Correct, so, when I see objects popping in at the last minute regardless of having high LOD set, along with morphing terrain (yes, it’s still there), stuttering caused by the server, planes upside down then it becomes a long list of pretending ‘I didn’t see that’. That is not convincing my brain. More, the opposite, and the end result is I just turn it off.
Flightsim for me at least is in a state of limbo. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if we could take the pro’s from XP12 and FS24, then we would almost have the perfect simulator. At the moment, gotta put up with big negatives on each one, which in turn just makes me turn it off. Limbo.
Oh, I do not deny that MSFS 2024 has a lot of bugs to fix and many fine tunings to do with this cutting edge technology.
The simulator’s engine tech is the way to go, controlling it + the layers of contents vs all the wide ranges of PC setups (hardware + software in background + Win settings etc etc), is climbing the Everest.
To make such a sim polished including all the layers of contents etc. would take forever to release vs budget and all the things we know about software dev obviously…
I love X Plane 11. Probably I got very burnout with FSX back then. But now, I really want to like X Plane 12, but the scenery is just plain. The helicopter options are scarce.
@jukebwah , I, MarianaTrain42, and various others have presented various facts on why MSFS 2024 is a better flight simulator than XP 12 though in the last few days. You talk about foundation, but over the last several days, we just talked about:
We discussed the ground physics and jukebwah noted XP 12 is using “fake bumps” for the entire world. You said custom scenery can fix this problem. I then presented a video of MSFS 2024’s tesselated ground world wide, and some of the larger rocks that is procedurally placed by AI can impact a plane as it runs over the rock: MSFS2024 versus x-Plane - #184 by gadwin777. MSFS 2024 doesn’t require custom scenery to overcome the deficiency of XP 12 using “fake bumps,” you can spawn in anywhere in the entire world of MSFS 2024 and large rocks can affect the plane if it runs over the rock.
MarianaTrain42 talks about how MSFS 2024 has better turbulence and I respond that MSFS is simulating air flow up to 20 KM around the plane: MSFS2024 versus x-Plane - #216 by gadwin777.
These are all facts related to flight simulation which you seem to ignore when you claim XP 12 has a better foundation for a flight simulator, which it clearly doesn’t.
Precise control of visibility / RVR for simulation of low visibility operations.
Flight analysis tool to check route, altitude, speeds flow. When I was a student this was crucial to determine how accurate my holdings, intercepts and reversals were.
Proper flight lessons instead of these mickey mouse tutorials.
Maybe a more true to live career mode, the current implementation doesn’t get me excited.
Most of the above was available in FS9 (and before). I don’t know if Xplane has these functionalities. These are elemental for any simulator to have (minus the career mode), if the MSobo team has been serious about the simulation aspect they would have implemented this by now.
Home flight simulators are very usefull as procedure trainers if all the functionality is there, as a procedure trainer, graphics are really not important. The flight model has come to a point that it really doesn’t matter anymore, sitting behind your desk with a spring centered joystick is not realistically going to represent flight anyway.
Even Level D Full Flight Simulators are far from the real thing, so the flight model discussion is really not relevant. It does roughly what it should do, that is all that matters.
No idea how Xplane handles these things, just chiming in to make clear that from a professional point of view, pretty graphics, rocks and sticks on the ground is not all that counts.
If it’s such a great sim how come you seem to spend your life defending it on multiple forums instead of playing it?
I prefer X-Plane, in fact I much prefer it - and I’ll continue to enjoy it consistently instead of hoping I get a satisfactory experience (read: textures loading) when I land after a couple of hours’ flight. That’s the thing - MSFS sounds great on paper but the reality is very different.
Look around the forums - you’re defending an appalling product. Enjoy.
I could say the same of you trying to denigrate MSFS and defending XP.
Not sure why you spend so much time in the MSFS forums here trying to convince people XP is better than MSFS.
Yes, we know MSFS 2024 has a lot of bugs. Especially Career Mode has a lot of bugs, nobody is denying it.
But MSFS 2024 has some of the most advanced features of a flight simulator, despite all the bugs. Maybe if you were more honest and realistic in your comments, it would be helpful.
Saying MSFS 2024 has a lot of bugs, few would dispute that. Saying MSFS 2024 is too dependent on the cloud and having a good internet connection, that’s also a valid point. Saying XP 12 is a better flight simualtor than MSFS 2024 because of flight dynamics, ground physics, and simulation of air flow - well, that’s debatable.
Downloaded XPlane 11 yesterday, and it works. (XPlane 12 doesn’t support Intel Arc cards, despite them more than meeting the minimum spec - Vulcan 1.3, and way more than enough vram).
First impressions:
Plus - Loads faster than fs2020
Minus - Doesn’t support more than one controller per named device (I have 2 yokes and 2 rudder pedals, and 3 throttle quadrants … sigh)
Plus - Very high frame rate = no lagginess whatsoever
Plus - Normal amount and size of trees
No doubt if I were to put some time into it, I could get it to run better with add-ins for more detailed scenery, etc. But until I either swap out my two Arcs for a supported video card (maybe in 2026 or 2927), or XPlane 12 supports Intel graphics, I’ll just run 2020 into the ground. Too bad because it’s much snappier.
XP is a better flight simulator for me because it works 100% right now. Everything it promised, it has delivered. I like that. I look forward to further improvements to make my experience even better.
You can wine and dine me with fancy rocks, 3d twigs and the occasional deer but if I get to the end of a 2+ hours flight feeling dissatisfied because some weird cloud issue has cost me a decent flight experience then it’s all for nothing.
Oh - and I’m here because I spent my money on MSFS and I’m questioning why I have such an inferior product to what I was promised, and why it doesn’t yet measure up for me against a simulator which is “supposedly” a generation behind.
If all of the features that were promised were available, working and as good as they were promised they would be there would be no debate (and actually what I was hoping for prior to 2024’s release).
That’s nice that you enjoy XP 12. And as I mentioned, XP 12 is 15 years behind MSFS 2024 in certain aspects. I don’t want to wait for XP 12 to catch up to MSFS 2024 because I have confidence the MSFS team will fix most of the major bugs within one year’s time (but there will always be bugs for MSFS 2024, just like there was for MSFS 2020).
I want the best civilian flight simulator that I can get in 2024 and MSFS 2024 is closest to that, even with all the bugs. If XP 12 was the best civilian flight simulator I could get in 2024, I would get that instead but it’s not.
So if you present facts in this forum which can be contradicted and pushed back on, expect the push back (ie. your video and discussion about the ground physics, expect push back on that).
Even if it runs at half the current speed, it’s way faster than fs2020. And that’s the point. You no longer need to spend for the latest and greatest PC to run a flight simulator.
“15 years” sounds like something you’re pulling out of your backside to push your narrative, I have to say. Just like your expectation that the bugs will be fixed - you mean like the ones still outstanding in 2020?
Based on your post, I gather you’re not an X-Plane customer? If that’s the case, you’re simply wasting my time as well as your own.
If you present facts which can be contradicted in this thread, I think it’s our duty to contradict them so people reading this come away with a better understanding and a more accurate understanding.
15 years is about right, especially the graphics. Did you see the video that was posted that compared default MSFS 2024 to default XP 12?
Again, this video was posted already in this thread but you conveniently ignored it. XP 12 is still using polygonal and hard edges for shorelines. That island looks like a perfect triangle at 8:03. Compare that triangle island to the island in MSFS 2024. And there is another good example at 7:06 as well as other timestamps in that video.
That’s 15 years in my books, when islands look like a perfect triangle and shorelines have hard polygonal edges. It’s default scenery to default scenery, so it’s a fair comparison.
Now when it comes to MSFS 2024 and X-Plane 12 MSFS 2024 runs much better. Heck while I no longer use it when I was playing on a 49" 5120x1440p @ 240Hz monitor my RTX 3070 just wasn’t enough for X-Plane 12 while it was fine in MSFS. Performance was atrocious in X-Plane 12.
Again with the graphics - you’re conveniently ignoring the fact that a) they don’t work consistently well, and b) graphical fidelity isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of what makes a satisfactory experience. If it were, of course MSFS would “win”.
In any case, I see little point in continuing this discussion. We are obviously two sides of the same coin. Have a good evening
And again, you conveniently ignored everything I discussed in the last few days, besides graphics. I discussed flight dynamics, ground physics, and air flow simulation.
When you can fly a cessna right behind a heavy and not experience any turbulence, the claim of computational fluid dynamics in a digital twin is just marketing puffery.
What you’re getting is a simplification of an approximation of a poor limited model.
