Apparently, it lacked interest. 😀

2 hours ago, domkle said:

Which is the central point !

Lockheed Martin has enormous intellectual ressources as a defense contractor in the aerospace industry. We were glad to see them take over a dead FSX but they have to put  in line these ressources more than in the past instead on just having an incremental philosophy. Thats why I'd better have an innovative v5 than a v4.6.  Maybe what Asobo does, will kick them in the behind ?

That was the point I was trying to make

•  

 

 

Edited February 6, 20206 yr by rjfry

1 hour ago, SteveW said:

Where's the B58 gone and why?

Not sure what the B58 has to do with this thread but I am with you. Never bought the Alphasim version but   a convincing Hustler, with Sexy Sally of course, would be great in the next generation of sims. Like the F104 an aircraft difficult to handle.

 

Just now, domkle said:

Not sure what the B58 has to do with this thread but I am with you. Never bought the Alphasim version but   a convincing Hustler, with Sexy Sally of course, would be great in the next generation of sims. Like the F104 an aircraft difficult to handle.

 

Well, it was kind of a nice part of the stock equipment for simple flights.

That Rob, I see a few arguments around here and there. He's in every corner of the site banging in good data. He's going to overlap with someone's expertise and there might be a few sparks fly. That's all it is I think. He's pretty good to us and we know it.

15 minutes ago, SteveW said:

 

 

Well, it was kind of a nice part of the stock equipment for simple flights.

 

Oh I see, silly of me,  you were speaking of the Beech not the Convair !  

When I'm not tickling the levers of a KingAir, sometimes I need to dive in with a simple one.

I have the Beechcraft Baron B58 in P3D v4.5HF2. I kept a copy of it from an earlier version, because I use it as the default aircraft when the Scenario screen loads.

Graphics are not everything, and everyone knows that and wants the same thing. A Better Flight Simulator. Plenty still use FSX because it plays differently and they have enough of what they want. Big changes to P3D v4 have not made a difference to them no matter the lighting.

Rob, you said addon devs complained about you and that LM locked you down. I don't see why they needed to stop you showing vids, why would they not want to show off what's coming or dangle a carrot? The MS sim is a peoples sim, and the LM sim is a test bed for industry developments, but there's no secret technology to keep hidden in case the enemy get's hold of it. So it's not for that reason they don't show it off.

9 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

What rant?  Posting of facts/information you don't want to believe or hear doesn't qualify as a rant.  I don't like what XYZ says, so therefore it's a rant? 

Given that your signature says you're on P3D V3, I can see why you might think not much has changed in P3D ... I listed all the features new in P3D upto V4.5 (sorry can't discuss beyond that) over FSX which you promptly ignored (64bit, PBR, Dynamic Light, etc. etc.).  Ignorance is bliss?  So you are sticking with a version 3 of P3D that was released 4-5 years ago (Sept, 2015) and complain that nothing has "changed"?  But P3D has changed, hence your false statement.

I'm interested in getting the best simulator possible (regardless of who is working the development of it), you seem to be interested propagating mis-information about other platforms and/or turning MFS "speculation" and "enthusiasm" into facts that aren't based on any personal real experience just some PR videos and/or MS/Asobo posts.  As I posted before, I would love for you or anyone to have access to the closed Alpha/Beta for various platforms ... but waving the flag just isn't going to get you what you want nor convince anyone that's actually used it.  There is a lot more to a flight simulator and testing then "oh look pretty terrain at 2000 ft" ... I can bring up Google flight simulator and get very high quality pretty terrain and even seasons and different years, but that doesn't define Google flight simulator as a "superior" simulator to me, not even close.

I want the best possible simulator that will cover the largest possible user group desires from those that like to sit and just watch AI traffic take-off and land to those that like to calculate an aircraft's CG and/or operate an Airbus FC LAWS and to those that like to walk around detailed airports or those that like the purpose of being an air hauler and have a career.  The SUM of what the simulator can do is greater than any single specific component be it visual simplicity or hyper realistic systems.  Getting to this objective isn't reached by the spread of false information of other platforms.

Cheers, Rob.

 

I take the liberty to report your post to the moderator team as totally inappropriate.

Hot debates can be fun but to attribute me things I never said or even thought, and use false quotations marks for that  to the boot, to let people think that I said them, is not hot. It is despicable. 

Where are the posts where : 

- I complained that nothing has "changed" in P3D, I merely said that I wish that LM departed from their incremental philosophy. Where is my 'false statement' (your word)  ? Incremental is not immobilism. 

- I wrote that  "its so superior to anything" (quotes are from you) y. I have never written that or never hinted of it. On the contrary, you will find post where I praise P3D for the excellent sim that it is. To attribute me that outrageous assertion is lying. 

- that I sum up a good sim at a pretty terrain. You will find post where I stress the importance of, for instance, the new air flow over relief (very important for me as I love light aircraft), the new weather,  etc

I am a frequent contributor at the FS20 forum. It is easy for anybody to check in my posts that I am prudently optimistic about the new sim and only that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as I see it there won’t be a V4.6 ; I think that we will see a new V5.

And LM will surely have their eye on what MS is doing.

Hopefully we will see a new core engine and an improved weather system.

As I wrote it before : I already use pr scenery only + custom AG so improved performance and a better lighting/ weather system is on top of my wishlist.

 

8 minutes ago, GSalden said:

As far as I see it there won’t be a V4.6 ; I think that we will see a new V5.

And LM will surely have their eye on what MS is doing.

Hopefully we will see a new core engine and an improved weather system.

As I wrote it before : I already use pr scenery only + custom AG so improved performance and a better lighting/ weather system is on top of my wishlist.

 

You sum it up nicely.

23 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

The advantage of getting v4.6 instead of v5 is that we would not have to pay again. The disadvantage is that I can't see any potential v4.6 including anything that would make any appreciable difference to my P3D experience.

You're right. 4.6 probably wouldn't bring anything revolutionary to the table. You're also right, the main reason why I'd prefer 4.6 to v5 is about €$¥. If v5 would introduce a new engine we can forget about backward compatibility and even if there would be some sort of BC the devs would charge for the updated licences the same way they did so far - and rightly so if they put time and resources into making the addons compatible with new version (and I don't mean just making new installers that point to a new folder and then charging us as it was completely new product). I'm just not sure how would this work in general based on the last survey results. More than half of participants answered they are considering replacing their current sim with MSFS2020. And the majority doesn't spend more than a couple of hundred bucks for addons per year. Also considering the marketing campaign for MSFS2020 is working quite good for them so far I imagine a lot of folks will just wait for that. 

Of course, competition is good, so I'm not against v5 at all. I'm just not sure I'm prepared to invest into new sim at this point, at least not before I see if MSFS2020 is actually what we're expecting it to be. That's the reason why I'd prefer 4.6 to v5.

1 hour ago, SteveW said:

Graphics are not everything, and everyone knows that and wants the same thing. A Better Flight Simulator.

Not everyone. To me graphics are everything at this point in time. The simulation part has been as good as I needs to be for a decade already. The only exception to the rule is when I use VirtualFly's full motion simulators at my local flight sim center. Then you have motion, a cockpit and a much more realistic experience, but when I'm home in my office/spare bedroom, the only thing that suspends my disbelief is what I can see on the monitor, hence the need for it to be ultra realistic. 

I do however know and accept that people see things differently from me. This is a fragmented hobby where people have different needs, so to each his own. Prepar3D has been the best option for me personally since they released v2 in 2013, but I doubt it will have anything to offer me once MSFS 2020 hits the streets.

What I don't get is all this "preaching" where people present their own wants and needs as the truth, and as something that should apply for the flight sim community as a whole. 

 

Quote

What I don't get is all this "preaching" where people present their own wants and needs as the truth, and as something that should apply for the flight sim community as a whole. 

 

It's the darker side of human nature, isn't it? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of posts I have seen where, for example, someone bought a new and expensive piece of PC hardware and then came to the forum to admit that it had made virtually no difference to the flight simulator experience, even though that is most certainly the experience of many of us from time to time.

I think the some advocates of some of the most expensive "study level" aircraft also cannot bring themselves to post that the experience with a $100 + purchase is less then perfect, even if that is in fact the case. Indeed the use of the term "study level". which has no dictionary definition and as many meanings as there are those that use it, is often used to passively imply that any product that is not "study level" is therefore inferior and of course that the discerning customer who did buy the "study level" is by implication superior. 

It seems to be built in to some of us that we need to show that we are better than all the rest and that all the rest need to be converted to our better way. It's nothing new and predates flight simulators by thousands of years.

Of course, this is just my own observation and everyone is free to disagree.🙂

 

Edited February 7, 20206 yr by Reader

I wouldn't worry too much about backward compatibility... 

S.

Edited February 7, 20206 yr by simbol