@LHookinsand they were to team up with Google instead of Bing. 😁 What a prospect that would be. All the familiarity with P3D but with satellite data that hopefully wouldn’t blank out airports like Malaga.

For me it’s the other way round. I will stay with P3Dv5 and keep an eye on development of MSFS.

I have PR scenery only + custom AG + POIs in P3Dv5. Custom shaders , custom skies and custom clouds. That makes  P3D look very different from a default LC based P3D. Spent a ton on airports like multiple others. I only fly in Europe and Northern Africa and I have 2 Tb M2 + 500 Gb SSD 600 full with scenery. Live Traffic and I’ve Weather.

Last weekend I spent 3h testing/flying MSFS. 
I agree that it looks very good regarding scenery. Imho clouds are not that good but I was looking at them on a 3x 32” surround view. Like P3D in the past MSFS has no fisheye correction so the sides are way too stretched out.

If Asobo adds fisheye correction and the needed enhanced SDK is ready than I will purchase MSFS too ( normal version ) and try it with Prosim. I have one big advantage over PMDG/FsLabs and the default jetliners : Prosim is working outside a Fs, so much better for the framerate...

Another big advantage is never having to buy newer PR scenery 😁

Regarding the development of P3D : I do not see LM adding streaming scenery in the near future. They will add more functionality to EA and will optimize performance further...

But who knows 

Let is all enjoy what we want 

 

 

Edited September 15, 20205 yr by GSalden

1 hour ago, sholay said:

Have not read entire thread yet, but...

I have a gaming laptop which runs P3D v4.5 on Medium settings in 2-25 fps.

I was obviously playing around with MSFS for last couple of weeks. Sightseeing, doing some bush flying, I was missing Aerosoft's A320 and Majestic Q400. SO I came back to P3D v5.

Oh, boy... HOW CRAPPY P4D LOOKS NOW!!!

Yes, IFR - great. But day or night final approach to 90% airports I own, be it Drzewiecki or Flightbeam or ORBX.... 

I am wiping my tears off. 

On my relatively mid-to-low-end rig, MSFS looks like P3D with all the addons on a $2000 gaming rig. 

Tough to come back.

 

&

PS

To be clear - yes, I am staying with P3D until MJC Q400 and AS320 are there along with Polish airports, but still.

Crying....

Pretty much sums up my experience exactly!

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

team up with Google instead of Bing. 😁 What a prospect that would be. All the familiarity with P3D but with satellite data that hopefully wouldn’t blank out airports like Malaga.

Exactly!  I suspect Google would do it, too, if only to poke a stick in Bing's eye. 😄   Google might even approach Lockheed Martin and offer to do this.

All the familiarity AND backwards compatibility.  No compulsion to rewrite everything from scratch.    They've already got a good, working code base, no need to reinvent the wheel.

Not everyone is a fan of this idea.  The first time I proposed it someone wanted to strip everything out and make it a clone of Condor.  Boggles the mind.  There are people who would demand everything be rewritten from scratch, but this has lots of problems, the least of which is the time it would take.

I really like MSFS, but you won't see me deleting P3Dv4.5... I just won't be flying it, at least until I feel a need to do a long flight over water in a propliner, or get to missing one of my A2A aircraft too much.  

Hook

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@LHookinsand they were to team up with Google instead of Bing. 😁 What a prospect that would be. All the familiarity with P3D but with satellite data that hopefully wouldn’t blank out airports like Malaga.

That's like asking Apple to ditch apple maps and make Google Maps the default on iPhones, or asking that the store the data on AWS vice Azure.

Not going to happen EVER. If this is indeed a 10 year project, then it will provide Microsoft some imputis to improve their satellite data used for Bing.  

And even if they don't.  There are scenery developers lining up to fill in the holes.  I already have user improved areas such as Devil's Tower and Yosemite gracefully provided by VFXSimmer,  I have three Orbx sceneries which make London flying a joy and cleans up the Photogrammetric mess of the Narrows Bridge, and a Great Washington DC scenery area with a nice KDEN.  And this is less than 4 weeks post release.

We are barely a month out of what has publically been stated is a 10 year project, I think the jury is a bit premature in their snap judgement.  Already, MSFS 2020 has exceeded my expectations on what can be done on the desktop and I look forward to continued improvement.  
 

11 minutes ago, LHookins said:

There are people who would demand everything be rewritten from scratch, but this has lots of problems, the least of which is the time it would take.

If you've ever had to actually go in and work on someone else's code, you'd understand.  Most developers do not riddle their code with 'rem' statements explaining everything they are trying to do, so most of the time you are looking at a Gordian Knot, wondering Whiskey Tango Foxtrot were they thinking?  Starting from scratch many times does take longer, but it well worth the effort sometimes.

Let's not forget that FSX is a 32bit app and was written with that limitation in mind.  Why would you cripple yourself by reusing 32bit code?  

It would be like asking Microsoft to continue to support GLIDE.....

19 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

If you've ever had to actually go in and work on someone else's code, you'd understand.

I started my professional programming career in March, 1976.  Several years in I discovered that I'd rather fix someone else's code than write from scratch, although I've done my share of both.

Lockheed Martin has already converted the original 32 bit code to 64 bits.  It only took 6 years from when they first got the code.
 

19 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

Most developers do not riddle their code with 'rem' statements explaining everything they are trying to do

Funny thing about that.  Many veteran programmers will adjust the syntax highlighting to make comments dim so they're not distracting.  I've done it myself on occasion.  Comments don't always get updated when code is changed so you can't rely on them anyway.  Most companies will have requirements about commenting code.  We're talking about professionals here, not amateurs.  Besides, the last code I worked on had comments in Russian... at least the variable names were in English.

One thing rewriting from scratch does is throw out all the code to handle "edge cases" that was required to make the original program work.  This code was added over years of maintenance and will have to be done again in a new program... and will take years to accomplish.

It will take a lot less time to add streaming scenery to P3D than it will for Asobo to get everything working correctly in MSFS.  Sorry 'bout that.

Hook

Edited September 15, 20205 yr by LHookins

I work in the tech sector and it is a pain to do business with Google. They are extremely picky and always want astronomical amounts to license their products. Frankly, I don’t believe P3D has the numbers to justify a partnership like that. 

Edited September 15, 20205 yr by GCBraun

26 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Exactly!  I suspect Google would do it, too, if only to poke a stick in Bing's eye. 😄   Google might even approach Lockheed Martin and offer to do this.

All the familiarity AND backwards compatibility.  No compulsion to rewrite everything from scratch.    They've already got a good, working code base, no need to reinvent the wheel.

I really like MSFS, but you won't see me deleting P3Dv4.5... I just won't be flying it, at least until I feel a need to do a long flight over water in a propliner, or get to missing one of my A2A aircraft too much.  

Hook

I suspect it’s just a pipe dream because I don’t know how difficult it would be to remove all code reading the BGLs and replace it to read satellite imagery. There might be issues about how much they can change the original code given the way ESP was acquired from Microsoft. I too love v4.5 and am reluctant to go to v5.

15 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

That's like asking Apple to ditch apple maps and make Google Maps the default on iPhones, or asking that the store the data on AWS vice Azure.

Not going to happen EVER. If this is indeed a 10 year project, then it will provide Microsoft some imputis to improve their satellite data used for Bing.  

And even if they don't.  There are scenery developers lining up to fill in the holes.  I already have user improved areas such as Devil's Tower and Yosemite gracefully provided by VFXSimmer,  I have three Orbx sceneries which make London flying a joy and cleans up the Photogrammetric mess of the Narrows Bridge, and a Great Washington DC scenery area with a nice KDEN.  And this is less than 4 weeks post release.

We are barely a month out of what has publically been stated is a 10 year project, I think the jury is a bit premature in their snap judgement.  Already, MSFS 2020 has exceeded my expectations on what can be done on the desktop and I look forward to continued improvement.  
 

I don’t understand your reasoning with the Apple comparison. LM aren’t in bed with any satellite imagery company at present are they? I suspect it won’t happen for other reasons.

I don’t want to have to buy multiple packages to get worldwide coverage of things that should be in the MFS package. I don’t own it at present anyway so it’s not something I’m concerned about.

Ultimately the direction I take will be decided by FS Labs and which sim they design a 64-bit Concorde for. Ideally I want one sim only to maintain and use. More than one is hard work.

4 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I don’t understand your reasoning with the Apple comparison. LM aren’t in bed with any satellite imagery company at present are they? I suspect it won’t happen for other reasons.

My Bad, I didn't realize you were suggesting LM join Google, I thought you were suggesting that MS use Google.  Sorry for the disconnect.

On 8/28/2020 at 2:54 PM, QuaxTheSnoopie said:

After some research in the web, P3D V5 and MSFS seem to be the same choice regarding
- stuttering
- crashes
- hardware problems

If you find a real reason, say "a pilot's must have" for P3D V5 or MSFS, please post it.
Until then, I rely on P3D V4.5 HF2 as it run solid and allows me more flying than fiddling 😁
(and all my addons are already paid 🙃)

I haven't touched any graphical settings or had any stuttering in MSFS. It hasn't crashed one either.  It has been smooth since day of release.  I have P3D V5 and have torn my hair out fiddling with it.

On 8/28/2020 at 4:21 PM, G-RFRY said:

Tell me who in uses 3D autogen  in P3Dv5 i don`t, and i run at 4k with PMDG airliners something i don`t think you will be able to do in MSFS for some time, until the hardware improves.

... and if you turned off autogen in MSFS?

6 hours ago, GSalden said:

...Imho clouds are not that good...

ROFLMAO, seriously?

I have lost count how many times I have been stunned at the lighting, clouds, rain etc.   No WAY any other sim does sky as good as MSFS.

 

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

... and if you turned off autogen in MSFS?

Auto gen in P3D is trees moving that looks bad i use ORBX HD trees, auto gen has a performance impact that`s not worth it, that why most users untick it.

I run P3Dv5 no problem FPS capped at 30 in 4K max, and i am now just running in my upgrade new case swapped out fans for noctua industrial new 360 cooler new CPU and motherboard, still tweaking using my sims with AI learning and burn in before i OC.

MSFS in 4K ULTRA HD .

 https://www.flickr.com/photos/154944674@N05/50347147367/in/dateposted-public/

 

Edited September 15, 20205 yr by G-RFRY

3 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

ROFLMAO, seriously?

I have lost count how many times I have been stunned at the lighting, clouds, rain etc.   No WAY any other sim does sky as good as MSFS.

I know what Gerard was referring to.  What I see in MSFS is yes some amazing lighting, and from some angles things look very impressive, but what's not quite right is the clouds appear to be of almost one type only, tweaked, but they often look very much like they morphed out of the exact same cloud structure and there's something very unnatural looking with that.  I'm not seeing the variety of cirrus layers nor, sharp-edged cumulus, and on some occasions the clouds can look downright weird.  But what I see is also massive potential, and great performance compared to REX/ASN4.  I know that sounds all bad and in no way is it--I think it just needs a bit of tweaking.  And for sky coloration--it seems very much the same, everywhere.  As I say, it's a fabulous start but needs a bit more work IMO.

Edited September 15, 20205 yr by Noel