Thank you LM for Golden era of Flightsim - Road Forks Now

[OzWhitey 3,353]

10 hours ago, kingm56 said:

Seriously? You're asserting that P3D is a more realistic simulator because it has vastly inferior graphics? If MSFS had terrible graphics on par with P3D, would you consider if for simmers too?  You do realize that MSFS flight and atmosphere physics have been completely overhauled...right?  How many add-ons does P3D require to achieve realistic atmospheric/physic conditions...or are those just for gammers?  Will the PMDG 737 NGXu be less capable in MSFS than P3D?  Does Chevy have better driving dynamics because it has less horsepower and refinement than a Lamborghini? The notion that MSFS is not for gamers because it employs high fidelity graphics is just absurd. 

OK, Matt, we've all posted on the internet after a big night out I guess, My advice to you is to wait til you sober up before you re-post on Avsim.

On the off chance you're not drunk/on drugs/just had a stroke:

1. "You're asserting that P3D is a more realistic simulator because it has vastly inferior graphics?". Ha ha, no, "seriously" I'm not (why would I do that??). I didn't say anything that was even remotely close to what you're suggesting.

2."If MSFS had terrible graphics on par with P3D, would you consider if for simmers too?". I didn't say that MSFS is not for simmers. I've suggested that some simulation users may keep using P3D v5.1 if it's good, which is hardly a radical statement.

3."You do realize that MSFS flight and atmosphere physics have been completely overhauled...right? ". Well, they haven't been overhauled, they've been designed from scratch for a new sim (legacy flight model mode aside). But what has that got to do with the suggestion that some users may keep using P3D v5.1?

3b. This is just an extra dot point, not a specific response. I was wondering, are you having some kind of competition with Nyxx to see who can make the most straw man arguments in one post? If so, kudos!

4. " How many add-ons does P3D require to achieve realistic atmospheric/physic conditions." The answer for atmospheric conditions is: for visual representation, none (it's part of the core sim in v5 EA). For weather conditions, one (ASP3D). For physics: none (if you've been paying attention, you'd know that MSFS has some suspect physics on occasion, just like P3D and X-plane). As for flight models - have you seen the rate of climb you can get out of that MSFS A320?

4b. "or are those just for gammers?" I too struggle to spell when inebriated,  so that's all fine. Are you asking if realistic physics are just for gamers? If so, why are you asking such an odd question??

5. "Will the PMDG 737 NGXu be less capable in MSFS than P3D?" Well, the NGXu will never exist in MSFS as that is a P3D model, so you appear to be ill-informed. As for the NG3 - nobody knows the answer to that, not even PMDG. No 3rd party dev has managed to code complex avionics yet in MSFS. Aerosoft have made some early progress, but note the word "early". If I was a betting man, I would say that PMDG will have an equally capable 737 in MSFS some time in 2021. But that, of course, has nothing to do with what I posted.

6. "Does Chevy have better driving dynamics because it has less horsepower and refinement than a Lamborghini?" Don't know, don't care. There are plenty of car forums on the internet, so maybe try asking there.

7. "The notion that MSFS is not for gamers because it employs high fidelity graphics is just absurd." MSFS is...uh...not for gamers? Did you actually get drunker while posting this? OK, yes, I agree with your final point, the notion that MSFS is not for gamers is absurd. So we do agree on something!

Hope your head doesn't hurt too much when you wake up tomorrow.

Cheers!

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by OzWhitey

[OzWhitey 3,353]

 

9 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

Try the default Cessna 152. You won't be disappointed.

You will absolutely be disappointed whenever you try to gain altitude as it's a Cessna 152 which probably means it's got a Lycoming O-235 modeled, delivering a mighty 110 HP.

I am pretty sure that I would feel sad and depressed whenever I pointed the nose up, and then would most most likely shed a tear in memory of my A2A Commanche. 🙂

 

[GCBraun 2,390]

1 minute ago, OzWhitey said:

 

You will absolutely be disappointed whenever you try to gain altitude as it's a Cessna 152 which probably means it's got a Lycoming O-235 modeled, delivering a mighty 110 HP.

I am pretty sure that I would feel sad and depressed whenever I pointed the nose up, and then would most most likely shed a tear in memory of my A2A Commanche. 🙂

 

Low and (very) slow will bring the biggest rewards in MSFS, at least in the early days. 🙂

[OzWhitey 3,353]

5 hours ago, alepro21 said:

Not wanting to rain any anyone’s parade, but as someone who’s used both sims I can tell you that I’ll be keeping P3D close and will continue to invest. Super excited about MSFS but it’s unlikely to become my main platform this year. 

Go ahead and rain on the MSFS parade a bit if you like, Avsim has seen MSFS testers breaking NDAs to randomly rain on P3D's parade for about a year now (particularly in the last month).

Alpha guys, it's 7th August, we've all seen a dozen videos of MSFS by now if we're paying attention so the new sim is far from secret. So some of you are currently amused by low-and-slow flying over photoreal with objects? That's been available via TrueEarth in Prepar3d for a long time now (UK/Netherlands/WA/OR/NorCal). You like nice clouds? TrueSky is better for some things, worse for others. You like VR/good performance/complex airliners that actually work/Accusim GA - well, sorry, MSFS can't help you there right now.

I'm actually super pumped for MSFS - I'm basically like a kid waiting for Christmas counting down the days til August 18th right now - but I still find it kind of annoying when alpha testers insist that me and the the rest of the P3D crew are going to be dumping our favorite sim altogether in 11 days time.

No, sorry, I've seen exactly what MSFS has to offer. It's great, game-changing even, but there's a lot of areas where it's worse than Prepar3d. v5HF2 is actually a great base to work from, so I wish both LM and Asobo good luck in their dev efforts over the next year! 

[GCBraun 2,390]

26 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Alpha guys, it's 7th August, we've all seen a dozen videos of MSFS by now if we're paying attention so the new sim is far from secret. So some of you are currently amused by low-and-slow flying over photoreal with objects? That's been available via TrueEarth in Prepar3d for a long time now (UK/Netherlands/WA/OR/NorCal). You like nice clouds? TrueSky is better for some things, worse for others. You like VR/good performance/complex airliners that actually work/Accusim GA - well, sorry, MSFS can't help you there right now.

Come on, it is not just about "flyig over photoreal objects"...

It's about being in a small cessna somewhere in Africa, flying over realistic terrain, mesh and credible autogen, with high quality trees (overgrown in some places), amazing weather and lightning and just landing on a deserted field near a lake, just to hear birds and almost smell the grass once you turn the engines off.

And that is  the out of the box experience using a default prop with realistic sounds and very credible handling. Cost? 1 EUR/USD in the first month...

All seen in videos, by the way. Not breaking any NDAs. 🙂

Edited August 7, 2020 by GCBraun

[Skywolf 992]

I know people who have signed the NDA for MSFS2020 can't fully disclose - they have NDA, they won't tell me or who knows 😉

I have uninstalled my p3dv5hf2 - I may just install the base with orbx global, openlc and pmdg, fslabs here and there - that is about it.  I am planning to party with MSFS whenever it is released 😉 - those graphics are Sweet. We can't get that with P3D at this stage no matter whatever band-aid utilities I throw at it .  Heck I want to see traffic on roads finally with wicked atmosphere.

Welcome to the world of AI - there will be tons of disruptions in tons of industries with AI. 

 

PS - Soon Skynet will be upon us 🤣 and enjoy both the sims - make that 3 or 4.  I have all 5 sims (gave up on Aerofly); DCS well is still epic in VR and super challenging.

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Skywolf

[OzWhitey 3,353]

24 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

Come on, it is not just about "flyig over photoreal objects"...

It's about being in a small cessna somewhere in Africa, flying over realistic terrain, mesh and credible autogen, with high quality trees (overgrown in some places), amazing weather and lightning and just landing near a deserted field near a lake, just to hear birds and almost smell the grass once you turn the engines off.

All seen in videos, by the way. Not breaking any NDAs. 🙂

Oh, you can't smell the grass, that is not a thing. And it doesn't even feel like you're there at all, because you're looking at the Africa pixels on a crappy 2D monitor just like you've time travelled back to 2015.

C'mon, GC, dust off those VR goggles and start doing some real flying again. 

"But you can only fly in Africa with MSFS..."

True, the new sim does look amazing:

Oh wait...that's a real airliner there, with an autopilot that actually works, doh! Must be v5 with TrueSky we're looking at. Seriously, half the MSFS shots people get excited about - including the Richat structure shown here - are just straight ortho with nothing added, you've been able to do this in other sims for a decade.

"But I want to fly over the Richat Structure in an Airbus that climbs at 10,000 feet per minute and has an autopilot that wants me dead. And I hate immersion, so I want to see all this happening on one of those flat things we used to use before the Oculus DK2 came out!". OK, you're in luck, Asobo has made a sim just for you!

🙂

 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by OzWhitey

[GCBraun 2,390]

16 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Oh, you can't smell the grass, that is not a thing. And it doesn't even feel like you're there at all, because you're looking at the Africa pixels on a crappy 2D monitor just like you've time travelled back to 2015.

C'mon, GC, dust off those VR goggles and start doing some real flying again. 

"But you can only fly in Africa with MSFS..."

True, the new sim does look amazing:

Oh wait...that's a real airliner there, with an autopilot that actually works, doh! Must be v5 with TrueSky we're looking at. Seriously, half the MSFS shots people get excited about - including the Richat structure shown here - are just straight ortho with nothing added, you've been able to do this in other sims for a decade.

"But I want to fly over the Richat Structure in an Airbus that climbs at 10,000 feet per minute and has an autopilot that wants me dead. An I hate immersion, so I want to see all this happening on one of those flat things we used to use before the Oculus DK2 came out!". OK, you're in luck, Asobo has made a sim just for you!

🙂

 

 

EA is the biggest advancement to P3D since 64bits and I do hope that it keeps improving!

Is that the "eye of Africa"? Really nice... 

I used to have over 15Tb of orthos for XP11 and still that covered only about 15% of the planet. And even though it looked great from 40.000 feet, once I was below 5.000 feet, it looked like ****. On MSFS it is just there (no more Ortho4XP, thank god) and it looks much better due to the glorious autogen.

As for VR, I am eagerly awaiting my pre-ordered Reverb G2! Until then, I have been using my Rift S extensively on DCS. Never been a fan o P3D's VR implementation.

Finally, I won't be touching the default Airbus. I have been spoiled by the FSLabs for far too long... 

Edited August 7, 2020 by GCBraun

[OzWhitey 3,353]

52 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

I have said that EA is the biggest advancement to P3D since 64bits and I do hope that it keeps improving!

Regarding orthos, I uses to have over 15Tb of them for XP11 and still that covered only about 15% of the planet. And even though it looked nice from 40.000 feet, once I was below 5.000 feet, it looked like word not allowed. 

As for VR, I am eagerly awaiting my pre-ordered Reverb G2! Until then, I have been using my Rift S extensively on DCS. Never been a fan o P3D's VR implementation.

Finally, regarding the Airbus, I won't be touching it. I have been spoiled by the FSLabs for far too long... 

"I have said that EA is the biggest advancement to P3D since 64bits and I do hope that it keeps improving!"

Absolutely, too many people get hung up on the beta issues with EA, despite that it's amazing.

"Regarding orthos, I uses to have over 15Tb of them for XP11 and still that covered only about 15% of the planet. And even though it looked nice from 40.000 feet, once I was below 5.000 feet, it looked like word not allowed. "

15 TB is a rookie number, GC. You should be able to get a bit lower than 5000 feet (sounds like you're using ZL16?), but - yeah - anything down around there MSFS will smoke X-plane/P3D as my serious opinion, though TrueEarth areas in P3D should be close.

"As for VR, I am eagerly awaiting my pre-ordered Reverb G2! Until then, I have been using my Rift S extensively on DCS. Never been a fan o P3D's VR implementation."

Me too on the Reverb G2. You should try VR in P3D v5 again, I flew X-plane VR for most of last year on your recommendation, so you should give P3D a go to return the favor (it's actually pretty good once you work out how to set up controls to avoid the need for hand controllers)

"Finally, regarding the Airbus, I won't be touching it. I have been spoiled by the FSLabs for far too long... "

Ha, I'm actually looking forward to giving the MSFS bus a go, I'm well aware of the limitations so hopefully I won't be too disappointed.

Cheers!

Edit: Yep, that's the Maddog checking out the "Eye of Africa" in Mauritania. 

Edited August 7, 2020 by OzWhitey

[micstatic 4,299]

Even as an alpha tester I've been fiercely loyal to P3D.  And a defender of it.  I even deleted the alpha.  However I've watched many a video on MSFS and am starting to think a couple different things.  First, I think I've been used to P3D (FSX and FS9 prior also) to the their settings/menu's etc.  So anything significantly different I think I just dismissed.  Classic resistance to change I suppose.  2nd, Settings.  I've learned a lot about MSFS settings thru some very helpful youtube videos.  I think it may make sense for me to temporarily drop to 1440P instead of 4k and optimize the settings.  I plan on upgrading to the new mega nvidia card when released.  So hopefully that will bring 4k back. Finally it appears that all of my favorite developers are going full in on MSFS.  Some say they will continue to support P3D.  Others say they will continue to support it, but only if the market is there.  From everything I'm seeing it's hard to imagine the market will still be there a few years from now.  Atleast on a personal consumer basis.  However this will be far from a day 1 migration for me.  So many planes I will want.  PMDG, FSLabs, Maddog X, TFDi.  My core mission is simulating airline flights on vatsim with realistic planes and payware standard airports.  I like to use the Logitech Radio Panel to assist with ATC frequncy tuning.  I have some hardware that I like to use when flying Airbus (skalarki mcdu/FCU).  So I'd say it's gonna be quite some time for all this to be ready.  I'll enjoy trying things out in MSFS, but will continue to use P3D for a while I presume.  I'm also excited for a possible best of the best payware scenario.  What I mean by this is that I'm sure their are great Xplane developers who I'm almost completely unfamiliar with since I never had any interest in that simulator.  I'll enjoy getting to see how their projects line up with the developers I love now.  good times for us are coming. 

 

Oh and I'm also very excited to see MSFS go DX12.  If done properly the performance gains are huge.  And yes I know it will require lots of VRAM.  

Edited August 7, 2020 by micstatic

[Bob Scott 7,714]

6 hours ago, GCBraun said:

Low and (very) slow will bring the biggest rewards in MSFS, at least in the early days. 🙂

^^ This. 

After FSX released in 2006, I remained on FS9 for jet flying well over three more years, reserving FSX with its better graphics for low and slow flights where things like ATC, AI traffic, weather, and hardware capability/performance hadn't yet caught up enough to make a full-featured flight in a tubeliner worth doing.

I'm anticipating something of the same kind of use pattern with MSFS, at least initially, with MSFS for VFR and/or low-and-slow work, and P3D still the go-to for full-featured flights in complex hi fidelity aircraft models.

[kingm56 1,023]

On 8/7/2020 at 10:51 AM, OzWhitey said:

OK, Matt, we've all posted on the internet after a big night out I guess, My advice to you is to wait til you sober up before you re-post on Avsim.

On the off chance you're not drunk/on drugs/just had a stroke:

1. "You're asserting that P3D is a more realistic simulator because it has vastly inferior graphics?". Ha ha, no, "seriously" I'm not (why would I do that??). I didn't say anything that was even remotely close to what you're suggesting.

2."If MSFS had terrible graphics on par with P3D, would you consider if for simmers too?". I didn't say that MSFS is not for simmers. I've suggested that some simulation users may keep using P3D v5.1 if it's good, which is hardly a radical statement.

3."You do realize that MSFS flight and atmosphere physics have been completely overhauled...right? ". Well, they haven't been overhauled, they've been designed from scratch for a new sim (legacy flight model mode aside). But what has that got to do with the suggestion that some users may keep using P3D v5.1?

3b. This is just an extra dot point, not a specific response. I was wondering, are you having some kind of competition with Nyxx to see who can make the most straw man arguments in one post? If so, kudos!

4. " How many add-ons does P3D require to achieve realistic atmospheric/physic conditions." The answer for atmospheric conditions is: for visual representation, none (it's part of the core sim in v5 EA). For weather conditions, one (ASP3D). For physics: none (if you've been paying attention, you'd know that MSFS has some suspect physics on occasion, just like P3D and X-plane). As for flight models - have you seen the rate of climb you can get out of that MSFS A320?

4b. "or are those just for gammers?" I too struggle to spell when inebriated,  so that's all fine. Are you asking if realistic physics are just for gamers? If so, why are you asking such an odd question??

5. "Will the PMDG 737 NGXu be less capable in MSFS than P3D?" Well, the NGXu will never exist in MSFS as that is a P3D model, so you appear to be ill-informed. As for the NG3 - nobody knows the answer to that, not even PMDG. No 3rd party dev has managed to code complex avionics yet in MSFS. Aerosoft have made some early progress, but note the word "early". If I was a betting man, I would say that PMDG will have an equally capable 737 in MSFS some time in 2021. But that, of course, has nothing to do with what I posted.

6. "Does Chevy have better driving dynamics because it has less horsepower and refinement than a Lamborghini?" Don't know, don't care. There are plenty of car forums on the internet, so maybe try asking there.

7. "The notion that MSFS is not for gamers because it employs high fidelity graphics is just absurd." MSFS is...uh...not for gamers? Did you actually get drunker while posting this? OK, yes, I agree with your final point, the notion that MSFS is not for gamers is absurd. So we do agree on something!

Hope your head doesn't hurt too much when you wake up tomorrow.

Cheers!

 

I realize you have positioned yourself (self-identified) as LM/P3D public defender;  so, reasoning with you is probably a futile task.  For curiosity sake, do you derive intellectual and/or social affirmation from your public defense role? Is that why you self-anointed yourself to the position?  Regardless, I humbly request you summon your cognitive abilities and actually formulate a cogent argument that supports your supposition.  In case you forgot, the following was extracted from your post: “P3D will remain a strong contender for those who are simming rather than gamming.”  Said statement implicitly implies that MSFS is directed at the latter and not the former.  Yet, you fail to offer any supporting arguments to support your notion.  At the risk of further exposing your ignorance (probably too late?), I’ll ask how you reached said conclusion?  To that point, I’ll ask again, do you believe the PMDG 737 will be less capable in MSFS than P3D? If I can control/fly a PMDG aircraft from my home cockpit on the VATSIM network, how does my simming experience differ from P3D?  With the exception of faster load times, better graphics, sounds, and frame rates.  If the answers is is it doesn’t, how do you justify your aforementioned statement?

Also, it’s comical how you conflate enthusiasm for MSFS with bashing P3D.   The latter is a fine simulator; however, the need to acquire, maintain, and launch 10+ add-ons to achieve a realistic environment is exhausting and unnecessary in 2020.  To that point, the next-generation of SIMMING is here; a significant portion of major add-on developers (e.g. PMDG, Aerosoft, etc…) are gushing and excited over its capabilities, which fails to correlate with your ‘gamming thesis.’  Have you read RR latest musings? Allow me to to provide you with a snippet:

"The NG3 flight deck is factors larger in terms of polygons and texture size, yet provides no discernible negative effect on the performance of the simulation.

Our modern platform has finally arrived."

Do you know more than they do?

Edited August 8, 2020 by kingm56

[kingm56 1,023]

18 hours ago, w6kd said:

^^ This. 

After FSX released in 2006, I remained on FS9 for jet flying well over three more years, reserving FSX with its better graphics for low and slow flights where things like ATC, AI traffic, weather, and hardware capability/performance hadn't yet caught up enough to make a full-featured flight in a tubeliner worth doing.

I'm anticipating something of the same kind of use pattern with MSFS, at least initially, with MSFS for VFR and/or low-and-slow work, and P3D still the go-to for full-featured flights in complex hi fidelity aircraft models.

It's a good point, sir; however, I don't be believe the analogy works.  Specifically, a 2-year development lapse existed between FS9 and FSX; to that point, the differences weren't that stark, making it easy to transition between sims.  MS chose not to develop a sim for 14 years; so, using your analogy, its comparable to switching between Flight Simulator 5.0 (1993) and FSX (2006)...the difference are that stark.  Speaking anecdotally, I have not launched P3D since March...I simply could not revert back from MSFS.  In short, i don't believe P3D will linger as long as FS9/FSX because the contrast between P3D and MSFS is much wider than FS9 and FSX.  Once the developers bring their products to the market, I believe you'll see a much quicker transition.  Also, some developers have already made overtures to developing exclusively towards MSFS...it won't be long before others follow.

Edited August 8, 2020 by kingm56

[JoeFackel 760]

17 minutes ago, kingm56 said:

Also, some developers have already made overtures to developing exclusively towards MSFS

Who?

Actually i didn't read anything about a Dev dropping other sims completely. 

[vgbaron 3,486]

14 minutes ago, JoeFackel said:

Who?

Actually i didn't read anything about a Dev dropping other sims completely. 

Only the smallest dev that just cannot afford to develop for more than one sim will do that. The medium and large developers will produce for whatever market is available. XP and P3D are not going to disappear. There will be three good sims to develop for. Who ever said this was an EITHER/OR situation? 

Vic