Using raw data, I find different numbers. The percentage shown in the raw data are a bit odd : it says that 72% of people that are using FSX, use it at their main simulator, and that 33% of people using P3D use it as their main sim.

 

The statistics correctly show that of the 2290 who responded to the FSX question 1662 (72%) said they used it for most of 5 Most Time.

 

It's not clear how the statistics deal with respondents who have multiple simulations installed - FSX and P3D for example.

The statistics correctly show that of the 2290 who responded to the FSX question 1662 (72%) said they used it for most of 5 Most Time.

 

It's not clear how the statistics deal with respondents who have multiple simulations installed - FSX and P3D for example.

 

Yes, exactly. I didn't said that the numbers are not correct. Only that they don't give much information (as they are given). I think most people here are interested about the distribution of simulators in the community.

 

With this calculation, you can have 100% of P3D. But it doesn't mean that everybody is using P3D, only that all the people that have P3D use it as their main simulator, even if there are only 10 people using P3D.

 

It's always very hard to deal with numbers... You can make them say everything you want...

 

My post was about the post of Rob that said :

"EDIT: P3D up from 14% in 2013 to 33% in 2014 ... FSX declined from 78% to 72% ... "

 

The numbers does not say that.

For sake of agument ,assume  that everyone who has P3D also has FSX.  How many respondents should there be included:  2290 (FSX) + 1030 (P3D) = 3320, or a smaller number, such as 2290?

 

Also, that's what the previous numbers do say - they're in the AVSIM statisics!

The relative % change of those that use P3D for primary simulator from year to year is the key (that's the % value I'm looking at) ... the only value the quantity numbers have are in determining the %.  The use of multiple simulators is just another data point and not something I was comparing year to year.

 

 

 

But it doesn't mean that everybody is using P3D

 

Agree, I never suggested that ... Gerry decided that's how he was going to interpret what I said ... this will not be the first nor the last time what someone "doesn't say" then gets quoted as being what the "they did say".

 

What that data does say is that P3D has grown considerably in just 1 year and FSX has a decline in 1 year ... it does NOT say and I never suggested it did say "everybody is now using P3D".

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Agree, I never suggested that ... Gerry decided that's how he was going to interpret what I said ... this will not be the first nor the last time what someone "doesn't say" then gets quoted as being what the "they did say".

 

I made the  comment that :

FSX still seem to be the favourite with P3D still having some way to catch up.

posts #4 and #23

 

For some reason Rob decided to reply direct to that

 

Of course you would Gerry ...

post #27

 

Asked a rhetorical question was because I couldn't why he didn't agree with what I said. Has he another reason for that?

 

 

Which simple factual words FSX still seem to be the favourite with P3D still having some way to catch up don't you seem to understand - or in your enthusiasm for P3D you believe it has atready caught with FSX?

post #28

The relative % change of those that use P3D for primary simulator from year to year is the key (that's the % value I'm looking at) ... the only value the quantity numbers have are in determining the %.

 

Sorry Rob, but I'd have to strongly disagree as this is a classic way in which statistics are often misinterpreted.  Note in BIG LETTERS I'm NOT in ANY WAY suggesting you're trying to intentionally mislead - I'm only pointing out what I see as a fallacy in your statement and thus in your interpretation of the numbers.

 

In cases like this it's very important to understand the sample size to see how much statistical relevance exists.  To use an extreme example, if Acme Flight Sim's user base grew from two to four, then I could honestly argue that Acme's product is showing significant growth, as the user base has doubled! in the last year.  Or to put another way, the base has grown by 100%!  Looking at the raw numbers, however, tells us there's not much to get excited about.

 

Bottom line, you still want to look at the raw numbers to be able to understand the percentages' relevance in context.  In this regard, I find the P3D numbers vis a vis FSX neither particularly compelling, nor particularly disappointing.  The numbers are simply too small to say much more than that P3D is showing some growth while FSX continues to dominate while declining very slightly amongst Avsim users.

 

Factor in what's happening with Steam right now, and it would be fair to speculate that you might see significantly different FSX/P3D share numbers in next year's survey.

 

Scott

I'm glad you don't think I'm intentionally misleading or are you suggest how Tom is presenting the data as being misleading? ... anyway I'm not being misleading and there is no fallacy.  Data is pretty straight forward and does NOT need additional "context" for it to be what it is.

 

The question from the survey:

 

Most of us own multiple simulators. But, we tend to favor one flight simulator over the others that reside on our hard

drives. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most time you spend with a simulator, how do you rate your time on these sims?

 

2013

5 - Most of the Time

P3D 108 (14%)  734 respondents

FSX 1916 (78%) 2455 respondents

 

2014

5 - Most of the Time

P3D 347 (33%) 1030 respondents

FSX 1662 (72%) 2290 respondents

 

What's misleading about this?  P3D has grown, FSX has declined.  Like I said, I'm interested in growth.

 

If you are suggesting the data is not relevant because there is some "Defined" threshold of required respondents to make it "valid" then do explain what that requirement is and why?  I'm not aware of any survey that can "require" a certain number of respondents, further more how can you define and end point to meet whatever your threshold requirement is?

 

Cheers, Rob.

The percentage are misleading. It's not 72% of people having simulators that use FSX. It just says that, among the people using FSX, 72% are using it as their main simulator.

 

Changing from 78% to 72% does absolutely NOT mean that FSX declined. Speculation : let say that in 2014 you have 6000 people using FSX, and 3900 of them use it as their main simulator. The percentage would have been 65% instead of 72%. A big decline compare to 2013 with 78% ? Absolutely NOT ! There would have been a lot more people using FSX in 2014, even as their main simulator.

 

It's what I think is misleading with those percentage. It just says : among people actually using FSX, how many use it as their main simulator ? That give no idea about is there more or less people using FSX ? For that, you have to go back to the raw numbers, and do the calculation from the total number of simmers replying to the survey, not only to the FSX question.

 

 

What's misleading about this? P3D has grown, FSX has declined. Like I said, I'm interested in growth.

 

Rob, you're reacting to things I specifically didn't write, as I took pains to make sure you knew I was NOT accusing you of misleading.  I do NOT believe you're trying to mislead (and I certainly don't believe Tom is - I'm not sure where that statement even comes from, particularly since Tom notes that the numbers themselves are what's most important.)  I simply disagree with your interpretation of the numbers as you explained it.  The statement you made that raised my eyebrows was "... the only value the quantity numbers have are in determining the %."  The absolute numbers DO matter, and percentages without context don't present a complete story.  That's what I disagreed with, nothing more.

 

I look at these numbers and see growth, yes.  What I said was: "In this regard, I find the P3D numbers vis a vis FSX neither particularly compelling, nor particularly disappointing.  The numbers are simply too small to say much more than that P3D is showing some growth while FSX continues to dominate while declining very slightly amongst Avsim users."

 

The P3D community here is an active and vibrant one which is a very good and positive thing.  Given the level of excitement and interest in the forums, I actually expected the P3D numbers to be stronger than they were.

 

Scott

Rob, you're reacting to things I specifically didn't write, as I took pains to make sure you knew I was NOT accusing you of misleading.  I do NOT believe you're trying to mislead (and I certainly don't believe Tom is - I'm not sure where that statement even comes from, particularly since Tom notes that the numbers themselves are what's most important.)  I simply disagree with your interpretation of the numbers as you explained it.  The statement you made that raised my eyebrows was "... the only value the quantity numbers have are in determining the %."  The absolute numbers DO matter, and percentages without context don't present a complete story.  That's what I disagreed with, nothing more.

 

I look at these numbers and see growth, yes.  What I said was: "In this regard, I find the P3D numbers vis a vis FSX neither particularly compelling, nor particularly disappointing.  The numbers are simply too small to say much more than that P3D is showing some growth while FSX continues to dominate while declining very slightly amongst Avsim users."

 

The P3D community here is an active and vibrant one which is a very good and positive thing.  Given the level of excitement and interest in the forums, I actually expected the P3D numbers to be stronger than they were.

 

Scott

Perfectly said Scott.

 

Spot on.

 

Hirdy

 

 

Note in BIG LETTERS I'm NOT in ANY WAY suggesting you're trying to intentionally mislead - I'm only pointing out what I see as a fallacy in your statement and thus in your interpretation of the numbers.

 

Sorry but this is getting kinda strange to me ... if you aren't trying to inject the idea that someone is misleading others then why bring that concept into the thread?  Why would that even be a "concept" to bring up?  I simply stated the facts going from 2013 to 2014.

 

 

Rob, you're reacting to things I specifically didn't write, as I took pains to make sure you knew I was NOT accusing you of misleading.

 

Again, don't write something that doesn't need to be said unless you want a response.

 

If you want to interpret the data your own way, go for it ... I disagree in your interpretation.  The % values are the most meaningful because they remove quantity from the equation and since I was comparing P3D to P3D year to year and FSX to FSX year to year it is a meaningful "relative" % ... there is more than enough respondents to validate the survey.  If you disagree that's fine ... it's not a story, just data ... the story is one's interpretation.  I'm keeping the interpretation as simple as possible within context.  I'm not injecting other unknowns or making other assumptions as that is just speculation.

 

I see substantial growth in P3D and the Demographic survey is one in many data points (AVSIM is not the only source) that is confirming that growth.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Sorry but this is getting kinda strange to me ... if you aren't trying to inject the idea that someone is misleading others then why bring that concept into the thread? Why would that even be a "concept" to bring up? I simply stated the facts going from 2013 to 2014.

 

Even stranger for me, Rob.  I honestly don't know how I can be any clearer in either my argument or my intent, so I expect we've reached the point of diminishing returns.

 

I've honestly got no desire butt heads.  Really.

 

Scott

Try "normalizing" the two percentage figures to a common base point vis-a-vis the number of respondents. That should yield more meaningful results.

Another way is to compare the  usage of each simulator, including everything from 1- Least Time to 5 through 5 - Most Tme

There were those who responded to all the FSX questions:
2455 of 2697 = 91% in 2013
2290 of 2557 = 90% in 2014
Annual change -1%

There were who responded to all the P3D questions
 734 of 2697 = 3% in 2013
1030 of 2557 = 4% in 2014
Annual change +1%

Mark Twain (I think) is said there the are "lies, damned lies and statistics"
 

Remind me never to ask some really hard questions, like; how many angels can sit on the head of pin? Chaos would surely ensue. :rolleyes: