We are now, with P3D 4.4 running a super version of the FS5 engine from olden days. A couple of points show why:

1) Bill Gates Luvs Flight Simulation
2) Bill Gates wanted to demonstrate why Windows was such a great OS
3) The Aces Team was brilliant
4) Current design goals were based on projected systems
5) The 'World' engine viability is validated by it's purchase by Lockheed Martin

Cheers
bs

 

Here we go again.

59 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Here we go again.

NFL! 😉

Even FS9 is still running kinda strong for its age.🤷‍♂️

What’s the point of your opine? 

😴🤐

Nothing to be proud of - old engine with limitations and lack of features that are common in other games nowadays...

I always cry, when I see whats possible (Battlefield5) and what we got 😂

10 hours ago, kingm56 said:

What’s the point of your opine? 

Post count 😎

Just installed FSX-SE with ORBX... forgotten how terrible it looks and that's with max settings.

I've been spoiled by eye candy games! 😳

 

For the record (the broken one that I use for situations like this).......the terrain graphics in FS5 were garbage.

Edited January 20, 20197 yr by Christopher Low

I like the core MSFS flight dynamics engine but I still feel crosswind handling, even in P3DV4.4 which I have now, was never quite handled well.  Same holds true with Xplane11.30 but to a lesser extent now I feel.  The scenery display engine is great but as others say here, glorifying FS5 is a big stretch.  For me the sim that turned the corner in the Franchise was FS2002, although FS2000 was the light at the end of the tunnel.  Why? Because of the addition of mountain shadows, which gave realism to the scenery.  FS9 was another big leap but the horizons were messed up, as some of us tried to relate in the beta, so I wrote Soft Horizons for free for FS9 and FSX as well, others wrote excellent free and pay sky programs, I genned my own clouds which though lower res were just "fluffier" for me, LOL.  P3DV4 enhances the engine by adding cloud shadows, they steal the show, and by incorporating the smoother horizons that were missing from FS9 and FSX.  As our systems have improved, performance has improved.  Instead of needing high end systems for "everything maxed" even a system like mine no longer pushes the envelope, as long as background processes are kept to a minimum. 

Xplane11 was and is a huge improvement over Xplane10, which I had many out of mem errors on on a system with more RAM than I have today, if you add up RAM and VRAM.  It's horizons are astounding, it has better landclass than the MSFS series, photoreal scenery making is easier for the novice with Ortho4XP vs. FSEarthTiles for the FS9-P3D series, autogen is spot on, and aircraft dynamics are as good as P3D in most cases, though not approaching what RealAir did with their products like their lovely Dukes.  Xplane11 is poorer in weather options (such as no cumulonimbus) and to have seasons, it is costly on disk space and you have to go to third party.

So I give the nod to the MSFS platform just a bit over Xplane11 but if someone to ask me what sim to pick, I would say whatever fits your tastes, wallet and study and real flying ambitions, if you have them.

John

I love how everything is 'robust'

5 years ago you never heard the word now its in every management email I ever get. 

I don't know what the obsession is with it.

'moving forward with a robust plan that doubles down with blue sky thinking....' 

Normally means.. 'I don't have a bloody clue how to address the issue' 

Anyways back the 20 year old engine we use... 

 

Edited January 21, 20197 yr by tooting

Maybe the FSX engine seems so robust because there has been so little in the way of competition in the civil aviation flight sim world.