34 minutes ago, GSalden said:

AS currently is helping Asobo with making an enhanced SDK. 
Mathijs always has had a nose for good deals.

Surely the market for MSFS is larger than the market for P3D. But from the 1 million customers most of them are XBox players. And imho XBox players are less interested in complex aircraft and buying lots of airports .

Today I have flown 2h in MSFS at an Fs friend and while the terrain and lighting looks good the clouds look very simple and not sharp. And it has issues with the faster jetliners. What will happen to its performance as a PMDG/FsLabs ac will suck performance?
 

P3Dv5 is again a step up compared to V4. We now have DX12 , real looking water and EA ( beta at this moment ). I am sure that V5.1 will have an improved EA.
So I do not agree with Mathijs that the development of V5 has flatlined.

But because of the release of MSFS the sales  of P3D Addons might have flatlined. And maybe he was referring to that.

Reading lots of MSFS topics at Avsim, at the official MSFS forum and how I experienced MSFS I see MSFS as a very cool VFR game ( you may find it a simulator ) and P3D as a very good IFR jet simulation.

So both can exist next to eachother.

"Most of MSFS costumers are Xbox players"...that have purchased MSFS on the PC.

"Very simple looking clouds"...that absolutely destroys any payware add-ons on the competition.

"VFR game and not a simulator"...when VFR flying is generally much more challenging than following a magenta line.

😵

Edited September 13, 20205 yr by GCBraun

20 minutes ago, ComSimPilot said:

I find Mathijs's so disrespectful to so many people who have been buying Aerosoft P3D v4 and P3D v5 addons. 

And disrespectful to others developers “pmdg will make the Boeings and Aerosoft will make the airbuses”...

Ya ,well these developers should fix the bugs 
for us that have spent a lot of money on addons that are not working correctly.

before dumping us and moving on to the next platform. As it stands now thats what it seems like is happening.  We should have gotten updates way faster. 

mike

22 minutes ago, ComSimPilot said:

So it seems Mathijs is thinking what's good for Aerosoft not for the advanced simmer. 

How dare the boss of a company be considering what's good for his company! It's an outrage, oh wait a minute, no it isn't, it's his job. 🤣

MSFS has not only sold over 1 million copies, but it *still is* on the Steam top-10 list. The initial negative review trend has also changed dramatically.

Mathijs is just being realistic at this point.

9 minutes ago, GSalden said:

I am curious what will happen if complex addon jetliners seem to much for MSFS so the overall performance is not good enough anymore. And you will have to turn down most of its options.....

Bingo!! It has been very entertaining just watching as MS have ran this amazing Con job for a year now. As things appear to be at the moment it sounds like MS2020 is truely the "Sim of the Gods" except it just needs 1. Updated Sat scenery...what they have is 7-10 years old. 2. Better designed aircraft that dont wag their tails. 3 An add on weather program that actually works. 4. replace thousands of airports that are pure garbage with incorrect taxiways and signs. 5. Some way to have and use actual Nav data. I could go on but you get the point. All of this stuff will be using computer cycles and as that happens, then there goes the FPS and performance. Nothing new here. It all boils down to the old saying...they are trying to stuff 20 lbs of flight sim into a 5lb bag. 

2 minutes ago, Chock said:

How dare the boss of a company be considering what's good for his company! It's an outrage, oh wait a minute, no it isn't, it's his job. 🤣

Of course its a good thing. For Aerosoft. Not for us who use P3D and wait from Aerosoft to improve their products or release new ones. It's like Windows 11 come out and say "hey you can't use Intel processors anymore. We made a deal with AMD, and Windows 11 run only in AMD". Imagine this for Windows was beneficial. They look after their company yes, but they are behaving very bad to so many users who trusted them. Fair enough for any company to do as they wish. They should be ready to accept the results. I am personally not going to buy any Aerosoft product from now on. 

12 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

when VFR flying is generally much more challenging than following a magenta line.

Well, that's your opinion, which I respect, of course, but not share at all. It's to me a very simplistic way to look at IFR flying.

Cheers, Ed

2 minutes ago, ComSimPilot said:

Of course its a good thing. For Aerosoft. Not for us who use P3D and wait from Aerosoft to improve their products or release new ones. It's like Windows 11 come out and say "hey you can't use Intel processors anymore. We made a deal with AMD, and Windows 11 run only in AMD". Imagine this for Windows was beneficial. They look after their company yes, but they are behaving very bad to so many users who trusted them. Fair enough for any company to do as they wish. They should be ready to accept the results. I am personally not going to buy any Aerosoft product from now on. 

Been doing Sims from the beginning and have never spent one dime with that company a most probably will never in the future.

23 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

"Most of MSFS costumers are Xbox players"...that have purchased MSFS on the PC.

"Very simple looking clouds"...that absolutely destroys any payware add-ons on the competition.

"VFR game and not a simulator"...when VFR flying is generally much more challenging than following a magenta line.

😵

That is your opinion. Which I do not agree with.

I have read, do not ask me where , that +80% of the sales where for XBox.
 

You probably have a small size monitor. I have seen it on a 3x 32” setup and the clouds do ook simple and unsharp. EA clouds in P3D ,at this moment , also look unsharp. I have tried them all in MSFS. It’s not only about lighting that makes clouds realistic. 
 

You are right that flying IFR with GA manually is more challenging. But only if it feels realistic. All MSFS ac react immediately to the controls as if they weigh almost nothing. See the MSFS forum for more about that.

What strikes me is that there are some MSFS flyers who always complained about tweaking and unrealistic ac in XP and P3D and with MSFS tweaking is all about its forums. 
Starting with the 320 Neo.

Just be realistic about whatever game/sim you are using.

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 20205 yr by GSalden

2 hours ago, edpatino said:

I would like to hear the opinion of an independent advisor, not from someone directly involved in the business. Reasons are clear, one of them being conflict of interests.

Conflict of interest maybe, but certainly more access to hard data about the market than most pundits on this forum.

Besides which, doesn't having spent hundreds of $$ on the deprecated platform and desperately hoping not having to do so - again - also count as a conflict of interest? 

15 minutes ago, ComSimPilot said:

Of course its a good thing. For Aerosoft. Not for us who use P3D and wait from Aerosoft to improve their products or release new ones. It's like Windows 11 come out and say "hey you can't use Intel processors anymore. We made a deal with AMD, and Windows 11 run only in AMD". Imagine this for Windows was beneficial. They look after their company yes, but they are behaving very bad to so many users who trusted them. Fair enough for any company to do as they wish. They should be ready to accept the results. I am personally not going to buy any Aerosoft product from now on. 

As good old Eric Cantona said: 'When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea'

If there is still a commercial market for P3D add-ons, and there probably is, just perhaps not as much as there was a few months ago, then it does not depend upon the every move of one company's decision to not follow that market in favour of another one. After all, in the same way that you make a 3D model for P3D, then export it for MSFS, you can do it the other way around too.

But it's quite clear that many people have decided to drop P3D in favour of the new sim, and have for quite a while not been buying more P3D stuff because of that, so you can't blame a company which sells the stuff those people were buying for P3D, for following the crowd like Cantona's proverbial Seagulls. 

And just as you can say you will not buy their products, nor do they owe you anything; it's not a personal sleight against you. I lost my job in aviation because of the current pandemic, but I don't take it as some kind of personal attack on me by my former employer, they made a business decision based on the situation they found themselves in, and they don't owe me a living. That's what Aerosoft are doing too, and they won't be alone.

Edited September 13, 20205 yr by Chock

17 minutes ago, edpatino said:

Well, that's your opinion, which I respect, of course, but not share at all. It's to me a very simplistic way to look at IFR flying.

Cheers, Ed

The hardest part of IFR-flying (VOR/NDB navigation) is totally doable with MSFS. While I understand that there is a learning curve to master the FSLabs/PMDG, once you learn all the systems, trying to find yourself around in a C152 without autopilot and using VFR rules and/or ADFs is much more challenging than programming the MCDU and pressing AP1.

 

8 minutes ago, GSalden said:

That is your opinion. Which I do not agree with.

I have read, do not ask me where , that +80% of the sales where for XBox.
 

You probably have a small size monitor. I have seen it on a 3x 32” setup and the clouds do ook simple and unsharp. EA clouds in P3D ,at this moment , also look unsharp. I have tried them all in MSFS. It’s not only about lighting that makes clouds realistic. 
 

You are right that flying IFR with GA manually is more challenging. But only if it feels realistic. All MSFS ac react immediately to the controls as if they weigh almost nothing. See the MSFS forum for more about that.

What strikes me is that there are some MSFS flyers who always complained about tweaking and unrealistic ac in XP and P3D and with MSFS tweaking is all about its forums. 
Starting with the 320 Neo.

Just be realistic about whatever game/sim you are using.

The XBox version is not even on sale yet so, no, that is not true.

As for my monitor, I am using a 49" 5K Ultra-Wide and the results are amazing. Hopefully P3D's EA will match MSFS's clouds one day.

Edited September 13, 20205 yr by GCBraun

35 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

_{Bingo!! It has been very entertaining just watching as MS have ran this amazing Con job for a year now. As things appear to be at the moment it sounds like MS2020 is truely the "Sim of the Gods" except it just needs 1. Updated Sat scenery...what they have is 7-10 years old. 2. Better designed aircraft that dont wag their tails. 3 An add on weather program that actually works. 4. replace thousands of airports that are pure garbage with incorrect taxiways and signs. 5. Some way to have and use actual Nav data. I could go on but you get the point. All of this stuff will be using computer cycles and as that happens, then there goes the FPS and performance. Nothing new here. It all boils down to the old saying...they are trying to stuff 20 lbs of flight sim into a 5lb bag.} 

I suggest you go read RR comments regarding the capabilities of MSFS, as it relates to performance.  Warning - it doesn't fit your negative narrative.  Also, you continue to conflate opinion with facts; concerning the latter, Aerosoft is a business with access to actual market data. Other third-party vendors have their own data; to that point, I suspect you'll see other large vendors announce similar proclamations.  I highly suspect you'll never see a PMDG aircraft released for P3D again; like Aerosoft, they seem enamored with the capabilities and potential of the new simulator.  It should also be noted the Asabo patches have been timely and poinient; this simulator is maturing faster than previous renditions.  You remind me of the simmer who swore 3D panels were just a fad, too much of a performance hit, and would never last. 

"The PMDG 737NGu is leaps and bounds ahead of the nine year old NGX model you had been using prior to release of NGXu. You will see yet another generational leap forward with the model being used for the new PMDG 737NG3 for MSFS in large part due to the dramatic increase in what the simulation is capable of supporting in terms of model detail, resolution, textures and lighting. 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.
 

Edited September 13, 20205 yr by kingm56

Just a reminder, Aerosoft is both a developer and a publisher of Aviation related software. Aviation simulation is not their sole business.

https://www.aerosoft.com/en/about-us

Mattijs' original comment can be interpreted many ways...from "ours sales figure indicate stagnation in the P3D v5 market segment" (which truthfully is a 5 month old product) to "forget our past customers, we're going for the cash" (because we believe the greatest sales growth in the MSFS2020 arena) and every interpretation in between. 

The fact is, Aerosoft is a business with their own goals and objectives. I assume Mattijs is speaking on behalf of the company with this statement (which may have been taken out of context).

Also true, customers also have a choice of who (which vendors) they support.

The beauty of the "free" market ultimately determines the winners and losers.