Thanks for posting this.  So much opinion from non pilots on these forums and who knows what to believe.

I think that most real world pilots are going to tell you the same thing. And given that one is not buckled into a seat that is moving around in space when using consumer flight sims, it's really hard to say which sim has the best flight dynamics.

Like I was saying earlier, the lack of feeling forces and realistic use of trim just make desktop simulators all kind of feel the same IMO.

 

For all the bickering about different flight models, I just don't feel major differences in most cases. A lot of what people perceive as a superior flight model is just them getting positive sensations from a plane bouncing around within the simulator. DCS for example has that feel.

 

But does any of that really mean it's "better" or more "realistic." Not really.

 

If I'm flying a simulator, I'm more concerned with whether the plane responds realistically to certain power settings and speeds vs. what it "feels" like as nothing ever really feels close to a real aircraft. A2A does a great job in that department.

Most of the mythology with regard to consumer sim flight models has its origin in critiques of the default aircraft from FS9 and FSX. They were said to "fly on rails". True, the response to control inputs and turbulence seemed simplistic in those aircraft, but the better 3rd party aircraft (like from A2A and RealAir, etc.) mimic the real world as best as can be done in a consumer flight sim.

Desktop simming lacks motion and emotion. Compared to real flying, my P3D setup falls very short, even with the best aircraft and scenery available. While I can use A2A's Cessna 172 to keep my instrument skills sharp, it feels nothing like flying the real thing. In real life you are flying with your "gut". It is the organ that picks up every little motion and emotion once you strap into the seat and fire up that Lycoming engine. The vibration, the body and aircraft moving in space, the feedback from the controls and last but not least, the adrenaline and fear of crashing into the ground and paying for a damaged aircraft - if you're lucky to survive

 

That being said, new and relatively affordable motion simulators is a big step up in terms of realism. I've used the VirtualFly ONTOP + DUO MG extensively, and it really makes a huge difference in suspending disbelief - running P3D. A real physical cockpit also goes a long way in suspending disbelief. Muscle memory is also a huge part of conducting flights in real life. The flows and operation of levers and switches becomes natural and second nature, something that is really hard to simulate with a virtual cokcpit on a monitor screen.

 

I haven't tested VR flying yet, but I do think it can have a massive impact on suspending disbelief once the technology matures.

I've used the VirtualFly ONTOP + DUO MG extensively,

 

Used or use?

 

If the latter, I gave my 15th wife the Hope diamond engagement ring ...beat that!

 

Cheers

Chas

I have owned pretty much every generation of P3D/MSFS lineage back to the old Sublogic days.  I currently have P3D v3, XP 10 (and 11) and DCS installed on my current system.  All have their strengths and weaknesses...

 

For me, the main area where P3D has been a disappointment is in graphics rendering performance.  There are threads upon threads where people have been struggling constantly with stuttering, long frames, etc that you simply don't see in XP, DCS etc.  I skipped P3D v1 but have had both v2 and v3, and it is frustrating that it STILL seems we have to mess around with config files, application affinity, etc just to get an acceptably smooth rendering experience, even on the most powerful systems.

 

The only way I am upgrading to a P3D v4 is if they show a breakthrough leap in scenery rendering performance - I don't need more eye candy or fps, I just want to be able to line up for final approach in a constant-rate turn without noticeable jerking and stuttering of the scenery image.  DCS and XP are miles ahead of P3D in this regard, so it is clearly possible in a desktop flight sim.  If they can't show that, I will stick with v3.

 

I would frankly prefer that they toss the legacy rendering engine out the window and start over - or maybe license someone else's technology.

 

I appreciate the opinions of the real-world pilots here about the compromises of desktop flight sims.  What I am looking for is having as close to the sensation of flight as is possible without the full-motion setups, so that we can at least use the visual cues to somewhat properly apply stick-and-rudder skills when practicing/learning at home.  It is really hard to do that when the frame rate of the graphics engine is jumping around constantly.

 

I sometimes feel that all the (real) concerns about VAS are masking the other real weakness of this platform.

Used or use?

 

If the latter, I gave my 15th wife the Hope diamond engagement ring ...beat that!

 

Cheers

Chas

Chas

 

Please do not tell my wife that.....she thinks I gave it to her

 

good one.

 

Greg

I think the only authoritative speculation is that the version number will certainly be v4.xxx.yyy.zzz

I am a RW GA pilot also, have you tried to get a GA sim aircraft to spin? its not easy and if it does it doesnt spin like it would with 1 stalled wing. 

 

There are many issues with the sims flight dynamic envelope, especially atmospheric physics modelling, have a look at fsdeveloper to get more insight. I agree that generally a well developed airfile is able to mask these deficiencies but as p3d is now marketed as a training tool, these legacy microsoft bugs need ironing out. This will of course unfortunately break the old legacy airfiles

 

I'm a jetliner-oriented pilot and the thing I miss the most is the lack of G-effects on stall speeds. Haven't seen that even in the best modeled airplanes.

I think the only authoritative speculation is that the version number will certainly be v4.xxx.yyy.zzz

Actually, it could be version 1.0 and have a new name.

Actually, it could be version 1.0 and have a new name.

Complet3D 1.0, as I once proposed.

 

Kind regards, Michael

I'm a jetliner-oriented pilot and the thing I miss the most is the lack of G-effects on stall speeds. Haven't seen that even in the best modeled airplanes

 

Lack of demand might be a clue.  In the list of demand items, it's the first time i've ever heard that request - and even less  as a most missed item.

Non-flat airports would be nice, I would think that's something that could benefit their larger training applications?

Lack of demand might be a clue.  In the list of demand items, it's the first time i've ever heard that request - and even less  as a most missed item.

 

That's a well chosen one, isn't that?! :-) Just fly a real jetliner or a Level D FFS and see the difference, not in normal smooth air, but whenever you get massive turbulence or need to recover from a low speed situation, you are going to see that speed tape lower red bar dancing all around according to you pitch inputs.

I currently am still just flying FSX:SE, and don't plan on jumping into the costs of P3D yet since it seems to be in between development periods, especially with v4 on the horizon. I have so much hope for v4 being 64bit. The memory limitations of 32bit, and the poor coding that doesn't properly utilize computer hardware are plaguing the simulator. If LM can just move over to 64 bit, and hopefully enhance the coding further so that it more properly utilities computer hardware then I think it would be a fantastic improvement.