8 ms·

Disclaimer: I am an instrument rated private pilot. I tried the latest MS FS when it got out and went back to X-Plane for majority of my instrument “currency”

by lsh123 6y ago

Disclaimer: I am an instrument rated private pilot. I tried the latest MS FS when it got out and went back to X-Plane for majority of my instrument “currency” training: 1) MS FS still doesn’t have a lot of US instrument procedures available. 2) Avionics (e.g. G1000) doesn’t behave as in real life: buttonology is just wrong and often the logic is wrong too. 3) Planes don’t feel “right” at the edges of the envelope. I still checkout MS FS challenges once in a while, but I treat it as an arcade. It is not real by any means thought rendering is pretty nice.

mastazi 6y ago
I completely agree about avionics, for example the first time I tried FLC mode on the G1000, the "Nose up" and "Nose Down" buttons were inverted ("Nose up" would increase the target speed, hence actually moving the nose down, and vice versa). And many things were missing, even basic ones such as "track up" mode for the MFD. Overall, X-Plane avionics are much better. I also agree with you that X-Plane still gets an edge in terms of flight model, even though the gap is not as wide as it used to be between X-Plane and FSX/P3D. The one obvious shortcoming of X-Plane, when compared to MSFS, is the lack of accurate world scenery, on the one hand we could say that it's just eye candy but on the other hand accurate scenery could help students prepare for VFR flights. Yes, you can generate high detail scenery for X-Plane using Ortho4XP, but it's time consuming and it requires a lot of disk space.
- tjohns 6y ago
  VFR students shouldn't be anywhere near a simulator, imo. Primary training is all about stick and rudder skills, which you can't pick up in a simulator. The feel of the controls isn't even close. (I guess you could use a simulator to help teach pilotage and dead reckoning... but that normally gets sprinkled in with the other lessons along the way.) On the other hand, simulators are useful for IFR training, when you're focusing on procedures. But you're not looking at the scenery in that case. ;)
  - mastazi 6y ago
    > VFR students shouldn't be anywhere near a simulator, I agree but I wasn't talking about stick and rudder skills, I was talking about cross country VFR preparation (learning landmarks etc.). I guess you can do it just using Google Maps, but it would be fun to do it in sim IMHO. PS regarding the expression "VFR students": there is a preconception where VFR skills are just something that you learn as a beginner pilot, and then once you have enough experience, you start focusing on IFR. I think this mindset is wrong. There are some very experienced bush pilots who regularly - and sometimes mostly - fly VFR; aviation is not just airliners.
    - tjohns 6y ago
      Now that you mention it, I could see MSFS being useful for general area familiarization. Foreflight has 3D mode now for the same purpose. But MSFS would certainly be more fun, and an instructor could mix in other navigation skills. It would be a good exercise to drop someone into an unknown area to practice VOR navigation. (And 100% agreed about the "VFR students" thing. Poor choice of words on my part.)
      - mastazi 6y ago
        Oh yes I love Foreflight 3D mode. > an instructor could mix in other navigation skills Yes you made me realise that my initial comment was not very clear, I said “VFR” but really I meant visual navigation.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      > cross country VFR preparation (learning landmarks etc.) That's unnecessary since your sectional (map) has most of that. > there is a preconception where VFR skills are just something that you learn as a beginner pilot, and then once you have enough experience It's a really strange argument to make, since pilots are responsible for see and avoid, which means looking out the window, even with an IFR clearance. Since you're writing basically GPT-3-level nonsense, are you actually a pilot? Source: commercially-rated pilot.
  - ffk 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
spoonjim 6y ago
MS FS is developed, marketed, and priced as a game. That's what it is and in terms of pure flight sim I'm sure there are better.
- mastazi 6y ago
  I disagree, I believe that MSFS and XP11 are marketed to a similar niche. MSFS was marketed as a realistic sim and not as arcade, there were multiple statements about that, including in the very first post of the official blog[3]. At the same time, you can buy XP11 on Steam, a platform for gamers[2], and while it's true that there is a version of X-Plane for professional use[3], most people who own it, use it in a home setting. [1] "We are making Microsoft Flight Simulator. Emphasis on the word SIMULATOR." https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/ https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/ [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/269950/XPlane_11/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/269950/XPlane_11/ [3] https://www.x-plane.com/pro/ https://www.x-plane.com/pro/
  - Alupis 6y ago
    You may have misinterpreted what the parent meant about a "game" vs a "simulator". XP11 focuses on the flight models and physics of flying a plane, whereas MSFS2020 focuses on the visuals. Neither are perfect, but for those studying or familiarizing, XP11 is a far better choice since it goes out of it's way to mimic real life. MSFS2020's basic G1000 (crammed into nearly every cockpit in the game) still has buttons that don't function, just for starters. Different focuses, one's a "game" and the other is a "simulator".
    - mastazi 6y ago
      OK after reading your comment I get what you mean, yes it’s possible that that’s what parent meant. However I still think that MS should spend some effort fixing the avionics, because in their current state, they are not up to scratch, even considering the different focus as explained in your comment.
      - 6y ago
imutemyteam 6y ago
I mean if there were too many details, it would just have too high a barrier to entry.
- Alupis 6y ago
  I think this might be spot on. Simulators tend to have extremely steep learning curves and turn off a lot of people. MSFS2020 is trying to capture the casual market too, which inherently means lowering that entry barrier. It's a fantastic game though, and the satellite imagery AI magic they've done is outstanding.
okareaman 6y ago
I think you've fallen into the uncanny valley, where it is very close to real but not close enough, so it feels off. The rest of us without your reference context continue to find it amazing.
jaxx75 6y ago
>3) Planes don't feel "right" at the edges of the envelope. Is there a simulation that does this well? With regard to racing sims, there's still some argument on what has the best tire model. I can only imagine how complex aero and airplane models must be.
- Alupis 6y ago
  It's not exactly a 1:1 with real life, but X-Plane places "realism" in it's flight models and physics engine above basically all else. Which is a stark contrast with MSFS2020 where eye candy and visuals are the primary focus, and realism a distant afterthought.
- exDM69 6y ago
  Aero models are actually much simpler than racing tyre models. Most older flight sims used a lookup table for aerodynamic forces, which is gives a pretty decent model for most of the flight envelope. Newer sims do model the airflow around the wings but it's still relatively simple. Tyre models have similar history, most models are empirical and based on the Pacejka tyre model with some adjustments, not quite a lookup table but some very basic math formulae with no physics behind it. Notable exception is iRacing which has a physically based tyre model based. But the physical phenomena going on in a deforming, elastic racing tyre are much more complex than a wing cutting through air.
  - lloeki 6y ago
    Not sure about the details, Forza Motorsport 4 has completely redeveloped the tire model at some point, with fresh intel from (IIRC) Pirelli, and they only improved since then. I could be wrong but it seems to go way beyond Pacejka in my experience (including sidewall deformation). On old cars it's night and day.
    - exDM69 6y ago
      I assume most sims have moved beyond vanilla Pacejka model by now, but they are generally still empirical models with their roots in Pajecka. The standard model doesn't account for dynamically changing pressures and temperatures, for example. When tyre manufacturers provide data, it is usually in the form of coefficients for the Pacejka model or some variant thereof, the model being the de facto standard in the automotive industry. But I admit I don't know the specifics about Forza 4 tyre model. At least a few years ago, the iRacing tyre model developers said in their dev log videos that their model is unique in being physically based and not an empirical model. But that may have changed. Empirical models are generally considered "better" feeling for sim racing, iRacing's model is criticized for being bad in handling extreme slip angles and ratios (read: drifting).
EMM_386 6y ago
I disagree with a lot of the talk in the flight simulation community that always runs along the lines of "MSFS is a game with nice visuals, use X-Plane if you want a real simulator". I've used X-Plane for many years prior to FS2020 being released, both for legal currency as well as learning the inside out of complex types I haven't flown. I'm a US certified commercial pilot and have been using simulators since the early 90s. Regarding #1, the only approaches I've noticed that aren't in the simulator are some RNAV approaches to smaller airports. Are you seeing otherwise? If you need those now, Navigraph seems like a solution. MSFS is a technological tour de force that has only been out now for 1/2 a year. X-Plane has been around for decades, which is why things like the G1000 are more reliable at the moment. Aircraft like the newly released Aerosoft CRJ show the potential in the sim, and this is with the developer only having their hands on the SDK for a short period of time. For developers reading this, a peek at the SDK is interesting. They are using modern techniques throughout the simulator, such as using WASM along with HTML/CSS/JS for gauges, among many other interesting choices. https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm
- zeroc8 6y ago
  Well, at this time XPlane is better for IFR training and everything the original poster mentioned is true. But MS Flightsim is still a young product, so let's wait and see. But if I had to bet, I'd always bet on Austin Meyers and his enthusiasm for aviation.
  - TimTheTinker 6y ago
    Agreed; but if I had to bet, I'd also bet that the best high-def realistic scenery would come from a very well-resourced company. Austin may be passionate, but he doesn't own anything comparable to Azure cloud or Bing maps. I wish it were possible to marry X-Plane with MSFS's scenery and world rendering.
    - kvirani 6y ago
      What about this other trending HN post? https://cesium.com/blog/2021/03/30/cesium-for-unreal-now-available/ https://cesium.com/blog/2021/03/30/cesium-for-unreal-now-ava...
avipars 6y ago
I think the flight simulator was geared towards the general public rather than professional pilot training
t0mas88 6y ago
X-Plane has a big advantage by the fact that it has been out much longer. Their built-in Garmin GNS430 / 530 and G1000 are not exact replicas of the real ones (subtle differences in behavior and missing functions). However you can fix that with a simple add-on, because RealityXP sells an add-on that lets you connect the real actual Garmin simulator software that is often used for training (which you can download for free) with the simulator. And if you do that the buttons are all 100% exactly the same as in the real thing. I'm expecting this type of thing to be released for MS FS as well over the coming years. It just takes time for these third parties to write a version for MS.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  I don't understand how it's an excuse that the current version is new or newer than X-plane? Either this is not actually MSFS but just a new game that sells by using (abusing) a known name or it is MSFS that has roots back to the 80's. If it's the last then it is clearly moving backwards if it has missing features and less realism. The logic that every new release is starting from scratch and isn't comparable to the old version is strange. Even if they throw out all the code and start coding from scratch MSFS is still not some un-comparable game to the last release. To take it to an extreme: If Adobe started from scratch and released a new shiny Photoshop that looked good but had the features of MS Paint would people see it as moving backwards or "give it time, third parties will re-add missing features"?
  - t0mas88 6y ago
    In case of third party content I think it's a valid point. X Plane did not have these add-ons when it was released, they came a few years later. So it's not that strange to give MS FS a bit of time to catch up in terms of third party add-ons. Missing features in the game itself can't be excused that way, but guess what... X Plane still after many years also doesn't have a good enough for training built-in simulation of a GPS.
jillesvangurp 6y ago
Disclaimer, not a real pilot but I have flown X-plane for many years. So, yes, I am biased. But I do recognize the enormous progress MS has made with their latest sim. The visuals are stunning and the rest got a fairly big upgrade as well. It's hard to not get enthusiastic about it. I don't have the hardware to run it but I definitely want it. Avionics in the default planes (both products) are not intended to be hyper realistic. Study level plane add ons exist for both X-plane, and all of MS recent simulators. They typically cost more than the base simulator and you can geek out over every little part of the plane's functionality. There's a great ecosystem of add on developers for both simulators that can get you a lot of realism. That being said, Austin Meyer's primary motivation for building and continuing to build X-plane has always been simulation fidelity whereas MS core customers do include some hardcore users, they are mostly a bit more casual users. However, add-ons exist that do have a some hard core users and they do provide an excellent experience. In between shipping Vulkan support for the core sim (which landed last year), Austin Meyer actually dedicated an entire release (11.40, 2019) to addressing some long standing edge cases with aerodynamics. There's a great overview of that on Youtube where he explains what he did (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4UfGE-JJY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4UfGE-JJY4). He even addresses "that new MS sim" at the end of the presentation. There's all sorts of subtle behavior that he figured out the mathematics for and built into the sim. I like flying tail draggers in x-plane and the behavior definitely improved. It wasn't bad before (famously) and it got a lot better with that release. That represents the level of attention that goes into the product and it's a reason why lots of people like me continue to enjoy that product. It's also the reason you get more sensible behavior at the edge of the envelope for a lot of planes. Some plane manufacturers actually use plane-maker (which is included with x-plane) to model their new models: it's the easiest way to get a feel for how their plane will behave before they build it. Likewise, the reason the default G1000 is so nice in X-plane is that they have a German contractor who is a real life IFR pilot obsessing about it for years for the past decade or so. His mission in life is to make this thing as real as it gets. And it's apparently very good. I've not actually touched the real thing ever of course but the simulated one is quite a complex thing to figure out. X-plane also has had ways to interface with real Garmin equipment for many years. But that's just one vendor and of course there are many. Most of the other ones are only available via add-ons. The recent MS simulator does represent a very huge upgrade in realism with better default planes, improved approach to aerodynamics, weather, etc. It's much more engaging without investing a lot in add ons (which in the past was the only way to not make it look hopelessly outdated). Those add-ons still exist of course. Including scenery add ons, airport add ons, etc. It's good out of the box but not that good that those add-ons are no longer needed. In a way it caught up to X-plane's rendering capabilities (and a bit beyond). Where before x-plane just looked way better out of the box. I use a lot of ortho4xp scenery with osm2xplane objects and a few other goodies (all free btw) and you get quite far with just those two. But what MS did is definitely a few levels better. But for a six year old product, it's not bad. X-plane 11 is coming to the end of its cycle. I expect v12 betas to start showing up end of this year or early next year. I expect that there will be a lot of progress on the scenery front particularly now that they have the Vulkan upgrade out of the way. They've always been good at making the most of data driven scenery production given that they have a small team. And there is a lot of open data to work with.
neither_color 6y ago
FS2020 is the first simulator Ive played and on a whim Ive been using an add on pack call "FS Academy VFR/ IFR" to learn IFR. It's ok although the PDF manual needs editing because it throws acronyms at you without defining them so I find myself googling terms like VOR, NDB, OBS, etc. Thanks for your comment regarding X Plane's better IFR realism I'll be sure to check it out next. I enjoy "programmatic and calculated flying" a lot more than I expected, it's a shame FS2020 doesn't encourage it. I think the Hacker News crowd would enjoy this type of flying if they knew more about it. It also makes me feel a lot safer knowing how meticulously pilots have to plan everything. I dont plan on getting an instrument rating but the basic IFR knowledge made me a lot more confident with regular VFR flying because I feel better calculating descent and turns banks rather than just "eyeballing and feeling" them. I got much better at landing than with the in game tutorials to the point where I want to get a PPL.
mdip 6y ago
Thanks for that -- just out of curiousity, what is "instrument currency training"? My Dad was an instrument rated pilot (among others) and trained on the original MS Flight Simulator. It was obviously missing far more than probably any of the flight simulators released after 2000. Also curious -- what is meant by your third bullet point? Where is the physics most obviously screwy? As a non-pilot, I was blown away by how the plane felt. Obviously, I don't have the sense for what the plane is actually doing like my pilot father would have, but while playing, it was the dynamics of how the plane moved that really impressed me.
- lsh123 6y ago
  I use simulator (X Plane) to shoot approaches every few days or so. In real life, you don’t really get to go down to minimums every flight. Simulator helps me to stay proficient. In normal flight, the models are easy. However, in more unusual flying modes (eg stalls, spins, etc) its very hard to model a specific aircraft behavior vs a generic one. I have experience flying several models and a stall in Citabria (tiny aerobatic high wing) is very different than a stall in much bigger Bonanza. X Plane gets some (not all) of it right while MSFS doesn’t even trying it seems.
polishdude20 6y ago
I'm not a pilot by any means but I did play xplane a lot and flex the 737 with the FMC and autopilot and such. When I tried doing the same in MFS, it was just nonfunctional. The detail wasn't there.

by lsh123 6y ago

mastazi 6y ago

I completely agree about avionics, for example the first time I tried FLC mode on the G1000, the "Nose up" and "Nose Down" buttons were inverted ("Nose up" would increase the target speed, hence actually moving the nose down, and vice versa). And many things were missing, even basic ones such as "track up" mode for the MFD. Overall, X-Plane avionics are much better. I also agree with you that X-Plane still gets an edge in terms of flight model, even though the gap is not as wide as it used to be between X-Plane and FSX/P3D. The one obvious shortcoming of X-Plane, when compared to MSFS, is the lack of accurate world scenery, on the one hand we could say that it's just eye candy but on the other hand accurate scenery could help students prepare for VFR flights. Yes, you can generate high detail scenery for X-Plane using Ortho4XP, but it's time consuming and it requires a lot of disk space.

tjohns 6y ago
VFR students shouldn't be anywhere near a simulator, imo. Primary training is all about stick and rudder skills, which you can't pick up in a simulator. The feel of the controls isn't even close. (I guess you could use a simulator to help teach pilotage and dead reckoning... but that normally gets sprinkled in with the other lessons along the way.) On the other hand, simulators are useful for IFR training, when you're focusing on procedures. But you're not looking at the scenery in that case. ;)
- mastazi 6y ago
  > VFR students shouldn't be anywhere near a simulator, I agree but I wasn't talking about stick and rudder skills, I was talking about cross country VFR preparation (learning landmarks etc.). I guess you can do it just using Google Maps, but it would be fun to do it in sim IMHO. PS regarding the expression "VFR students": there is a preconception where VFR skills are just something that you learn as a beginner pilot, and then once you have enough experience, you start focusing on IFR. I think this mindset is wrong. There are some very experienced bush pilots who regularly - and sometimes mostly - fly VFR; aviation is not just airliners.
  - tjohns 6y ago
    Now that you mention it, I could see MSFS being useful for general area familiarization. Foreflight has 3D mode now for the same purpose. But MSFS would certainly be more fun, and an instructor could mix in other navigation skills. It would be a good exercise to drop someone into an unknown area to practice VOR navigation. (And 100% agreed about the "VFR students" thing. Poor choice of words on my part.)
    - mastazi 6y ago
      Oh yes I love Foreflight 3D mode. > an instructor could mix in other navigation skills Yes you made me realise that my initial comment was not very clear, I said “VFR” but really I meant visual navigation.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > cross country VFR preparation (learning landmarks etc.) That's unnecessary since your sectional (map) has most of that. > there is a preconception where VFR skills are just something that you learn as a beginner pilot, and then once you have enough experience It's a really strange argument to make, since pilots are responsible for see and avoid, which means looking out the window, even with an IFR clearance. Since you're writing basically GPT-3-level nonsense, are you actually a pilot? Source: commercially-rated pilot.
- ffk 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

spoonjim 6y ago

MS FS is developed, marketed, and priced as a game. That's what it is and in terms of pure flight sim I'm sure there are better.

mastazi 6y ago
I disagree, I believe that MSFS and XP11 are marketed to a similar niche. MSFS was marketed as a realistic sim and not as arcade, there were multiple statements about that, including in the very first post of the official blog[3]. At the same time, you can buy XP11 on Steam, a platform for gamers[2], and while it's true that there is a version of X-Plane for professional use[3], most people who own it, use it in a home setting. [1] "We are making Microsoft Flight Simulator. Emphasis on the word SIMULATOR." https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/ https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/ [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/269950/XPlane_11/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/269950/XPlane_11/ [3] https://www.x-plane.com/pro/ https://www.x-plane.com/pro/
- Alupis 6y ago
  You may have misinterpreted what the parent meant about a "game" vs a "simulator". XP11 focuses on the flight models and physics of flying a plane, whereas MSFS2020 focuses on the visuals. Neither are perfect, but for those studying or familiarizing, XP11 is a far better choice since it goes out of it's way to mimic real life. MSFS2020's basic G1000 (crammed into nearly every cockpit in the game) still has buttons that don't function, just for starters. Different focuses, one's a "game" and the other is a "simulator".
  - mastazi 6y ago
    OK after reading your comment I get what you mean, yes it’s possible that that’s what parent meant. However I still think that MS should spend some effort fixing the avionics, because in their current state, they are not up to scratch, even considering the different focus as explained in your comment.
    - 6y ago

imutemyteam 6y ago

I mean if there were too many details, it would just have too high a barrier to entry.

Alupis 6y ago
I think this might be spot on. Simulators tend to have extremely steep learning curves and turn off a lot of people. MSFS2020 is trying to capture the casual market too, which inherently means lowering that entry barrier. It's a fantastic game though, and the satellite imagery AI magic they've done is outstanding.

okareaman 6y ago

I think you've fallen into the uncanny valley, where it is very close to real but not close enough, so it feels off. The rest of us without your reference context continue to find it amazing.

jaxx75 6y ago

>3) Planes don't feel "right" at the edges of the envelope. Is there a simulation that does this well? With regard to racing sims, there's still some argument on what has the best tire model. I can only imagine how complex aero and airplane models must be.

Alupis 6y ago
It's not exactly a 1:1 with real life, but X-Plane places "realism" in it's flight models and physics engine above basically all else. Which is a stark contrast with MSFS2020 where eye candy and visuals are the primary focus, and realism a distant afterthought.
exDM69 6y ago
Aero models are actually much simpler than racing tyre models. Most older flight sims used a lookup table for aerodynamic forces, which is gives a pretty decent model for most of the flight envelope. Newer sims do model the airflow around the wings but it's still relatively simple. Tyre models have similar history, most models are empirical and based on the Pacejka tyre model with some adjustments, not quite a lookup table but some very basic math formulae with no physics behind it. Notable exception is iRacing which has a physically based tyre model based. But the physical phenomena going on in a deforming, elastic racing tyre are much more complex than a wing cutting through air.
- lloeki 6y ago
  Not sure about the details, Forza Motorsport 4 has completely redeveloped the tire model at some point, with fresh intel from (IIRC) Pirelli, and they only improved since then. I could be wrong but it seems to go way beyond Pacejka in my experience (including sidewall deformation). On old cars it's night and day.
  - exDM69 6y ago
    I assume most sims have moved beyond vanilla Pacejka model by now, but they are generally still empirical models with their roots in Pajecka. The standard model doesn't account for dynamically changing pressures and temperatures, for example. When tyre manufacturers provide data, it is usually in the form of coefficients for the Pacejka model or some variant thereof, the model being the de facto standard in the automotive industry. But I admit I don't know the specifics about Forza 4 tyre model. At least a few years ago, the iRacing tyre model developers said in their dev log videos that their model is unique in being physically based and not an empirical model. But that may have changed. Empirical models are generally considered "better" feeling for sim racing, iRacing's model is criticized for being bad in handling extreme slip angles and ratios (read: drifting).

EMM_386 6y ago

I disagree with a lot of the talk in the flight simulation community that always runs along the lines of "MSFS is a game with nice visuals, use X-Plane if you want a real simulator". I've used X-Plane for many years prior to FS2020 being released, both for legal currency as well as learning the inside out of complex types I haven't flown. I'm a US certified commercial pilot and have been using simulators since the early 90s. Regarding #1, the only approaches I've noticed that aren't in the simulator are some RNAV approaches to smaller airports. Are you seeing otherwise? If you need those now, Navigraph seems like a solution. MSFS is a technological tour de force that has only been out now for 1/2 a year. X-Plane has been around for decades, which is why things like the G1000 are more reliable at the moment. Aircraft like the newly released Aerosoft CRJ show the potential in the sim, and this is with the developer only having their hands on the SDK for a short period of time. For developers reading this, a peek at the SDK is interesting. They are using modern techniques throughout the simulator, such as using WASM along with HTML/CSS/JS for gauges, among many other interesting choices. https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm

zeroc8 6y ago
Well, at this time XPlane is better for IFR training and everything the original poster mentioned is true. But MS Flightsim is still a young product, so let's wait and see. But if I had to bet, I'd always bet on Austin Meyers and his enthusiasm for aviation.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Agreed; but if I had to bet, I'd also bet that the best high-def realistic scenery would come from a very well-resourced company. Austin may be passionate, but he doesn't own anything comparable to Azure cloud or Bing maps. I wish it were possible to marry X-Plane with MSFS's scenery and world rendering.
  - kvirani 6y ago
    What about this other trending HN post? https://cesium.com/blog/2021/03/30/cesium-for-unreal-now-available/ https://cesium.com/blog/2021/03/30/cesium-for-unreal-now-ava...

avipars 6y ago

I think the flight simulator was geared towards the general public rather than professional pilot training

t0mas88 6y ago

X-Plane has a big advantage by the fact that it has been out much longer. Their built-in Garmin GNS430 / 530 and G1000 are not exact replicas of the real ones (subtle differences in behavior and missing functions). However you can fix that with a simple add-on, because RealityXP sells an add-on that lets you connect the real actual Garmin simulator software that is often used for training (which you can download for free) with the simulator. And if you do that the buttons are all 100% exactly the same as in the real thing. I'm expecting this type of thing to be released for MS FS as well over the coming years. It just takes time for these third parties to write a version for MS.

Daho0n 6y ago
I don't understand how it's an excuse that the current version is new or newer than X-plane? Either this is not actually MSFS but just a new game that sells by using (abusing) a known name or it is MSFS that has roots back to the 80's. If it's the last then it is clearly moving backwards if it has missing features and less realism. The logic that every new release is starting from scratch and isn't comparable to the old version is strange. Even if they throw out all the code and start coding from scratch MSFS is still not some un-comparable game to the last release. To take it to an extreme: If Adobe started from scratch and released a new shiny Photoshop that looked good but had the features of MS Paint would people see it as moving backwards or "give it time, third parties will re-add missing features"?
- t0mas88 6y ago
  In case of third party content I think it's a valid point. X Plane did not have these add-ons when it was released, they came a few years later. So it's not that strange to give MS FS a bit of time to catch up in terms of third party add-ons. Missing features in the game itself can't be excused that way, but guess what... X Plane still after many years also doesn't have a good enough for training built-in simulation of a GPS.

jillesvangurp 6y ago

Disclaimer, not a real pilot but I have flown X-plane for many years. So, yes, I am biased. But I do recognize the enormous progress MS has made with their latest sim. The visuals are stunning and the rest got a fairly big upgrade as well. It's hard to not get enthusiastic about it. I don't have the hardware to run it but I definitely want it. Avionics in the default planes (both products) are not intended to be hyper realistic. Study level plane add ons exist for both X-plane, and all of MS recent simulators. They typically cost more than the base simulator and you can geek out over every little part of the plane's functionality. There's a great ecosystem of add on developers for both simulators that can get you a lot of realism. That being said, Austin Meyer's primary motivation for building and continuing to build X-plane has always been simulation fidelity whereas MS core customers do include some hardcore users, they are mostly a bit more casual users. However, add-ons exist that do have a some hard core users and they do provide an excellent experience. In between shipping Vulkan support for the core sim (which landed last year), Austin Meyer actually dedicated an entire release (11.40, 2019) to addressing some long standing edge cases with aerodynamics. There's a great overview of that on Youtube where he explains what he did (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4UfGE-JJY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4UfGE-JJY4). He even addresses "that new MS sim" at the end of the presentation. There's all sorts of subtle behavior that he figured out the mathematics for and built into the sim. I like flying tail draggers in x-plane and the behavior definitely improved. It wasn't bad before (famously) and it got a lot better with that release. That represents the level of attention that goes into the product and it's a reason why lots of people like me continue to enjoy that product. It's also the reason you get more sensible behavior at the edge of the envelope for a lot of planes. Some plane manufacturers actually use plane-maker (which is included with x-plane) to model their new models: it's the easiest way to get a feel for how their plane will behave before they build it. Likewise, the reason the default G1000 is so nice in X-plane is that they have a German contractor who is a real life IFR pilot obsessing about it for years for the past decade or so. His mission in life is to make this thing as real as it gets. And it's apparently very good. I've not actually touched the real thing ever of course but the simulated one is quite a complex thing to figure out. X-plane also has had ways to interface with real Garmin equipment for many years. But that's just one vendor and of course there are many. Most of the other ones are only available via add-ons. The recent MS simulator does represent a very huge upgrade in realism with better default planes, improved approach to aerodynamics, weather, etc. It's much more engaging without investing a lot in add ons (which in the past was the only way to not make it look hopelessly outdated). Those add-ons still exist of course. Including scenery add ons, airport add ons, etc. It's good out of the box but not that good that those add-ons are no longer needed. In a way it caught up to X-plane's rendering capabilities (and a bit beyond). Where before x-plane just looked way better out of the box. I use a lot of ortho4xp scenery with osm2xplane objects and a few other goodies (all free btw) and you get quite far with just those two. But what MS did is definitely a few levels better. But for a six year old product, it's not bad. X-plane 11 is coming to the end of its cycle. I expect v12 betas to start showing up end of this year or early next year. I expect that there will be a lot of progress on the scenery front particularly now that they have the Vulkan upgrade out of the way. They've always been good at making the most of data driven scenery production given that they have a small team. And there is a lot of open data to work with.

neither_color 6y ago

FS2020 is the first simulator Ive played and on a whim Ive been using an add on pack call "FS Academy VFR/ IFR" to learn IFR. It's ok although the PDF manual needs editing because it throws acronyms at you without defining them so I find myself googling terms like VOR, NDB, OBS, etc. Thanks for your comment regarding X Plane's better IFR realism I'll be sure to check it out next. I enjoy "programmatic and calculated flying" a lot more than I expected, it's a shame FS2020 doesn't encourage it. I think the Hacker News crowd would enjoy this type of flying if they knew more about it. It also makes me feel a lot safer knowing how meticulously pilots have to plan everything. I dont plan on getting an instrument rating but the basic IFR knowledge made me a lot more confident with regular VFR flying because I feel better calculating descent and turns banks rather than just "eyeballing and feeling" them. I got much better at landing than with the in game tutorials to the point where I want to get a PPL.

mdip 6y ago

Thanks for that -- just out of curiousity, what is "instrument currency training"? My Dad was an instrument rated pilot (among others) and trained on the original MS Flight Simulator. It was obviously missing far more than probably any of the flight simulators released after 2000. Also curious -- what is meant by your third bullet point? Where is the physics most obviously screwy? As a non-pilot, I was blown away by how the plane felt. Obviously, I don't have the sense for what the plane is actually doing like my pilot father would have, but while playing, it was the dynamics of how the plane moved that really impressed me.

lsh123 6y ago
I use simulator (X Plane) to shoot approaches every few days or so. In real life, you don’t really get to go down to minimums every flight. Simulator helps me to stay proficient. In normal flight, the models are easy. However, in more unusual flying modes (eg stalls, spins, etc) its very hard to model a specific aircraft behavior vs a generic one. I have experience flying several models and a stall in Citabria (tiny aerobatic high wing) is very different than a stall in much bigger Bonanza. X Plane gets some (not all) of it right while MSFS doesn’t even trying it seems.

polishdude20 6y ago

I'm not a pilot by any means but I did play xplane a lot and flex the 737 with the FMC and autopilot and such. When I tried doing the same in MFS, it was just nonfunctional. The detail wasn't there.