IRT the code thing, only thing I've seen that is the same is the way the .cfg files work.

I consider that a bonus, since it allows us to "fix" things if the publisher decides to "fix it" the way they want - like removing the GPS from the Cherokee.

There is a TON of stuff that is completely new, which everyone keeps either ignoring or complaining about.

i.e. - Tried to import FSX aircraft umpty-squat, but the gauges don't work, no matter what is done with the gauge and panel cfgs.  

My answer - DUH!!!  While the cfg files are the same, the graphics behind them are completely different - as in completely new.  Sure, you can get 2D panels working, if you spend enough time figuring those out, but that's one of my complaints about FSX (having not flown Flight Sims since 1998 approximately).  Several of the views in FSX remove from the immersion of being in a cockpit.  FSW's 2D panels look like what's in the cockpit (mostly) unlike the completely immersion removing Radio Stack view in FSX.  Sure, it's easy to use... but the views matter - and FSW completely re-did the interiors and exteriors of the aircraft in FSW.  Try seeing reflections of the sun change on the exterior or the shadows shift in the interior of your plane while flying in FSX.  These are new things - not just "upgraded engine" things.

This is just my opinion, though....

17 hours ago, vololiberista said:

You mean like the Royal Air Force that used MS ESP in their simulators and now are converting to P3D. Oh, and you can use the very same simulator on your home desk top. Isn't that good enough?

So can I get P3D for less than $15 US with TrueSky weather and fully 3D cockpits?  Price matters.

6 hours ago, theohall65 said:

So can I get P3D for less than $15 US with TrueSky weather and fully 3D cockpits?  Price matters.

That is a somewhat irrelevant question. P3D costs what it costs. If you only want to "play" at flightsimming then it's not for you.

17 minutes ago, vololiberista said:

That is a somewhat irrelevant question. P3D costs what it costs. If you only want to "play" at flightsimming then it's not for you.

Whether or not someone "plays" at flight simming has everything to do with how they approach it and precious little to do with whether they use FS9, FSX, FSX:SE, P3D,  or X-Plane. 

45 minutes ago, vololiberista said:

That is a somewhat irrelevant question. P3D costs what it costs. If you only want to "play" at flightsimming then it's not for you.

You've got a point. I tried to get my 8 year old Grandson to try FSW but he insists on P3D...

On 19 January 2018 at 9:55 AM, vololiberista said:

You mean like the Royal Air Force that used MS ESP in their simulators and now are converting to P3D.

But that doesn't mean P3D is a better sim as far as desktop users are concerned. P3D's designed to allow scenarios to be practised, controlled and networked and user testing to be carried out. As it's the only current sim to offer these options, it's obvious why the RAF would choose it.

1 hour ago, switch686 said:

You've got a point. I tried to get my 8 year old Grandson to try FSW but he insists on P3D...

Because of an addon?

9 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Because of an addon?

No, because that computer has Adobe Photoshop, and he uses that program to get his screenshots to look good so he can post them on Reddit r/flightsim...

3 hours ago, Holdit said:

Whether or not someone "plays" at flight simming has everything to do with how they approach it and precious little to do with whether they use FS9, FSX, FSX:SE, P3D,  or X-Plane. 

That has to be one of the wisest statements I've ever read on AVSIM. :-)

 

13 hours ago, switch686 said:

No, because that computer has Adobe Photoshop, and he uses that program to get his screenshots to look good so he can post them on Reddit r/flightsim...

Kids a genius

On ‎01‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 8:58 AM, switch686 said:

X Planes first line of code was written 29 years ago...September 1988...

https://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2003-07/austin-goliath

The point was that the fine folks at X-Plane/AF2 can change their code to remove/add limitations, whereas DT and LM can only do so much with the code base that they can't alter because it's licensed, Again these developers have done a fantastic job with everything regardless. Unless I am mistaken (which don't take much these days) my understanding is that they are limited to what those engines are capable of.

9 minutes ago, AAN1718A said:

The point was that the fine folks at X-Plane/AF2 can change their code to remove/add limitations, whereas DT and LM can only do so much with the code base that they can't alter because it's licensed, Again these developers have done a fantastic job with everything regardless. Unless I am mistaken (which don't take much these days) my understanding is that they are limited to what those engines are capable of.

My understanding is that DTG purchased the MSFS commercial  right`s to develop it any why they see fit into the future, and may change the code base in future if they wish to. 

4 hours ago, rjfry said:

My understanding is that DTG purchased the MSFS commercial  right`s to develop it any why they see fit into the future, and may change the code base in future if they wish to. 

That's my understanding also. They are constrained in terms of what changes they can make while still calling the product FSX, but they can use the code any way they please as long as it's sold as a new title.

4 minutes ago, fshobby said:

That's my understanding also. They are constrained in terms of what changes they can make while still calling the product FSX, but they can use the code any way they please as long as it's sold as a new title.

That makes sense. Maybe why Lockheed calls it P3D? Because I thought LM bought the rights to change the code, but maybe you are right as they changed the title, so did DTG. I just hope FSW surprises us in the long run!

Time will tell.

Mike  

18 minutes ago, simaddict said:

That makes sense. Maybe why Lockheed calls it P3D? Because I thought LM bought the rights to change the code, but maybe you are right as they changed the title, so did DTG. I just hope FSW surprises us in the long run!

It's a bit different in LM's case because they never had the right to sell anything called FSX, as that is an entertainment product. It might be that LM's license would have allowed them to sell a product called ESP, possibly with restrictions, but it's not clear there would have been any business case for that, while on the other hand DTG has done very well with continuing the FSX title.