The sim works fine for me. It looks and runs fantastic. It's been a while since I've been totally amazed. (previous releases just felt like incremental increases in fidelity, nothing wowed me, except maybe when it went from the line art in FS 4.0 to fully textured in FS 5.0)

2 hours ago, DJJose said:

I'm starting to think that the majority of simmers have never used ASP4 + SkyForce 3D + PTA + ORBX TE and a quality add-on aircraft in P3D v4 or V5.

Much of the fanfare with MSFS is just ludicrous.

I should hope that a $200 Sim (Based on a FSX)+$40 Sky Add-on+$35 Weather Add-on+$15 Tweaker+$55/region you want to fly (10 just for NA)+$100 for the PMDG 737 (Just as an example) which totals to $500 or more would be more then a match for a $60 Sim.  After all each of those packages are specialized programs laser focused on doing ONE thing well.  And I would still bet good money that MSFS2020 would still look pretty darn good in comparison though I will agree the depth into each of those areas are not there but if the SDK can enable developers to do those things in time we will be in for an amazing future. 

1 hour ago, ckyliu said:

2006 called, they want their ideas back. I do lots of gaming and streaming on multiple platforms over 5 GHz N just fine, not being able to use a piece of software over WiFi in 2020 is lunacy.

Whatever dude. 2006 called again and they want that stupid lame joke back. If you can do it then that's great but I'll still take CAT cable for the win. It will always be superior. I've been messing with computers a long time, radio and electronics even longer, but hey, you do you.

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by Sky_Dancer

2 hours ago, DJJose said:

I'm starting to think that the majority of simmers have never used ASP4 + SkyForce 3D + PTA + ORBX TE and a quality add-on aircraft in P3D v4 or V5.

Much of the fanfare with MSFS is just ludicrous.

Well, I have used all of those things, I’ve used them extensively, and I’ve used all of them for some time.  And yet still my opinion of MSFS is 180 degrees from yours.  Glass half empty pleased to meet you, I’m glass half full.

2 hours ago, DJJose said:

It would be amazing if it performed well on most computers. My 2600K at 4.8/Titan Pascal does a nice job rendering ORBX TE, but when I loaded MSFS it was a stuttery mess.

Every time a read that future hardware will improve performance I think about P3D v4.5. Is there a system right now that can run P3D v4.5 with all our preferred add-ons and complex airliners that can run at max settings?

Highly unlikely!

I posted a few weeks back in the P3D forum about running P3D v5 (not 4.5) with PMDG, TrueEarth and every single possible slider and option pushed to the far right. It flies OK, though the frames were nothing special. You can do it if you want, though!

20 minutes ago, pjs37 said:

I should hope that a $200 Sim (Based on a FSX)+$40 Sky Add-on+$35 Weather Add-on+$15 Tweaker+$55/region you want to fly (10 just for NA)+$100 for the PMDG 737 (Just as an example) which totals to $500 or more would be more then a match for a $60 Sim.  After all each of those packages are specialized programs laser focused on doing ONE thing well.  And I would still bet good money that MSFS2020 would still look pretty darn good in comparison though I will agree the depth into each of those areas are not there but if the SDK can enable developers to do those things in time we will be in for an amazing future. 

Just to set the record straight re: math etc, as the figures posted here are grossly exagerated:

1. I'd say the majority of simmers happily purchase P3D for $60, and that's all I have to say on that issue!

2. You do want the $35 weather addon, but it's a lot better than what you get with MSFS. See: Historical weather. Many simmers will want Active Sky for MSFS when it is available.

3. You don't need or want the "Sky Addon" for Prepar3d v5. It won't work with TrueSky.

4. You don't need or want the Tweaker for Prepar3d v5. It won;t work with Enhanced Atmospherics.

5. I make the regions I want to fly with a freeware program. Doing that right now. Cost: 0$. Free Ortho looks better than MSFS Ortho or Orbx Ortho.

6. You need the PMDG 737 for MSFS, the default airliners are rubbish in both MSFS and P3D. So no difference at all there, and the PMDG will cost you around $130. 

In fact, the cheap option is X-plane because the base sim is similar in cost to MSFS and P3D, and you can get a near-PMDG quality 737 for free (Zibo).

In short, costs are similar for a straight ortho application between the sims. If you're lazy and don't like doing to some basic work to make scenery, sure - MSFS is simpler.  

As 92% of this forum seem to have a weird idea about what P3D can look like, here's a snap of Sweden. Cost to fly this: $60 plus a plane if you want payware (ortho built by me, overlay by avsimmer cwburnett). I haven't compared this area directly between the sims yet, but for this sort of flying I'm confident that the aircraft options are far better right now in P3D (like, 1000% better, got to love the Maddog!) and the scenery seems to look a bit better in Prepar3d from up high compared with MSFS where it's a bit blurry. You are looking at the default TreuSky clouds ($0), not as dramatic as MSFS's version but a bit more realistic-looking, and they're 3D, just like MS's new sim.

Cheers!

P.S.

In case someone is going to start to complain about academic vs professional P3D, difficulty of making scenery etc etc

Cost to fly MSFS:

• $120 for premium deluxe
• $40 for ActiveSkyMSFS when it comes out.
• $40 For PTA MSFS, because all the cool kids will have it.
• $2000 for two NVidia 3080Ti cards to run the sim at a similar frame rate to P3D.

=$2,200 - wow, that's expensive!

etc. 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Sky_Dancer said:

If you can do it then that's great but I'll still take CAT cable for the win. It will always be superior. I've been messing with computers a long time, radio and electronics even longer, but hey, you do you.

I never said cable wasn't superior, of course it's faster, more reliable and less susceptible to interference. But a modern consumer application that can't work through a good WiFi connection and requires CAT5e or CAT6 to function properly is bonkers.

I've been managing servers and networks for a decade, so I will keep on doing me as it's served me well thus far. I would not suggest anyone start drilling holes and running cable around their homes because someone on the internet said it might fix some bug in one game.

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by ckyliu

20 hours ago, SeanMo said:

It is highly polished. 

LOL. And you call him troll? 

6 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

• $2000 for two NVidia 3080Ti cards to run the sim at a similar frame rate to P3D.

 

What frame rate would that be? Can't I just save $2000 if i'm perfectly happy with the frame rate I have? Or is there some special holy grail-like figure that we all must abide to?

Yep. WiFi ist fine. It's faster than my internet connection. Speaking of a proper WiFi router and WiFi card here. You will get problems when u use a potato with antennas. 

15 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Just to set the record straight <snip>

 

My overall point got lost in the numbers.  If I am paying either with my time or my money to do add-ons to make something better then they will naturally be better then what otherwise the simulator does out of the box.  Be it the time it takes me to download and install a particular skin or the money I spend to pay someone to provide me software to do a better job at the sky and what not.  It seems a bit silly to say MSFS does not do all these things that developers had 10 years to sit there and tweak and perfect into oblivion in a particular area and across hundreds of products and specific enough that is all they do.  Orbx makes great scenery products.  That is what they specialize in.  PMDG makes fantastic study level sims of airliners that is what they do and are fantastic at.  Those products exist because there is a demand for it and no $60 sim out of the gate will do that to those specific detailed levels there is not the man power the time or the money to justify it.

Also fantastic screenshot btw I always liked the Maddog lol didn't know you could do your own ortho in P3D but I will admit I went the X-Plane route once FSX more or less staled up.  And to be fair I love X-Plane still and I have all sorts of add-ons I use to make it be what I want to be but I didn't expect it to do those things out of the box.  People don't do that for P3D either seems odd that MSFS should be held to the same standard of a fully modded sim while retaining a $60 price tag (or less if you use XBox Gamepass if you play other games as well)

3 hours ago, DJJose said:

I'm starting to think that the majority of simmers have never used ASP4 + SkyForce 3D + PTA + ORBX TE and a quality add-on aircraft in P3D v4 or V5.

Much of the fanfare with MSFS is just ludicrous.

That's like saying, after someone purchases a wonderfully-built, new home, "I can't believe people can't simply take classes in masonry, carpentry, tile-setting, plumbing & electric, study architecture & structural engineering, get necessary licenses, purchase necessary tools & equipment, purchase materials & accessories, purchase land, obtain necessary permits & approvals, make necessary changes to construction drawings, rent a backhoe & then excavate & grade their land, and simply build their own freakin' house!"

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by RustyFlyer

20 hours ago, VeryBumpy said:

With MS backing, on release, I really thought this sim would be highly polished with a few rough edges.

Seems reversed; highly rough edged with bits that are highly polished.

Stutters, blurry, traffic, ATC, landmarks, weather, frame rate, controls, tweaking;  the complaints so familiar it hurts.

Calgon, take me away.

 

Is it Developers or Testers fault if the Bean Counters suddenly say "Just Release It" ?!

1 hour ago, DPSimulation said:

What frame rate would that be? Can't I just save $2000 if i'm perfectly happy with the frame rate I have? Or is there some special holy grail-like figure that we all must abide to?

Well, i was largely joking, but to answer your question:

- the “holy grail” for flat screen is 60FPS (or 120/240, but 60 will do). That’s where you’ll get truly smooth flight. (There’s a weird subculture on Avsim that thinks single digit frame rates are all the eye can see, but literally no one else in the world agrees with them).

- Mire importantly: It’s 2020, so you really should be doing at least some of your simming in VR. So there’s a very, very specific device-dependant holy grail number for that. For the Rift S, it’s 80 frames per second, which would be similar to getting about 140 FPS in flatscreen.

Asobo are very keen on VR , but they’ve also been a bit hesitant about it, in part because their platform will likely struggle performance-wise unless the 3080Ti turns out to be an absolute beast (and, yes, you’re likely going to need a 3080Ti in MSFS to get at least semi-pleasant VR).
 

So there’s your answer, cheers!

4 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

I posted a few weeks back in the P3D forum about running P3D v5 (not 4.5) with PMDG, TrueEarth and every single possible slider and option pushed to the far right. It flies OK, though the frames were nothing special. You can do it if you want, though!

I was referring to MSFS.