Thank you a man with sense. Austin may be passionate but he’s very delusional when it comes to actual flying. You’re hardly going to find simmers who don’t care about or who isn’t focused on scenery. If that wasn’t a high topic then what’s the hype with photorealistic scenery. A lot of the times flight simmers like to fly to different destinations not only for the airports and approaches but mainly because of scenery. It’s why MSFS has become so popular and amazing because it’s a nice flight sim with beautiful stunning scenery all that only above 5k feet garbage is ridiculous. Pros and cons to every sim but plane is in nowhere near a complete or best sim according to Austin. Xplane doesn’t deliver on weather , scenery , etc. flight model is different doesn’t make it better. When most people fly they don’t go heads down into the aircraft until cruise as he explains ridiculous.
@@ronaldjames for me, generic roads/rivers accurate with real map, and size&placement of generic towns/cities/viligages (can be even based on light pollution maps) and add to that generic for every type of object from VFR charts. Is needed minimum. If that will be in xPlane i will tell that MSFS is not needed anymore. for me xPlane is a training device and MSFS is simulation GAME. training device don't need beautiful graphics, but must help in training, xplane is not yet for VFR cross country unfortunately.
My advice to all flight simmers - who can do it - is to book an introductory flight at your nearest flight school, because that real world experience will forever change your ideas about simulator flying forever. And if you can afford to follow that up with 1 or 2 more instruction flights, your ideas about how a flight sim should "feel" will be based on your own real world experiences.
If you fly General Aviation aircraft ,and fly visually ,Scenery is important Austin. X-Plane is a good simulator ,and hopefully scenery will improve in the near future
I must also say it was a great interview and it's quite obvious he is passionate of what he is doing. What I kind of missed was perhaps his views on the future and his views on Microsoft's enormous focus on scenery graphics in the upcoming flight-simulator 2024. Well, he does explain, quite beautifully, I might ad, what X-Plane is and why great sceneries aren't necessarily what makes a good flight-simulator. As mentioned in comments below, better scenery graphics might be appeal to more people but it also attract more newcomers to the flight-simulator scene in general, which could benefit X-Plane as well. On the downside I fear the day that the physics in Microsoft's flight-simulator are on par with X-Plane. What will he do then? What I also don't really understand is why there haft to be "two directions". Why good graphics sort of excludes good physics and vice versa. To me this just sounds like every software developer's dilemma. Another thing I find frustration is the system with library files. I mean, It's great to have a base for a community with a lot of third party plugins and add-ons, but why can't X-Plane be a more complete product when released? Like include the best library files from the start or something or as ONE optional package? I don't know.
Terrific interview, well done Dom. As an XP newbie, a little more than a year in, what sold me was the ethos, the idea you can build your own worlds with WED and some 3D modelling. Also, hated the idea of giving Microsoft control over my machine and privacy with its instrusiveness. Sounds like some great stuff to come, too.
Thank you Austin for everything you do. I love how the general aviation planes fly in X-Plane 12. Yes, the X-Plane 12 flight model is amazing! As a Private Pilot, it is not about flying over someone's house though. I fly VFR, it is important for how I navigate to where I am going. I think you need to remember back to when you first got your private pilot license. I want to look out the plane and validate where I am. I did my first cross country in MSFS 2020 and then did it for real. Through pilotage I found the same markers in real life as in MS FS 2020, wind farms, lakes, railroad tracks, roads, etc. along the way and I would love to have that in X-Plane 12. I hope you partner with Orbx more, Google or figure out a way to get more accurate scenery. I believe you are underestimating how much your install base really wants a better solution. Realistic flight model and better scenery knocks your flight simulator out of the park!
Generating a plausible world without the hassle with satellite imagery is the way to go in my opinion. But it can be done in many ways. I wonder if Austin has ever taken any closer look at any of the procedural planetary rendering engines out there, like Outerra or even better, Unreal. It would be really interesting to hear his thoughts about it.
The best part is 12:22 when Austin reveals how programmers design their games for the hardware we use. It explains the thinking behind the "minimum" and "recommended" system requirements. When people complain that, for example, a 4080 can't even render 60fps in Alan Wake at 4K, they should be blaming the game-maker instead of Nvidia. That's how Alan Wake was designed -- to run at its highest settings with the top hardware, which is, in this case a 4090.
Airbus planes doing rolls like an aerobatic aircraft in MSFS? Is he talking about the default A/C or the study level ones from big A/C developers? It's hopeless? I wonder what PMDG and the likes would think about such an assertion. Also... MSFS looking good only above 5000ft? Not what I see on livestreams you know, I have my own eyes... And what it is with the OSM based autogen in XP? I thought simHeaven X-sceneries were the ones correctly placing structures based on real location to correct the bad autogen in XP? What he is saying exactly? Isn't MSFS blackshark autogen doing the same thing as simHeaven as well, on the fly, based on orthophoto, using the Azure ML/AI? Also, why send Swiss001 to FS-Expo instead of going himself or sending Supnik? Is he somehow employed by Laminar research now? A lot of his 700k subscribers are preteens without buying power. Strange marketing. Why not ask someone like Flightdeck2sim for example? Yeah, whatever, people use what they want, it's fine, but Meyer sounds dismissive and disingenuous sometimes...
Not a Pilot, but there is something about X-plane that I like. Have Both MSFS and X-plane but I seem to use X-plane more. Thank Austin for your passion.
If you can swing it, even one introductory flight at a GA flight school will deepen your appreciation for X-Plane 11, or 12. Put in 1 or 2 hours more time in the right seat, and your perceptions of flight simming will be changed forever.
Thanks a lot for this emotional video !! Tried MSFS for a couple of hours coudn't stand it so went back to X plane again that I like so much since I switched from P3D.
@@andrewjamez I tried it again last week after the newest update. It’s still disappointing and my XP12 with Autoortho looks better (less blurry and building up textures) above 2000ft. The lighting is better, the flightmodel anyway. And the camera interactions must more convenient. And replay, tower-view etc.
It would be fantastic if , before worrying about roads , they would get the cockpit transmissive instruments to be readable. After all it is a flight simulator . I understand the new lighting model but this does not cater for PFD/MFD/GPS transmissive instrument of 1200 NITS and up .
I've listened to Austin's vision a couple of times and what he says from 27:02 is in line with my expectations. I have both FS2020 and XP12, and I always go with XP12. True the graphics are not as pretty as FS2020 but overall, I love the way the planes feel, the winds affecting the plane, here and there great dramatic clouds and atmospheric environment, the avionics. Also the interface is efficient. Wish there could be better flight planning, perhaps integration with Navigraph and a good EFB, and of course better ATC. Hope it keeps on getting better !
A very interesting (and entertaining !) video from Austin. I'm not an xPlane Fanboy, and I'm certainly not an MsFS Fanboy, but I enjoy using both on my expensive hardware setup (moving platform, force feedback yoke, VR etc.), which is thankfully ideal for both sims. xPlane definitely has more "feel" to it, with many flight dynamics subtleties that are absent from MsFS. I find the default scenery in xPlane is still awful, but is so easy to fix with high res Ortho4xp and now even AutoOrtho. Flying over "naked" satellite imagery at 2000ft and above is far more realistic than MsFS's autogen of houses and trees, which are so often quite inappropriate. Churches become multi storey offices, Pig Barns are drawn as apartment blocks, and solar energy fields become rows of miniature terraced houses !! Whereas with xPlane and res 18 Ortho, I can not only see my own house, but even the damn shed in the back garden and my car on the driveway. That sort of accuracy is vital in VFR and makes sim flying over any real world familiar areas so much more immersive. For me it makes xPlane's visuals better than MsFS, the only downside being that you had to download ans store the Ortho, though my early experiences with AutoOrtho so far have been highly successful, downloading it in realtime, just like MsFS.....
I fully agree about the approach in generating the world from raw data rather than satellite images. Like Austin said satellite images are a frozen in time state of the surface that only looks good from very far away. The difference between XP11 and XP12 is colossal in the quality of the generated environment. Now in XP12 the quality of the default airports is good enough that I don't want to look for some packages on the Internet. Terrain quality is also a huge leap forward. Volumetric clouds already look very good. This is the only simulator that natively supports Linux which to me personally is a huge plus.
i agree about the default airport quality in XP12. most airports are VASTLY better than MSFS defaults (aside from MSFS's hand-crafted ones obviously). for MSFS you basically MUST seek out airport packages, in XP12 it feels much more optional.
At least satellite/ ortho scenery is an actuall version of the world even if it is a few years old. A fake tiled scenery will never represent a real world ever. Take your pick
I am a retired airline captain(ATP) and have lots of sim time. IMHO, the biggest disappointment of these sims is the lack of realistic haptic interaction with the aircraft controls. Using keyboards and VR laser pointers just doesn't get it. I get it that scenery sells to the unexperienced pilot, but you will sell a LOT more to serious plots with serious $$ if you focus more on this and get it done.
I never use the laser pointer. Rarely the keyboard too. There’s hardware w/software that shows your hands quite well too. Put that on a motion platform and you’re set. For haptic feedback, there are yokes…
So, I'll be honest, when MSFS first came out it felt great, but the wow factor soon wore off as I realized most of the advantage over XP was visual. I went back to XP11 for a couple of years, then went back to MSFS to be pleasantly surprised that the flight model seemed to have improved somewhat, along with performance improvements for the sim. XP12 was really rough around the edges when it first came out so I stuck with MSFS for a bit. But now? I feel that XP12 has matured (and is continuing to mature) VERY nicely, and the flight model is waaayyyyyy better than MSFS. The interviewer rightly referenced the jets, which I find to be particularly very different between the two sims. As if they have a lot more weight in XP12, as they should. For example, the way you can just snap the nose wheel to full deflection when taxiing a large jet in MSFS really grinds my gears. This doesn't seem to be the case with at least the majority of jets in XP12. I also find XP12 is catching up in the visuals department. I think the only thing MSFS has on XP12 is the scenery out of the box and, at this point, an easier to use and slightly less buggy. default ATC system. I also cannot be grateful enough to have autoortho - WHAT A GAME CHANGER. MSFS really spoiled me with the need to have good scenery EVERYWHERE I fly. Not practical with ortho4xp given the disk space usage. The most disappointing part about this (might be the best part depending on how you look at it) is that due to the novelty of MSFS, and I guess it's relative simplicity and "accessibility", a lot of new and novice simmers are drawn to it and therefore the market is larger - leading to many developers switching to solely developing to MSFS. Oh, not to mention, it's also available on xbox. Thankfully there are a lot of great products that were developed for XP11 that could have been ported to XP12 without as much effort as it would take to develop a whole new product. All in all, I think MSFS is good for the general user, casual simmer. X-plane is for the purist. I've almost completely ditched MSFS for the past couple months now given the current state of XP12 and the products for it. I'm very much looking forward to what Austin and Laminar have in store. Thanks very much for this sim.
Google earth is a cheaper, easier, more accurate way to look at your house or landmarks. You don’t need a flight sim for that, but if you want to actually learn something about flight dynamics and aircraft systems then x-plane really simulates flight much better.
we need both sims...easy as that...my wish is actually..please msfs make the flighdynamcis superb so i can enjoy those views with planes tha flies like the real thing, or i hope x plane make the scenery nice so i can enjoy this flight feel along with great scenery
I love Xplane since version 10 and I’ll ever use it. If i had one wish: Make Xplane look like MSFS and you’ll be god! Just a wish, i know this is never going to happen. I’ll stay with my Xplane and sometime go sightseeing with MSFS
Just updated X-Plane 12 to the latest version 06 and what a disappointment. I was under the impression 06 was to take care of lighting issues, The instrument panel is so dark on the Cessna 172 it's unusable. Talk about flying in the dark on a VFR day. Ever try changing the comm frequency from standby to active, it doesn't work. I've been waiting for the past 7 months for these issues to be corrected. A BIG disappointment Mr Myer.
I mainly fly GA planes and Heli's, low and slow, VFR, in VR (Vive Pro1 and Quest Pro with a i913900k/rtx4090 PC). Sorry but the current stock scenery in xp12 is terrible imho. Even xp11 looks better in many areas like NYC and Las Vegas. While I'm confident that xp12 will continue to improve, it's not currently one of my favorite flight sims. MSFS is much nicer to use right now, for me anyway. My current sim usage is roughly 75% MSFS, 20% xp11, and 5% xp12. Hopefully those usage numbers will shift towards xp12 more over the next 6-12 months. Time will tell I guess.
i think a big thing which would improve flight simulation is a few years would be a more adanced physical wear and tear simulation , ie in wood aircraft you could tear of damage the canopy , snapping a wing off , tire explosions , parts that breack of fall off the airctaft , having do maintance , deciding wheather or to fly a knackered old piper , all defaut built into the sim.Some parts of the interview were intertresting, however slot of questions we asked on oeg forum were never put foward.
I love X Plane. I believe it's better than it's direct competitor especially when combined with Autoortho, but I don't think there will be X Plane 14, sorry. No matter how good simulation is it doesn't matter if there are no airplanes to fly. What Aerobask does is simply not enough.
nVidia took almost 6 months to fix a CTD (crash to desktop) bug in MSFS. NVidia is only good in this sad world where AMD and nVidia are the only game in town.
I don't care what he says, although not anywhere close to perfection just like his xplane flight physics isn't, MSFS AI satellite scenery is super impressive. Now if they can become friends and find a way to marry his xplane flight physics with MSFS scenery, that would be golden. Especially in VR. One thing xplane can add now is more life in flight, micro turbulence and more wing vibrations.
He’s just butt hurt yet xplane looks like garbage , default plane is trash. Most people don’t be flying around looking for their house on approach default MSFS is the most beautiful especially with lighting weather etc. xplane is trash outside of some aircraft physics implementation such as the tire contact physics other than that I’d never be flying xplane as a main sim no way
It would be the best flight simulator ever made, unable to be outmatched and no one could compete. X-Plane's science and MSFS's visuals. Shame it won't happen.
hey i got harsh on xplane lately and maybe i am sorry a bit because now you can say XPLANE IS NOT CLOUD BASED AND YOU CAN INSTALL AND PLAY IT RIGHT NOW omg the 2024 launch is HORRIBLE lol. sales of xplane12 is gonna go up 3000 percent now lol ;-) sighs
This guy should be a windows salesman. speaks a a lot but not much substance. reminds me of no mans sky, no updates no nothing.. just videos with a lot of chit chat
and yet he was able to build a company with 25+ employees and products used by millions around the world, in spite of having large competitors like Microsoft. What have you accomplished ?
@@x-plane me? iv spent my time working in deep coal mines at depths of 1700 feet but that's is not relevant is it? what frustrates me and others who have commented on this is the hype videos and A aircraft carrier? what's all that about? there are literally thousands of people who cannot play the sim because its either a Stuttering visual mess of jagged lines ( especially in VR ) or they cannot see the gauges from the lighting. this should of all been sorted out before they said it was out of beta and that's I made my post. there are thousands of posts on this topic and they post A AIRCRAFT CARRIER? lol .. you can see the comments from the community, they was not impressed with that post.
@@russflyin Then, I am sure you have a special appreciation for the hard work of others. Sad that on the internet, civility is so quickly replaced by personal insults.
@@x-plane i'm old school, I call it how i see it. if I brought a item from a store and it was not as described or it was misleading me into buying it as finished product when it wasn't id give them a ear full to..
DID HE JUST SAY C++ ??? I'm from the Apple2 days in the 80s, and I've seen hardware and software evolve into VR today. I've followed all the Flight sims since, Xplane always on my drives, taking up all my BYTES. I have always wanted to help programmers and users get the results, as a beta tester, since some users cannot communicate with developers effectively. When Austin says 'C', you lose a big portion of users who are like SEE-WHAT?
I make my own photoreal satellite data without the roads included at very high detail down to hundreds of feet. Feel free to reach out and I’ll show ya. ❤️
Could you let me present you two "easy" pleaonasms without sterile polemic: First one: Xplane 12/Flight Simulator Second one: MSFS2020/Arcade Stuff Easy and lazy, right?... I know but behind the curtain it means a lot... just saying Keep it up Austin/Laminar, thank you, you got it! ;-)
scenery is not for looking into your house but to navigate in VFR flights.
Thank you a man with sense. Austin may be passionate but he’s very delusional when it comes to actual flying. You’re hardly going to find simmers who don’t care about or who isn’t focused on scenery. If that wasn’t a high topic then what’s the hype with photorealistic scenery. A lot of the times flight simmers like to fly to different destinations not only for the airports and approaches but mainly because of scenery. It’s why MSFS has become so popular and amazing because it’s a nice flight sim with beautiful stunning scenery all that only above 5k feet garbage is ridiculous. Pros and cons to every sim but plane is in nowhere near a complete or best sim according to Austin. Xplane doesn’t deliver on weather , scenery , etc. flight model is different doesn’t make it better. When most people fly they don’t go heads down into the aircraft until cruise as he explains ridiculous.
@@ronaldjames for me, generic roads/rivers accurate with real map,
and size&placement of generic towns/cities/viligages (can be even based on light pollution maps)
and add to that generic for every type of object from VFR charts. Is needed minimum.
If that will be in xPlane i will tell that MSFS is not needed anymore.
for me xPlane is a training device and MSFS is simulation GAME.
training device don't need beautiful graphics, but must help in training, xplane is not yet for VFR cross country unfortunately.
Common sense is not so common these days mate
autoortho + simheaven is the best we've got for X-Plane right now.
My advice to all flight simmers - who can do it - is to book an introductory flight at your nearest flight school, because that real world experience will forever change your ideas about simulator flying forever.
And if you can afford to follow that up with 1 or 2 more instruction flights, your ideas about how a flight sim should "feel" will be based on your own real world experiences.
Congratulations Austin on a great product. I appreciate your dedication and hard work. And thanks for this insight into the sim, very helpful.
If you fly General Aviation aircraft ,and fly visually ,Scenery is important Austin. X-Plane is a good simulator ,and hopefully scenery will improve in the near future
He clearly understands that, and explained that their team is doing their best to work on that within the constraints they have.
@@What_If_We_Tried Well, between fixing up global scenery, AA, and VR performance I think they need to work a little faster, lol!
@@tomc1380 i hope they , my hope is still in x plane
I'll be forever grateful to Laminar for their native Linux support, thanks guys!
Great interview with Austin Meyer shows his passion and dedication for a truly realistic flight simulator being X-Plane.
I must also say it was a great interview and it's quite obvious he is passionate of what he is doing. What I kind of missed was perhaps his views on the future and his views on Microsoft's enormous focus on scenery graphics in the upcoming flight-simulator 2024. Well, he does explain, quite beautifully, I might ad, what X-Plane is and why great sceneries aren't necessarily what makes a good flight-simulator. As mentioned in comments below, better scenery graphics might be appeal to more people but it also attract more newcomers to the flight-simulator scene in general, which could benefit X-Plane as well. On the downside I fear the day that the physics in Microsoft's flight-simulator are on par with X-Plane. What will he do then?
What I also don't really understand is why there haft to be "two directions". Why good graphics sort of excludes good physics and vice versa. To me this just sounds like every software developer's dilemma.
Another thing I find frustration is the system with library files. I mean, It's great to have a base for a community with a lot of third party plugins and add-ons, but why can't X-Plane be a more complete product when released? Like include the best library files from the start or something or as ONE optional package? I don't know.
Terrific interview, well done Dom.
As an XP newbie, a little more than a year in, what sold me was the ethos, the idea you can build your own worlds with WED and some 3D modelling.
Also, hated the idea of giving Microsoft control over my machine and privacy with its instrusiveness.
Sounds like some great stuff to come, too.
Thank you Austin for everything you do. I love how the general aviation planes fly in X-Plane 12. Yes, the X-Plane 12 flight model is amazing! As a Private Pilot, it is not about flying over someone's house though. I fly VFR, it is important for how I navigate to where I am going. I think you need to remember back to when you first got your private pilot license. I want to look out the plane and validate where I am. I did my first cross country in MSFS 2020 and then did it for real. Through pilotage I found the same markers in real life as in MS FS 2020, wind farms, lakes, railroad tracks, roads, etc. along the way and I would love to have that in X-Plane 12. I hope you partner with Orbx more, Google or figure out a way to get more accurate scenery. I believe you are underestimating how much your install base really wants a better solution. Realistic flight model and better scenery knocks your flight simulator out of the park!
Aren't Rail Road tracks already drawn in XP12? So are lakes?
Generating a plausible world without the hassle with satellite imagery is the way to go in my opinion. But it can be done in many ways. I wonder if Austin has ever taken any closer look at any of the procedural planetary rendering engines out there, like Outerra or even better, Unreal. It would be really interesting to hear his thoughts about it.
The best part is 12:22 when Austin reveals how programmers design their games for the hardware we use. It explains the thinking behind the "minimum" and "recommended" system requirements. When people complain that, for example, a 4080 can't even render 60fps in Alan Wake at 4K, they should be blaming the game-maker instead of Nvidia. That's how Alan Wake was designed -- to run at its highest settings with the top hardware, which is, in this case a 4090.
what is Alan Wake?
It is hard to resist the urge to compare XP to MSFS, but I feel it is important to objectively assess XP on its own merits.
Airbus planes doing rolls like an aerobatic aircraft in MSFS? Is he talking about the default A/C or the study level ones from big A/C developers? It's hopeless? I wonder what PMDG and the likes would think about such an assertion. Also... MSFS looking good only above 5000ft? Not what I see on livestreams you know, I have my own eyes...
And what it is with the OSM based autogen in XP? I thought simHeaven X-sceneries were the ones correctly placing structures based on real location to correct the bad autogen in XP? What he is saying exactly? Isn't MSFS blackshark autogen doing the same thing as simHeaven as well, on the fly, based on orthophoto, using the Azure ML/AI?
Also, why send Swiss001 to FS-Expo instead of going himself or sending Supnik? Is he somehow employed by Laminar research now? A lot of his 700k subscribers are preteens without buying power. Strange marketing. Why not ask someone like Flightdeck2sim for example? Yeah, whatever, people use what they want, it's fine, but Meyer sounds dismissive and disingenuous sometimes...
Scenery matters when you have an engine failure. Scenery matters when flying by VFR.
Austin How much do you think AI technology can play in the future of flight sims? Would really enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Not a Pilot, but there is something about X-plane that I like. Have Both MSFS and X-plane but I seem to use X-plane more. Thank Austin for your passion.
If you can swing it, even one introductory flight at a GA flight school will deepen your appreciation for X-Plane 11, or 12. Put in 1 or 2 hours more time in the right seat, and your perceptions of flight simming will be changed forever.
Thanks a lot for this emotional video !! Tried MSFS for a couple of hours coudn't stand it so went back to X plane again that I like so much since I switched from P3D.
When did you try it?? Back in 2020. Its changed so much. Not even a free trial of xplane will tempt me enough to download it
@@andrewjamez I tried it again last week after the newest update. It’s still disappointing and my XP12 with Autoortho looks better (less blurry and building up textures) above 2000ft. The lighting is better, the flightmodel anyway. And the camera interactions must more convenient. And replay, tower-view etc.
It would be fantastic if , before worrying about roads , they would get the cockpit transmissive instruments to be readable. After all it is a flight simulator . I understand the new lighting model but this does not cater for PFD/MFD/GPS transmissive instrument of 1200 NITS and up .
I've listened to Austin's vision a couple of times and what he says from 27:02 is in line with my expectations. I have both FS2020 and XP12, and I always go with XP12. True the graphics are not as pretty as FS2020 but overall, I love the way the planes feel, the winds affecting the plane, here and there great dramatic clouds and atmospheric environment, the avionics. Also the interface is efficient. Wish there could be better flight planning, perhaps integration with Navigraph and a good EFB, and of course better ATC. Hope it keeps on getting better !
yesterday I was at FL100 and was surprised how good the scenery of xp12 actually looks.. espacially with the new lighting system and cloud shadows.
A very interesting (and entertaining !) video from Austin.
I'm not an xPlane Fanboy, and I'm certainly not an MsFS Fanboy, but I enjoy using both on my expensive hardware setup (moving platform, force feedback yoke, VR etc.), which is thankfully ideal for both sims.
xPlane definitely has more "feel" to it, with many flight dynamics subtleties that are absent from MsFS. I find the default scenery in xPlane is still awful, but is so easy to fix with high res Ortho4xp and now even AutoOrtho. Flying over "naked" satellite imagery at 2000ft and above is far more realistic than MsFS's autogen of houses and trees, which are so often quite inappropriate. Churches become multi storey offices, Pig Barns are drawn as apartment blocks, and solar energy fields become rows of miniature terraced houses !! Whereas with xPlane and res 18 Ortho, I can not only see my own house, but even the damn shed in the back garden and my car on the driveway.
That sort of accuracy is vital in VFR and makes sim flying over any real world familiar areas so much more immersive. For me it makes xPlane's visuals better than MsFS, the only downside being that you had to download ans store the Ortho, though my early experiences with AutoOrtho so far have been highly successful, downloading it in realtime, just like MsFS.....
I like this vid because it its very informative and helpful
I fully agree about the approach in generating the world from raw data rather than satellite images. Like Austin said satellite images are a frozen in time state of the surface that only looks good from very far away. The difference between XP11 and XP12 is colossal in the quality of the generated environment. Now in XP12 the quality of the default airports is good enough that I don't want to look for some packages on the Internet. Terrain quality is also a huge leap forward. Volumetric clouds already look very good. This is the only simulator that natively supports Linux which to me personally is a huge plus.
i agree about the default airport quality in XP12. most airports are VASTLY better than MSFS defaults (aside from MSFS's hand-crafted ones obviously). for MSFS you basically MUST seek out airport packages, in XP12 it feels much more optional.
At least satellite/ ortho scenery is an actuall version of the world even if it is a few years old. A fake tiled scenery will never represent a real world ever. Take your pick
Thanks for the video!
Great job !!!
I am a retired airline captain(ATP) and have lots of sim time. IMHO, the biggest disappointment of these sims is the lack of realistic haptic interaction with the aircraft controls. Using keyboards and VR laser pointers just doesn't get it. I get it that scenery sells to the unexperienced pilot, but you will sell a LOT more to serious plots with serious $$ if you
focus more on this and get it done.
There are many quality controllers available for flight simulation. Serious simmers do not use mouse and keyboard
I never use the laser pointer. Rarely the keyboard too. There’s hardware w/software that shows your hands quite well too.
Put that on a motion platform and you’re set. For haptic feedback, there are yokes…
@@FlightSims Where can I find the hardware & software you mention??
So, I'll be honest, when MSFS first came out it felt great, but the wow factor soon wore off as I realized most of the advantage over XP was visual. I went back to XP11 for a couple of years, then went back to MSFS to be pleasantly surprised that the flight model seemed to have improved somewhat, along with performance improvements for the sim.
XP12 was really rough around the edges when it first came out so I stuck with MSFS for a bit. But now? I feel that XP12 has matured (and is continuing to mature) VERY nicely, and the flight model is waaayyyyyy better than MSFS. The interviewer rightly referenced the jets, which I find to be particularly very different between the two sims. As if they have a lot more weight in XP12, as they should. For example, the way you can just snap the nose wheel to full deflection when taxiing a large jet in MSFS really grinds my gears. This doesn't seem to be the case with at least the majority of jets in XP12.
I also find XP12 is catching up in the visuals department. I think the only thing MSFS has on XP12 is the scenery out of the box and, at this point, an easier to use and slightly less buggy. default ATC system.
I also cannot be grateful enough to have autoortho - WHAT A GAME CHANGER. MSFS really spoiled me with the need to have good scenery EVERYWHERE I fly. Not practical with ortho4xp given the disk space usage.
The most disappointing part about this (might be the best part depending on how you look at it) is that due to the novelty of MSFS, and I guess it's relative simplicity and "accessibility", a lot of new and novice simmers are drawn to it and therefore the market is larger - leading to many developers switching to solely developing to MSFS. Oh, not to mention, it's also available on xbox. Thankfully there are a lot of great products that were developed for XP11 that could have been ported to XP12 without as much effort as it would take to develop a whole new product.
All in all, I think MSFS is good for the general user, casual simmer. X-plane is for the purist. I've almost completely ditched MSFS for the past couple months now given the current state of XP12 and the products for it. I'm very much looking forward to what Austin and Laminar have in store. Thanks very much for this sim.
Like Austin said, below 5,000 feet, the scenery advantages of MSFS aren't very good.
@@What_If_We_Tried I mainly fly heli's low and slow in cities like NYC and I find msfs much more enjoyable than xp12 lego-land auto gen.
The earth also isn't repeating pattens of unrealistic looking terrain.
Austin! Where were you at fsExpo? Many disappointed users I hear 👂
Can't wait for the future updates...I work in burlington one day I will meet Austin...maybe lol
Google earth is a cheaper, easier, more accurate way to look at your house or landmarks. You don’t need a flight sim for that, but if you want to actually learn something about flight dynamics and aircraft systems then x-plane really simulates flight much better.
I see your apprentice R/C plane back there Austin!It’s funny bc I have 2 of those 😂
helicopters, vegetation, flying low and downwash, all i needed to hear.
any physics on ground welcome as well.
we need both sims...easy as that...my wish is actually..please msfs make the flighdynamcis superb so i can enjoy those views with planes tha flies like the real thing, or i hope x plane make the scenery nice so i can enjoy this flight feel along with great scenery
Auto ortho change everything however
7:03 LOL EDDC ... my little home airport :)
I love Xplane since version 10 and I’ll ever use it. If i had one wish: Make Xplane look like MSFS and you’ll be god! Just a wish, i know this is never going to happen. I’ll stay with my Xplane and sometime go sightseeing with MSFS
X-Plane almost excels in every areas already
There is no point, regarding flight simulation, i do not totally agree to Austin. Thanks to the LR Team; So many hours enjoying flight simulation.
Just updated X-Plane 12 to the latest version 06 and what a disappointment. I was under the impression 06 was to take care of lighting issues, The instrument panel is so dark on the Cessna 172 it's unusable. Talk about flying in the dark on a VFR day. Ever try changing the comm frequency from standby to active, it doesn't work. I've been waiting for the past 7 months for these issues to be corrected. A BIG disappointment Mr Myer.
I mainly fly GA planes and Heli's, low and slow, VFR, in VR (Vive Pro1 and Quest Pro with a i913900k/rtx4090 PC). Sorry but the current stock scenery in xp12 is terrible imho. Even xp11 looks better in many areas like NYC and Las Vegas. While I'm confident that xp12 will continue to improve, it's not currently one of my favorite flight sims. MSFS is much nicer to use right now, for me anyway. My current sim usage is roughly 75% MSFS, 20% xp11, and 5% xp12. Hopefully those usage numbers will shift towards xp12 more over the next 6-12 months. Time will tell I guess.
23:00 Then sue them and find it in discovery.
I mean, wasn't X-Plane 1 just a copy of Flight Sim in the first place?
i think a big thing which would improve flight simulation is a few years would be a more adanced physical wear and tear simulation , ie in wood aircraft you could tear of damage the canopy , snapping a wing off , tire explosions , parts that breack of fall off the airctaft , having do maintance , deciding wheather or to fly a knackered old piper , all defaut built into the sim.Some parts of the interview were intertresting, however slot of questions we asked on oeg forum were never put foward.
I love X Plane. I believe it's better than it's direct competitor especially when combined with Autoortho, but I don't think there will be X Plane 14, sorry. No matter how good simulation is it doesn't matter if there are no airplanes to fly. What Aerobask does is simply not enough.
737NG Drivers input to MSFS could also apply to X-Plain: ua-cam.com/video/LfJI1i4L51Y/v-deo.html
nVidia took almost 6 months to fix a CTD (crash to desktop) bug in MSFS. NVidia is only good in this sad world where AMD and nVidia are the only game in town.
I don't care what he says, although not anywhere close to perfection just like his xplane flight physics isn't, MSFS AI satellite scenery is super impressive. Now if they can become friends and find a way to marry his xplane flight physics with MSFS scenery, that would be golden. Especially in VR. One thing xplane can add now is more life in flight, micro turbulence and more wing vibrations.
Facts
He’s just butt hurt yet xplane looks like garbage , default plane is trash. Most people don’t be flying around looking for their house on approach default MSFS is the most beautiful especially with lighting weather etc. xplane is trash outside of some aircraft physics implementation such as the tire contact physics other than that I’d never be flying xplane as a main sim no way
It would be the best flight simulator ever made, unable to be outmatched and no one could compete. X-Plane's science and MSFS's visuals. Shame it won't happen.
They copied xplane he saod😂😂😂😂
hey i got harsh on xplane lately and maybe i am sorry a bit because now you can say XPLANE IS NOT CLOUD BASED AND YOU CAN INSTALL AND PLAY IT RIGHT NOW omg the 2024 launch is HORRIBLE lol. sales of xplane12 is gonna go up 3000 percent now lol ;-) sighs
This guy should be a windows salesman. speaks a a lot but not much substance. reminds me of no mans sky, no updates no nothing.. just videos with a lot of chit chat
and yet he was able to build a company with 25+ employees and products used by millions around the world, in spite of having large competitors like Microsoft.
What have you accomplished ?
@@x-plane me? iv spent my time working in deep coal mines at depths of 1700 feet but that's is not relevant is it? what frustrates me and others who have commented on this is the hype videos and A aircraft carrier? what's all that about? there are literally thousands of people who cannot play the sim because its either a Stuttering visual mess of jagged lines ( especially in VR ) or they cannot see the gauges from the lighting. this should of all been sorted out before they said it was out of beta and that's I made my post. there are thousands of posts on this topic and they post A AIRCRAFT CARRIER? lol .. you can see the comments from the community, they was not impressed with that post.
@@russflyin Then, I am sure you have a special appreciation for the hard work of others. Sad that on the internet, civility is so quickly replaced by personal insults.
@@x-plane i'm old school, I call it how i see it. if I brought a item from a store and it was not as described or it was misleading me into buying it as finished product when it wasn't id give them a ear full to..
DID HE JUST SAY C++ ??? I'm from the Apple2 days in the 80s, and I've seen hardware and software evolve into VR today. I've followed all the Flight sims since, Xplane always on my drives, taking up all my BYTES. I have always wanted to help programmers and users get the results, as a beta tester, since some users cannot communicate with developers effectively. When Austin says 'C', you lose a big portion of users who are like SEE-WHAT?
I make my own photoreal satellite data without the roads included at very high detail down to hundreds of feet. Feel free to reach out and I’ll show ya. ❤️
I’m interested to know how you do it.
Xplane and Flight Sim should merge. There will be the perfect sim. End of story.
Could you let me present you two "easy" pleaonasms without sterile polemic:
First one: Xplane 12/Flight Simulator
Second one: MSFS2020/Arcade Stuff
Easy and lazy, right?... I know but behind the curtain it means a lot... just saying
Keep it up Austin/Laminar, thank you, you got it! ;-)