I think both P3D and XP11 have their place TODAY, but the writing is on the wall. The tech used in MSFS is going to be very hard to equal let alone surpass. 

XP maybe, but P3D just looks gross today. Please stop beating that horse already, it's painful to watch.

5 hours ago, GSalden said:

There is no such thing as a free ride : you really are expecting all the eyecandy + jetliners with complex systems + many AI ac + bad weather icw good FPS ?

This highlights the great place we are in w/ MSFS added so you can indeed have the photoreal eyecandy for those lower altitude flight plans, and use P3D for everything else.  I'm still enjoying the TBM930 for IFR flights under around FL210 and while it might feel a little too canned or oversimplified it's pretty cool to at least be able to just choose IFR-low or high airways and it all auto-created in the flight plan.  So performance is very good if used in this fashion.  I can see something like Majestic Dash 8 coming in with its low-impact engine to add to these types of flights.  When it's time to get the big boys out hop back in to the old soft shoe and off we go out of KDEN to KSAN in the NGXu, or to PHKO in the 777.  Very different experiences.  The visuals from on high I think are often comparable or better in P3D, so it works.

On 8/29/2020 at 4:00 PM, duckbilled said:

So far, I like MSFS, and I think the default aircraft are ok for vfr fun. They look pretty good, and seem to operate in a predictable, but not necessarily accurate, manner.

I'll quote myself here while partially retracting my statement.

As I've had the opportunity to play with MSFS more, I'm finding the AP and trim behavior a little hard to predict. I know they are default aircraft, but I don't recall any FSX, FS9 or P3D having wildly unpredictable behavior. If you don't touch the AP, everything is fine, but once you do, you may be in for a ride.

It also doesn't help that some of the buttons on the MCP are backlit, while others are not. A simple AP should be simple to operate, I think.

I have trim mapped to a1/a2 on my Saitek yoke (left thumb). Works just fine in P3D. I'll have to see if FSUIPC is usable now due to the patch. Maybe assignments there will produce better results.

On 8/29/2020 at 3:29 PM, SirDan said:

If you want to play an older outdated sim then sure but supporting the Next Generation of Flight Simulators is MSFS 2020 , perfect atm on a Day 11 release ? no , Study level aircraft ? It's being worked on right now. VR flying coming. I mean if you have the money go buy all the flight sims but if you have to choose just one then MSFS 2020 all the way. 

 

This new generation of flight simmers is not going to be jumping into P3D  they will buy MSF 2020 and wherever the road leads them after that then who knows. 

Day 11 of Release over 19k people right now flying MSFS 2020 

When you refer to "flight simmers" - you mean gamers, don't you?

On 9/3/2020 at 2:19 PM, EmaRacing said:

XP maybe, but P3D just looks gross today. Please stop beating that horse already, it's painful to watch.

🤣

On 9/3/2020 at 11:48 AM, GSalden said:

P3D an outdated sim. LOL. It is being used in real world flightsimulators and many simmers  over the world.
That you are in the MSFS hype is fine but be more realistic...

I know you were responding to the other poster, but just to weigh in, my opinion is that it is not outdated at all, it's just a lot easier to fly anywhere with scenery loaded in MSFS and have the area at least partially or nearly complete, only so many addons you can buy for P3D, lots of areas have to use default or Orbx global scenery. I guess you could use BlueSky or make your own too from NAIP, but that is a lot of work and the color isn't good.

I don't think it is outdated, but I do think it soon will be, even though both sims have different limitations. Xplane or P3D are definitely still better for formal training, but for non-pilots I would definitely stick to MSFS even early on.

The trick to MSFS is using high elevation cloud layer to rebalance the lighting, that gives it a much more favorable and contrasty look. Try the flight between Durango to Telluride to Aspen, pretty good. Another good one is around Mt Fuji in Japan, some interesting buildings in the autogen.

Edited September 14, 20205 yr by SceneryFX

I'm going to have a stab at making the case for airliner flying in MSFS, specifically A320 flying. I'm doing a lot of it at the moment and I'm enjoying it at least as much as I enjoyed it in P3D V4.5, despite having spent thousands on P3D add-ons over the years, not least on the FSLabs & PMDG aircraft I spent most of my time flying. MSFS is getting a reputation as being good for VFR and rubbish for anything else, and that just isn't my experience.

The bad:

• There are no payware airliners in MSFS.
• The default airliners are buggy, especially the 747 & 787 (which I just can't fly at the moment due to the performance hit).
• The systems modelling cannot come close to even mid-level P3D add-on aircraft.
• Live weather is dodgy in the US and other parts of the world.

The good:

• The A320 NEO is, in most ways, the best default airliner we've ever had in a Microsoft/LM/ESP sim (and potentially in ANY sim, but I have little experience with X-Plane). 
• The free A32NX mod makes it fly much more realistically, adds greater systems depth and is getting better all the time.
• The scenery and clouds, out of the box, are streets ahead of those in X-Plane or P3D, even if you buy every add-on going for these platforms. 
• The default (non hand-crafted) airports are a mixed bag, but almost all are more plausible than those in P3D.
• The hand-crafted airports, while not payware quality, are really very good.
• Patches and updates are coming thick and fast. I'm fairly confident that the airliners will see a noticeable improvement when the next patch releases in the next few days.
• Performance over intense areas like London is far better for me in MSFS than it was in P3D.

Like most people on here, I'm looking for the most realistic experience possible. For me, the environment in which I'm flying (eye-candy, if you must!) is just as important to this as the systems depth and realism of the aircraft I'm flying. There is such a thrill to be had from flying the default A320 NEO once you've learnt to deal with its foibles and make it behave realistically. And it can be made to fly very realistically - a whole flight from takeoff to touchdown can now be done in the managed modes with A32NX mod. I can't get enough of breaking through realistic clouds into clear air over a real-world landscape with fantastic auto-gen or real photogrammetry buildings, then landing at a detailed airport with acceptable framerates and virtually no stutters. I genuinely think it beats the P3D experience hands-down as it stands right now, and things will only get better as the patches keep coming and payware aircraft start appearing.

I went back to P3D once to do a flight in the FSLabs A320. It felt dull and lifeless. I haven't been back since. I certainly won't be investing in P3D V5. When you can have a better (and, in my opinion, more realistic) experience in MSFS for a fraction of the price, why would you?

Edited September 14, 20205 yr by mrfilbert

4 hours ago, B1900 said:

When you refer to "flight simmers" - you mean gamers, don't you?

Same group.

As for the original question: let's stop beating up on P3D. It is, literally, like beating a dead horse.

21 minutes ago, mrfilbert said:

I'm going to have a stab at making the case for airliner flying in MSFS

... clip...

The bad:

• There are no payware airliners in MSFS.
• The default airliners are buggy, especially the 747 & 787 (which I just can't fly at the moment due to the performance hit).
• The systems modelling cannot come close to even mid-level P3D add-on aircraft.
• Live weather is dodgy in the US and other parts of the world.

The good:

• The A320 NEO is, in most ways, the best default airliner we've ever had in a Microsoft/LM/ESP sim (and potentially in ANY sim, but I have little experience with X-Plane). 
• The free A32NX mod makes it fly much more realistically, adds greater systems depth and is getting better all the time.
• The scenery and clouds, out of the box, are streets ahead of those in X-Plane or P3D, even if you buy every add-on going for these platforms. 
• The default (non hand-crafted) airports are a mixed bag, but almost all are more plausible than those in P3D.
• The hand-crafted airports, while not payware quality, are really very good.
• Patches and updates are coming thick and fast. I'm fairly confident that the airliners will see a noticeable improvement when the next patch releases in the next few days.
• Performance over intense areas like London is far better for me in MSFS than it was in P3D.

 

Some nice points there, well for Xplane I don't really count just the DEFAULTS, because the Zibo Mod is free and it's basically 2nd or 3rd best 737 NG other than PMDG's FSX/P3D versions. So in that sense, yah nothing in this game comes close to how completely and smoothly the Zibo 737 functions.

The major jets in this actually do land more realistically than the smaller planes, if we want to compare realism on an even level based on the physics. That said, the IFR systems are restrictive because the full FMC is not yet finished. Yes, it works, but unless you enter every SID and STAR into the thing sometimes even needed in advance of the flight, the autopilot's GPS and even the final IFR LOC wants to sometimes just turn randomly. I'm not a real pilot so I don't know how the real autopilot works if you are too far outside the parameters, but I'm assuming it's got a bit more leeway than that even if you are in an overspeed condition. if you do a full planned IFR route with flight following ATC, that's even more problematic.

So I agree with what you are saying overall, but to me the planes in Xplane and P3D just have more modeled systems for learning. That's why I stick to what I say, if you are learning IFR and using this as training, you can learn some, but IMO, Xplane or even P3D is more realistic depending what planes you get.

Edited September 14, 20205 yr by SceneryFX

14 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

That said, the IFR systems are restrictive because the full FMC is not yet finished. Yes, it works, but unless you enter every SID and STAR into the thing sometimes even needed in advance of the flight, the autopilot's GPS and even the final IFR LOC wants to sometimes just turn randomly.

Yes, you're right. The FMC is a limiting factor. There are definitely issues with changing the STAR or approach, and there are issues with ILS capture. The latter can be got around by only arming the APPR or LOC modes once the localizer diamond begins moving across on your intercept heading. The former can only be got around by either sticking to the STAR & approach you planned, or through manual heading selects to follow the new one in my experience. But I count this as part of 'learning to deal with its foibles', which I've actually quite enjoyed. 

 

18 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

if you are learning IFR and using this as training, you can learn some, but IMO, Xplane or even P3D is more realistic

I agree with this as well. If you're trying to learn or practice IFR procedures in the sim that you'll be using in the real world, this is not the best sim for it. If you want an experience that makes you feel like you're flying an airliner in the real world though, I still maintain that MSFS gets you as close to this as is currently possible.

1 hour ago, mrfilbert said:

The bad:

• There are no payware airliners in MSFS.
• The default airliners are buggy, especially the 747 & 787 (which I just can't fly at the moment due to the performance hit).
• The systems modelling cannot come close to even mid-level P3D add-on aircraft.
• Live weather is dodgy in the US and other parts of the world.

I think one thing is missing in this list. The stutters which other have posted about here. They seem to be independent of settings and system. I have them and it significantly degrade MSFS compared to P3D5 or XP11

1 minute ago, jfri said:

I think one thing is missing in this list. The stutters which other have posted about here. They seem to be independent of settings and system. I have them and it significantly degrade MSFS compared to P3D5 or XP11

You see, I personally don't have this stuttering issue. I have far better performance in MSFS than I do in P3D4.5. The odd stutter when loading in a complex scenery area maybe, but nothing like the constant stuttering I used to get in P3D. Approaching Heathrow in P3D was a real slideshow but in MSFS it's unbelievably smooth, even with the hand-crafted airport and ORBX London Landmarks installed. And London has always been one of the most resource-hungry areas in any sim.

But yes, I totally get that how well the sim performs on someone's own system will have a huge impact on how realistic/useful/enjoyable it is for them.

On 9/14/2020 at 1:49 AM, mrfilbert said:

I'm going to have a stab at making the case for airliner flying in MSFS, specifically A320 flying.

I agree with you! I am pretty sure, there are people don't care about the `eye-candy` and would prefer to stick to P3D/XP due to the choice of addones. Yesterday, I tried to do a flight in XP11 with FFA320, it was kind of hard, especially after I got used to MSFS eye-candy, hence eye-candy is important for me as the systems. 

Edited September 15, 20205 yr by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!

To me, after FSX died of old age, X-Plane became its successor, and as of today the choice is either between X-Plane 11 as an established/matured sim with a lot of complex addons, and quite good looking.. and FS 2020 that has a bright future and huge user base pushing it forward (possibly to overtake X-plane in a year's time)

I have only tried P3D 4.5, not v5 but it was antiquated and has terrible scenery. I was disappointed to find that even my hometown of 70k pop is STILL entirely absent in P3D 4.5 being just random farm fields, just like in FSX from 2006. While it is quite nicely present in X-Plane 11 with the correct street layout, it looks much like FS 2020 when you turn off the Azure streaming.