who claims otherwise had needs to remove their heads from the sanctuary of their anuses. And these “XP is KING, Austin is GOD” folks still speak of it as if it was still in that same shape it was at launch. These people are to flight simming what flat-Earthers are to science.
XP12 and MSFS are 2 different product simulators aimed at different people. I believe they are not here to compete. The Flight models in XP11 and probably 12 are really good compared to MSFS which i still think needs some tweaking.
Like i stated XP and MSFS are not in the market to compete. I honestly hoping that both coexist so there are two options for people to enjoy. Also that we get good airplane devs onboard to make great realistic aircraft for MSFS
As well as just pure internet speed or reliability, it’s also a bit of a chasm of thinking in terms of how dependent on online services they want their sim to be. It’s a big set of various trade-offs that many people just don’t like. You want scenery streaming, detailed cities, easy multiplayer, complex online weather, real-world traffic? Well then, welcome to ‘your sim is now going to update regardless of your feelings’. . Having a DVD and deciding to patch it later when you’re good and ready is a selling point in a way. MSFS has lots of upsides in terms of what the connectivity brings, but it is always going to infuriate those that haven’t accepted the downsides.
Conversely, the X-Plane business model and way of updating, with having to rebuy the sim every 5 or so years and then breaking some 3rd party compatibility isn’t ideal either. The thing with XP that people will always love compared to MSFS is the feeling of being more in control of what’s going on. The benefits of the online stuff won’t ever outweigh that for them.
Austin has said he isn’t competing with MSFS and does not want to. X-Plane is going its own way. For the moment it will keep the audience it has, and will move in either direction I guess.
Agreed. I’m sure he’d LIKE to. When XP was really the only game in town since the demise of FSX, he was getting all the sim dollars. As much as he won’t admit it, MSFS likely hurt his bottom line significantly and will continue to do so as MSFS matures and more people migrate. He likely won’t see a huge dip in sales on XP12, but moving forward, he’s going to have to come to terms with his labour of love being second place in the hearts and minds of all but the most hardcore simmers. And not to disparage him, but he’s got a bit of an ego. And that’s going to sting the most.
Well a small team cant compete with a multi billion tech company, but I think you missed my point. Also he is no rush to release, most of X-Planes money comes from real world usage/testing/flight schools and some simulators etc. I think the home sim part is just extra. I think even if he stopped selling it to the masses he would still personally do well out of it.
His passion and long winded ramblings show where his passion is at, and that just isn’t graphics, the XP community have begged him for things like bing maps, even as an additional sub via google etc but he is not interested in even asking.
I think your comment a little disingenuous because ultimately there is much X-Plane has that MSFS could benefit from and vise versa.
But hey ho be tribal. I know I have been in the past
This forum is to discuss MSFS. We have allowed this topic to be discussed. However, some posts are strictly about Xplane only with link, photos and videos. These posts will be deleted as well as any that attack other members.
If this cannot be followed and be civilized, this topic will close.
. Having a DVD and deciding to patch it later when you’re good and ready is a selling point in a way. MSFS has lots of upsides in terms of what the connectivity brings, but it is always going to infuriate those that haven’t accepted the downsides.