7 minutes ago, F737NG said:

There's actually a hard deadline date with the release of the new Xbox console

But that's not what everybody's gagging for in here.  We'll see.

34 minutes ago, CaribbeanCLANK said:

I love flight simming and MISS IT a great deal!!! If I still had a working PC, I would certainly continue to fly P3D. I have a lot invested in that sim so uninstalling it now to wait for a sim that is not a "SURE THING" just doesn't make sense to me. I love flying too much. 

The new MSFS looks amazing but it is not a "SURE THING" for me personally. It certainly is VERY promising and I am hopeful but there are many factors that will determine if it will be the way forward for my simming experience in the future. I do need to build a new PC and figured I would wait to hear and learn more about MSFS before I invest in new hardware. And even if I built a new PC tomorrow, just the thought of what it would take to get P3D up and running again gives me a bit of a headache.

If my PC was up and running I would be flying right now... probably taking off from a Flightbeam airport, in a PMDG 777 or 747-8i (in BA livery) on my way to a FlyTampa airport with ActiveSky injecting current weather conditions into my sim. Just typing that makes me want to go on Amazon and order parts to build a new PC. 😥

 

 

Sure thing? You can be sure that no other simulator is even in the same league. If you have any doubts just watch the previews again. Comparing MSFT 2020 to FSX is like comparing FSX to 5.0.

Edited October 12, 20196 yr by Flybynumbers

I am still flying and enjoying Prepar3d4, fully stuffed with addons, and will go on doing so and even buy addons I like. Just finished a great flight from Marrakech to Agadir.

While I am excited about MFS as most of you are, I try to calm down a bit. We (including me) try to project all our wishes and hopes upon this project, but there are quite a number of loose ends in the form of unconfirmed features which may or may not be included and might be badly missed by some of us. We already had these statements: No VR -  no buy for me. No Seasons - no buy for me etc.

Besides, it will come with flaws (is there any software which doesn't?) so it will need some time to mature, even with careful and extended alpha and beta testing.

I expect to stay with Prepar3d for another year, and maybe even longer, depending on the developments of both, MPF and P3D. After all, I am 67, who knows what the future will hold for me.

Kind regards, Michael

Edited October 12, 20196 yr by pmb

Prepare what? 

The graphics are a major factor but what stand out Most is the performance. I am so sick of 15 fps approaches.

I guess I'm lucky to have other hobbies to keep me occupied!  Only time I fire up a flight sim is to do some artwork (PS) for  developers or for aviation authors writing novels.  

Edited October 12, 20196 yr by TuFun

18 minutes ago, DaWu said:

Prepare what? 

The graphics are a major factor but what stand out Most is the performance. I am so sick of 15 fps approaches.

Turn your settings down or get better hardware.

P3D can cope well with quality Flightbeam or FlyTampa airports, a Drzewiecki city, weather, AI planes and maintain 25+ FPS all at the same time on my PC, so long as I don't take the p*ss with the visuals...

I'm excited for MSFS as anyone, but reading that the machines at the media / influencer open day were all running RTX 2080Ti and 64 bit RAM (albeit at an early, non-optimised stage), I'm a little concerned at the performance requirement.

45 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Turn your settings down or get better hardware.

P3D can cope well with quality Flightbeam or FlyTampa airports, a Drzewiecki city, weather, AI planes and maintain 25+ FPS all at the same time on my PC, so long as I don't take the p*ss with the visuals...

I'm excited for MSFS as anyone, but reading that the machines at the media / influencer open day were all running RTX 2080Ti and 64 bit RAM (albeit at an early, non-optimised stage), I'm a little concerned at the performance requirement.

It was confirmed that the machines were using a RTX2080 and not a TI, small difference but a big impact.. 

Edited October 12, 20196 yr by kaiprt

Wouldn't it be hilarious to watch the crowd shuffle back across the street if Lockheed suddenly announced P3DV5 to be released by mid December with amazing new features like a new default ATC, ORBX Global for default scenery, backward compatibility of aircraft addons, and many many more upgrades and improvements for your simulation experience. 

18 minutes ago, kaiprt said:

It was confirmed that the machines were using a RTX2080 and not a TI, small difference but a big impact.. 

Who confirmed it? It would be a more realistic hardware choice which will give more people the chance to enjoy the sim at higher settings. If it uses a 2080 when unoptimised, any recent 8 GB VRAM GPU should work ok.

17 minutes ago, PATCO LCH said:

Wouldn't it be hilarious to watch the crowd shuffle back across the street if Lockheed suddenly announced P3DV5 to be released by mid December with amazing new features like a new default ATC, ORBX Global for default scenery, backward compatibility of aircraft addons, and many many more upgrades and improvements for your simulation experience. 

That's just us P3D users' wishful thinking. Zero chance of all of that wishlist happening.

22 minutes ago, PATCO LCH said:

Wouldn't it be hilarious to watch the crowd shuffle back across the street if Lockheed suddenly announced P3DV5 to be released by mid December with amazing new features like a new default ATC, ORBX Global for default scenery, backward compatibility of aircraft addons, and many many more upgrades and improvements for your simulation experience. 

A higher probability might be that P3D v5 would be based on the new MFS engine. 

17 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Who confirmed it? It would be a more realistic hardware choice which will give more people the chance to enjoy the sim at higher settings. If it uses a 2080 when unoptimised, any recent 8 GB VRAM GPU should work ok.

That's just us P3D users' wishful thinking. Zero chance of all of that wishlist happening.

Well that would make sense that they are using the 2080 TI...awesome card.

8 hours ago, DaWu said:

Prepare what? 

The graphics are a major factor but what stand out Most is the performance. I am so sick of 15 fps approaches.

Prepar3d.

I don't have 15fps approaches. I had 30 fps (corresponding to my 30 Hz monitor setting) on approach at Agadir yesterday and I have the same 30 fps at KSFO (FB + NCA ORBX for the envíronemnt). Flight is butter-smooth most of the time with short exceptions when new massive autogen or a major airport hit the FOV.

And no, I don't have a monster system (see sig), The difference may be I only fly GA planes and use a hardware panel driven by SPAD.neXt running on a networked machine together with some more outsourced stuff. 

You can look up my prepar3d.cfg:

https://michael-basler.net/Downloads/Prepar3D.zip

On request, I can provide you a screenshot with fps counter at KSFO.

I don't say Prepar3d is perfect - it's all but that and you can find a listing of 7 bad issues of the terrain engine which I summarized here at AVSIM a few months ago. Despite, I can enjoy flying with what I have now and look forward to what will come. Lucky me - right?

Kind regards, Michael

2 minutes ago, pmb said:

Despite, I can enjoy flying with what I have now and look forward to what will come. Lucky me - right?

Make that lucky us! 😉

As a flight simmerer I could not wait a year, I would give it up as I would know I could do without it and save my money for something else.

PS I find it hard to not fly for more than two days.

Edited October 12, 20196 yr by rjfry

19 hours ago, Pegaso said:

Well, I can't really understand what people expect from flight simulation. As a r/w pilot it should be a SIMULATION of FLIGHT for me which means PILOTING an aircraft that comes as close as possible to my A2A and the real Cherokee in performance and handling, not necessarily optically. Mostly FS seems to be regarded as a simulation of environment without coming close to any realism of flying. Even as a very experienced pilot you have no eye for scenery while climbing or on approach (if you don't prefer autoland...). Personally I love flying into beautiful cloud formations, but you concentrate more on the airspace around you than on ground only. 

So I expect that P3D and X-Plane will remain the preferred FS when it comes to more realistic piloting. 

Oh I don't know. I am a r/w pilot as well (PP/SEP/VFR - Piper Archer), and my wife and I do most of our flying at 4000' - 7000' agl (we live in the NE USA). To us, the scenery below is *is* what the flight is all about- that and the "$100 hamburger" (although, with inflation, I think it is more like a $400 hamburger lol). No flying into clouds or pea-soup for us, so flying for us is about the entire experience, not *solely* about the flying-the-airplane & the piloting (btw: no need to capitalize a few selected words, we already get the arrogance part... most of us are well aware that the piloting part comes first). When flying into "beautiful cloud formations" there is not a whole heck of a lot to see while inside them; we think the clouds look pretty fine and dandy from below or otherwise. Do I, as a r/w pilot, want the flying & simulation aspects to be paramount to my flight simming experience? Sure, you bet. But do I also want a semblance of really nifty "true-to-life" eye candy that the two of us otherwise seek when flying in r/w? You bet I do.