You can watch the video or read the much appreciated transcript found in the link.
I have two takeaways:
Austin is a bit of a nut. I guess I’ve always suspected that. But it’s really apparent here. Maybe nuttiness goes hand-in-hand with genius and creativity.
What is his accusation here? OF COURSE everyone at Asobo has X-Plane! Guess what. Everyone at LR has MSFS. Austin himself complains correctly about cars and trees visible in the orthos at low level in MSFS. He knows that how? Because he’s flown it! He further complains, again correctly, about inconsistencies in the MSFS FM. How would he know unless he’s explored this competing sim? Because he’d be committing corporate malfeasance if he didn’t! As to his slightly implied inference that a little bit of X-Plane is buried in MSFS, he had better be prepared to back that up. I supported him in his patent lawsuit years ago. This time around he’ll have less of a case and a far bigger adversary. Fortunately for him they would only be marketing his sim in a suit, so he’s likely safe.
But still this just gives off the smell of simmering desperation. X-Plane is a better sim, full stop. But it is comparatively a much worse visual experience, even down low where I fly and where Austin claims MSFS falls apart.
Austin needs to stick with nerdy whiteboard discussions of aerodynamics and leave the interviews to Ben or anyone at LR gifted with a filter.
Disclaimer: I haven’t watched the video yet but will do so later.
However I do want to put my opinion in regarding MSFS falling apart at low level. I own X-plane 10 and have flown it for a number of years. I didn’t upgrade to v11 as I didn’t feel like there was enough change to warrant it and I haven’t bought v12 because I have invested in MSFS instead.
For the type of flying I like, which is low and slow VFR between small airfields / strips MSFS offers a much more compelling option. It doesn’t require me spending hours compiling ortho’s or downloading satellite tiles, and more importantly the airfields are not cut out of the ground textures. This makes it very difficult to spot smaller airstrips, just like in real life, and this adds a lot to the experience for me. Do I notice a difference in the dynamic handling of the aircraft? Sure, X-plane is better in that regard. But the difference is much less than it used to be and it’s not enough to offset the difference in fidelity of the environment. At least not for me.
I know nothing about this person, but I’ve seen the type before.
Either whatever anyone else has done is crap, or the stuff that’s not crap was stolen from them. No one has any good ideas but them, any idea they’ve had they’ve NATURALLY come up with first, and anything done better by someone else is unimportant compared to what they’ve done better which is of course very important.
I guess if you take @smokinhole’s statement verbatim, XP is the better sim(ulator) I agree in that it simulates the physics of flight in a more convincing way. At least it did when I last flew XP, which is a couple of years ago.
But XP is not a better sim experience, IMO.
As I once wrote in a review of Aerofly FS, realistic looking scenery is realism as well. There is so much more to flying than just aerodynamics.
I would agree with that…and seeing as most ‘simmers’ have never flown a real aircraft, the subtleties of the flight model are (IMHO) really not as important as some would think. Reality check… no desktop sim ‘feels’ like a real airplane - even a Level D simulator. Having said that, the amazing visuals that MSFS brings to the table, especially in VR, gives the closest experience of flight that I have had outside of strapping myself into a real airplane.
I have XP-12 installed for one airplane alone, the Hot Start Challenger 650, but there is a lot more to that product than just the flight model.
Didn’t mean to insult. I just meant XP is currently better in its ability to do the appropriate math in a way that satisfies me. Everything I’ve flown in XP that I’ve also flown for real; feels correct. The same is certainly not the case with MSFS except for the C172. Anyway, the worst sim I’ve flown in years is “Christine”. Christine* is an early generation full-flight simulator at United’s training center. Somehow the FAA still buys off on her as a close enough facsimile to a 767-300 that she’s still approved to get you a type. But she is to airplanes what a McD’s “filet-o-fish” is to seafood. By that standard, MSFS is way ahead, even with a console controller.
Both sims are great. Recently I find myself playing MSFS more because, as @PaulRix and @Troll say, the visual experience is every bit as much of the simulated experience as is the reactions of air over blade elements.
*Of the many dozens of simulators at that facility, Christine is the only one with a nickname. And the only one you access via a ladder from floor level.
Surely “the more the merrier” applies - even if MSFS is a heck of a competitor, as long as XP can maintain that slight edge in flight modelling, it is probably on the whole more beneficial for XP to keep existing alongside and get a small share of a larger customer pool than before - there will be some cross pollination where customers lured in by MSFS want to try XP, who wouldn’t have found sims at all had it not been for the Xbox / MSFS marketing.
I think flight simulators must be going through a bit of a renaissance period, to be fair! Since MSFS’ arrival, electronics shops have started stocking joysticks, yokes and the like and actually have them in showrooms! What is this, the 1990’s?? Surely they’d only be doing it if there were actually more people interested in them.