5 hours ago, Bunchy said:

Just maximizing my carbon footprint as much as I can. I hope when I die, y'all sweat to death. 🚤

This made me laugh.

When the weather's too rough for boating, do you burn tractor tires instead?😁

I hope Greta Thunberg isn't on this forum........

Stu

Never thought of that, thank you. I've just been leaving my AC on full blast all summer with all of the windows in the house open, and my whole house exhaust fan running. Used tractor tires would be a lot cheaper than my electric bill, and the carbon output would be much higher. An added bonus would be that lovely smell of burnt rubber. Brings back memories of my drag racing days (in cars, not dresses). 

9 hours ago, Jeff_Fortuna said:

from what I can tell from MSFS trailers + leaks, scenery is somewhat better (more accurate?) than P3D with something like ORBX True Earth or X-Plane with ortho (or ORBX). How much better is arguable - but I don't see a quantum leap in MSFS wrt scenery - again, relative to ORBX True Earth. Thus, I would simply say MSFS > P3D >= X-Plane given a well - outfitted (and expensive) P3D and X-Plane.

For low and slow VFR flying there is NO comparison. MSFS rocks that world. Above FL180 where the world below becomes much less detailed, the differences aren't as obvious from an objects on the ground perspective. GA flyers are going to love it for sure. 

2 hours ago, MDFlier said:

For low and slow VFR flying there is NO comparison. 

What makes you think that there is "no comparison" with TrueEarth for low and slow? I know some testers prefer TrueEarth UK to MSFS. Some of the photogrammetry looks pretty odd up close (some trees, bridges that are solid beneath the span) The there's cars driving across the water etc. So why do you consider this to be "no contest"?? 

1 hour ago, OzWhitey said:

What makes you think that there is "no comparison" with TrueEarth for low and slow?

I've done both.

40 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

I've done both.

more of us have than care to admit.  But your counter point fails to defeat his point.  His point about photogrammetry and bridges is a very valid one.  

in case you are unaware what that all is. zoom in on this picture. I grabbed this from somebody elses post in another thread

https://imgur.com/1fkUOdo

 

Edited July 23, 20205 yr by micstatic
adding link

On 7/22/2020 at 7:15 PM, MDFlier said:

Just maximizing my carbon footprint as much as I can. I hope when I die, y'all sweat to death. 🚤

You know what? I agree. Before this gets political... if a person has the legal right, however expensive that right may be (i.e they can afford it), to pursue their entertainment then go for it.  Don't let the DVC catch you  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebird_2015_AD

On 7/22/2020 at 7:08 PM, MrBitstFlyer said:

I live on a canal narrowboat in the UK.  4mph cruising has given me several weeks away from the mooring in the last year for £50 in fuel 🙂

Context is key. Our narrowboats are not known for having a couple of big block supercharged marine V8s installed. 

Incidentally, how do you cope with getting decent internet? 

I have Internet through EE. I get about 25Mb per second.

3 hours ago, micstatic said:

more of us have than care to admit.  But your counter point fails to defeat his point.  His point about photogrammetry and bridges is a very valid one.  

in case you are unaware what that all is. zoom in on this picture. I grabbed this from somebody elses post in another thread

https://imgur.com/1fkUOdo

 

#1 - I was not trying to counter anything he said, nor "defeat" him in any way. Yes. he has a valid point about MSFS not being perfect. No flight sim that will run on my computer can recreate a perfect rendition of the world. However, and in my opinion, the overall GA experience provided by MSFS is top notch and exceeds what I curently get from P3D with all the add-ons without any add-ons. But you're talking to a guy who was thrilled with Flight Simulator when it looked like this so not everyone will agree. The initial release of MSFS will be a new starting point for sims to come. It will only get better. And I noticed there's already a "world update" on the development plan for after release so it could get even better pretty soon after release. My personal experience is that I'm doing things in MSFS that I could only dream of doing before. So, my experience is that it is better. If you feel differently, then I'm down with that, too. 

1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

Incidentally, how do you cope with getting decent internet? 

Surprisingly, I get excellent cell service on the water once I get away from my marina where the cell service stinks. I've spent many days anchored out by the island with my laptop tethered over wifi to my cell running a VPN connection to my office. It works beautifully... Right up until some slacker in a speedboat blows by at high speed while I'm on a conference call.

Guys, let’s get this one back on topic or we’ll lock her up. If you guys want to discuss boats, etc, take it to the Hangar Chat area.

Drifted off topic did we? Based on the pricing model it looks like the choices for airport expansion will be either they will develop themselves, third parties will have SDK access or some combination of the two. Don't get me wrong, doesn't mean I won't buy it but but I'm still heavily invested in P3D.

Until MS2020 supports VR on Occulus, I'll be sticking with P3D.  I'm very impressed with V5, the loading times seem faster, and I get better performance.  It looks much better out of the box, but with ORBX, the whole thing looks amazing, so I'm happy with it for now, I have quite a lot of add ons.  I have activesky and REX products, but haven't put them on V5 yet, it looks fine without at the moment.  But I love flying in VR (not all the time, but a lot of the time).  I'm looking forward to MSFS, but sometimes I wish there was just one sim, as it ends up costing a lot of money. 

That said, if we didn't spend money on it, it probably wouldn't have got to the position it is now with all the fantastic add ones etc, we'd have just been stuck with stock FSX.  So yes, it costs money and will continue to do so, but it makes us happy and keeps the hobby moving forward and getting better, so money well spent at the end of the day.

 

2 hours ago, skybluerob said:

Until MS2020 supports VR on Occulus, I'll be sticking with P3D.  I'm very impressed with V5, the loading times seem faster, and I get better performance.  It looks much better out of the box, but with ORBX, the whole thing looks amazing, so I'm happy with it for now, I have quite a lot of add ons.  I have activesky and REX products, but haven't put them on V5 yet, it looks fine without at the moment.  But I love flying in VR (not all the time, but a lot of the time).  I'm looking forward to MSFS, but sometimes I wish there was just one sim, as it ends up costing a lot of money. 

That said, if we didn't spend money on it, it probably wouldn't have got to the position it is now with all the fantastic add ones etc, we'd have just been stuck with stock FSX.  So yes, it costs money and will continue to do so, but it makes us happy and keeps the hobby moving forward and getting better, so money well spent at the end of the day.

 

MSFS has pretty dubious performance, so it will be interesting to see how it works with VR, including the many pixels of the Reverb G2.

Also, get your Activesky P3D installed - it's definitely worth it!