Insecure, some people should look that up.

5 hours ago, turbomax said:

but don't fantasize about MSFS in the x-plane forum

This statement is priceless for many reasons, but mainly in light of:

5 hours ago, turbomax said:

like airflow generation and visualisation over terrain and over the airplane

Asobo's plagarism of XP's visualization of forces and airflow (XP's been showing the 3D volume around the airframe for quite some time now) doesn't gain anything by showing how terrain-altered air movement influences the near-airframe streamlines and forces. The length and time scales (latter of which isn't even there in the first place) of the airflow and turbulence are far too big to generate any meaningful information other than knowing that mountains and buildings trigger some extra bounce for the kites over yonder sim. And I'm sure knowing that it does is a warm fuzzy fantasy (see above) for you as you type over here.

 

2 hours ago, turbomax said:

"We" - Your Lordship?

What makes you think Goran's the only one who has had no choice but to take your past posting style and content as slander??? You really don't seem to 'like' the sim much.

8 hours ago, turbomax said:

airflow visualisation over terrain and around the aircraft. 

like airflow generation and visualisation over terrain and over the airplane. probably "doesn't affect all that many users" either 😃. enjoy x-plane as best as you can, but don't fantasize about MSFS in the x-plane forum. the users next door in the MSFS forum will gladly listen to your thoughts about MSFS.

So let me get this straight: if you can't see it, it doesn't exist? Like gravity, or momentum, or...?

In any case, seems like you might not have been keeping up with the XP dev blog. Better go check it out.

I don't much fantasize about MSFS, I just fly it - and enjoy it. And, of course, I spend plenty of time "next door" with the MSFS crew. Where've you been?

6 hours ago, turbomax said:

...there is no lack of addon aircraft in MSFS, I doubt more than a few hardcore users would pay $ 115,- when they can get a PMDG 737-700  for half the price...

Hmmm...all we have to do is change "MSFS" to "X-Plane" and "PMDG" to "Zibo" (oh, and "half the price" to "free") and it's clear to see how very wrong you've been & remain.

I've no idea how well the Hot Start 650 would do in MSFS priced at $115, but since HS seem to have a winning formula for XP, and a helluva rep, I'm pretty sure they're smart enough to figure out a nicely profitable premium strategy over there, too.

At the end, the more „haters“ pop-in and make toxic comments about XP (mostly seen on Youtube btw), the more it shows that XP is doing many things right. They wouldn‘t care that much otherwise.

37 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

At the end, the more „haters“ pop-in and make toxic comments about XP (mostly seen on Youtube btw), the more it shows that XP is doing many things right. They wouldn‘t care that much otherwise.

The mud slinging on youtube/Reddit etc goes both ways. It's inevitable. No particular sim is immune. 

I had a mostly P3D centered YT channel before I started posting MSFS clips. For my initial msfs videos I had many comments implying that I was a beginner/noob/ less competent simmer, and these were mostly from P3D community, mind you. 

Different sims, same patterns. As predictable as sunrise in the morning.

What sets XP apart from the others is mostly Austin himself. He is an original and his ideas and body of work will receive unfair criticism simply because internet keyboard warriors might not like Austin Meyer the person. This is something I have noticed in my twenty or so years using XP.

I'll chime in here because I've seen the '70% have tried XP at least once' metric from the survey being used a lot, if I'm not mistaken. I don't mean any harm, but I don't think this means as much as people are interpreting into it.

'People who have tried XP at least once' seems very positive at first sight, and that's certainly not completely wrong. It shows ~70% of the survey's respondents have tried it out at some point, and that makes it a well known sim. The problem with this is that this metric isn't precise enough to make any conclusion beyond that. Those ~70% include everyone from the hardcore users flying it daily to all who have tried it once for 5 minutes and then never again. It's impossible to deduce a size of the pool of the two extremes and the cases in between. For all you know, those ~70% could be 90% hardcore users which would be quite the achievement, but it could also consist of 90% that have tried it once and never again which would be the complete opposite of achievement. If this answer is coupled with 20% using XP as their main sim, it shows there aren't too many of the 70% sticking around.

I'm saying this because the survey is full of answers that allow speculation at best but are otherwise imprecise. I've seen MSFS people fall victim to some fallacies, too.

14 hours ago, mSparks said:

As we've heard, there's lots of people asking for the likes of the CL650 in MSFS. Which developer/s are people begging convert their MS products to xplane?

Most definitely A2A and Fenix. Normally I would say PMDG too but no one asks them anymore, it's pointless.

And not to forget DCS developers are currently porting their addons (for example F14) to MSFS, no one does port anything to X-Plane anymore as far as I'm aware.

46 minutes ago, The Seawolf said:

A2A

cant imagine why when 

https://xplanereviews.com/index.php?/forums/topic/12161-aircraft-update-review-piper-twin-comanche-pa30-x-plane-12-by-vflyteair-simulations/

47 minutes ago, The Seawolf said:

Fenix

yet another a320... really.... huh.

53 minutes ago, The Seawolf said:

I would say PMDG too but no one asks them anymore, it's pointless.

when the freeware Sparky744 is better than their msfs and p3d payware 744, i can imagine it is pretty pointless.

Zibo has held that title for the 737s for a few years now.

I just listed a few in response to your question and there are many more.

1 hour ago, The Seawolf said:

Most definitely A2A and Fenix.

I would have said the Fenix one year ago (it has been the reason why I used MSFS). But now, with the current state of the Toliss (319/320/321) it doesn‘t make sense anymore. I have flown the Fenix and it‘s almost identical with Toliss 😊

That may be but A2A and Fenix are kind of unique because they come with a generous helping of "external manyears" in the form of Accusim / Prosim. This represents much more value than just a random addon.

And btw I get a suspicion that some people may have not used the A2A Comanche with Accusim 2.0 yet. I could write an essay alone on the icing of pitot tubes, it is much more believable than anything I have seen before.

I dont own the Fenix btw, but it's only because I dont know anything about Airbus.

31 minutes ago, The Seawolf said:

That may be but A2A and Fenix are kind of unique because they come with a generous helping of "external manyears" in the form of Accusim / Prosim. This represents much more value than just a random addon.

I think the Comanche must be very good and that would be an example of aircraft i wouldn‘t he against seeing it in XP. For the Fenix i don‘t think the Prosim-licence adds a significant value. And the dev struggled to model his engine on a realistically way (because of MSFS‘s limitations). For example fuel-flow, engine N1-values vs thrust. The Toliss is based on the QPAC-fbw that features FBW data straight from a Level-D simulator.

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

cant imagine why when 

https://xplanereviews.com/index.php?/forums/topic/12161-aircraft-update-review-piper-twin-comanche-pa30-x-plane-12-by-vflyteair-simulations/

That seems like a great addon; however it falls significantly short when compared to the A2A Comanche. You should do some research to find out what Accusim 2.0 can do.

2 hours ago, Rimshot said:

That seems like a great addon; however it falls significantly short when compared to the A2A Comanche. You should do some research to find out what Accusim 2.0 can do.

That's what stood out to you from his comment? Not the Sparky 747 being better than the PMDG?