4 minutes ago, mikeymike said:

Sad to say but... pack up the bags and shut her down.

no use in beating a dead  horse.

p3d has come along way. Thou it’s time to move on.

mike

have a safe voyage.  You have seemed to have a lot of problems along the way lately and I wish you the best.  I'm happy in V5 HF2 and will install V5.1 when we see all the addons patched and ready.  

4 minutes ago, micstatic said:

.......I'm happy in V5 HF2 and will install V5.1 when we see all the addons patched and ready.  

+1

58 minutes ago, Flic1 said:

disappointing as I now have 2 sims that really aren't working all that well. 

Lol. That's my feeling also. At least XP gave up trying to appease this unruly crowd.

27 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

 It's impressive what they've done with essentially 2006-based engine.

You should know better than to say that. The P3d5 graphics engine looks nothing like the one in FSX. 

11 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

You should know better than to say that. The P3d5 graphics engine looks nothing like the one in FSX. 

Well that's my point.  A lot of the core programming came from FSX era.  And now it looks very different.

5 hours ago, Boomer said:

Err, why?  What am I missing?  Doesn't seem like an earth-shattering update to me.

I think v5.1 in reality is what v5.0 should have been, so although I welcome it, it's no big deal. LM are only doing what they should have produced in the first place.

IMHO, a considerable number of people use a flight "simulator" to "fly" around and look at the scenery. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this - anyone that paid for the software can use it whatever way they want - subject, of course, to the license restrictions. However, the reason I reach this conclusion is that I can't figure out why some are so concerned with how the sim looks if one is primarily concerned with simulating aviation. I got into this back in the mid 80's to learn something about aviation using SubLOGIC's sim and obviously the graphics were awful. But it was a "simulator" - the graphics weren't all that important. Same applies today. 

I hope that P3D v5 has a long life. So far, 5.1 with just a client update has been painless. Yes, there are still many issues with EA but again, I don't see that as a big deal. What worries me most is that 3PD's will completely lose interest simply because those that are most interested in sightseeing will abandon P3D. I have about 50 airplane addons for P3D and it will be a LONG time before MSFS gets there. 

Incidentally, I have a 3090 and I can certainly keep the graphic fidelity very high in both sims. However, I get absolutely NO additional joy from MSFS simply because I can see a photogrammetry version of a city from the air which I can also see from google maps. As I see it, the graphics quality in both sims is plenty good enough to simulate both VFR and IFR conditions. MSFS is obviously better for VFR but (and maybe a pilot can correct me if I'm way off base) I can't really see too many pilots navigating by using specific physical objects that are not shown in P3D (for example - fly to the Eiffel tower and turn right...). In fact, with a GPS, why would anyone navigate by staring out the window? Again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. Yes, I can see some issues with avoiding power lines, etc. in VFR that aren't simulated but you can't have everything...

5 hours ago, Malcolm Street said:

Have a look at the changelog - there's been an awful lot done under the bonnet/hood. 

While true, it seems that some of the more fundamental issues were not addressed, overlooked, or ignored.

I'm afraid that this might be the beginning of the end for P3D.  By that, I mean this was the moment LM needed to kick P3D into high gear and it doesn't appear they did that.  So the question is, are they letting P3D fade into the sunset?

Interesting time for some major (aircraft) DEV too.  Many have said they aren't moving forward with MSFS stuff, yet P3D seems to be stalled (or dying) too.

Edited October 29, 20205 yr by Dreamflight767

2 hours ago, micstatic said:

have a safe voyage.  You have seemed to have a lot of problems along the way lately and I wish you the best.  I'm happy in V5 HF2 and will install V5.1 when we see all the addons patched and ready.  

Your in denial. It’s ok.

 

mike

1 hour ago, Jeff_Fortuna said:

...I can't really see too many pilots navigating by using specific physical objects that are not shown in P3D (for example - fly to the Eiffel tower and turn right...). In fact, with a GPS, why would anyone navigate by staring out the window? Again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this...

I don't say you're wrong. But, I will say that you can, in fact, navigate with a sectional, compass and a clock with MSFS 2020. You can, somewhat, in P3D with high end addons (Orbx, etc). With MSFS 2020 you can see the highway, follow the highway and turn NW at the reservoir. Look for the airfield SW of the city. Land. Woohoo.

This isn't all I do. And mostly, I rarely do. But it is cool to be able to do it. I've redone some of the VFR flights from back when I was a student pilot and it is spooky cool how it looks like it did all those years ago.

So, your point is valid, but I thought I'd share my opinion and chime-in that flying pure VFR is very wonderful.

After some time with v5.1 I must say I am liking it. I haven't had any trouble with EA so far and haven't seen any of the problems that others have had. I haven't even seen any of the shimmering around objects like I thought I would.

 

I did mention PRB textures on AI not looking right, but after some time it isn't that bad. Yes it needs some tweaking but it doesn't look as bad as I made it out to be in my other post.

1 hour ago, Jeff_Fortuna said:

IMHO, a considerable number of people use a flight "simulator" to "fly" around and look at the scenery. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this - anyone that paid for the software can use it whatever way they want - subject, of course, to the license restrictions. However, the reason I reach this conclusion is that I can't figure out why some are so concerned with how the sim looks if one is primarily concerned with simulating aviation. I got into this back in the mid 80's to learn something about aviation using SubLOGIC's sim and obviously the graphics were awful. But it was a "simulator" - the graphics weren't all that important. Same applies today. 

I hope that P3D v5 has a long life. So far, 5.1 with just a client update has been painless. Yes, there are still many issues with EA but again, I don't see that as a big deal. What worries me most is that 3PD's will completely lose interest simply because those that are most interested in sightseeing will abandon P3D. I have about 50 airplane addons for P3D and it will be a LONG time before MSFS gets there. 

Incidentally, I have a 3090 and I can certainly keep the graphic fidelity very high in both sims. However, I get absolutely NO additional joy from MSFS simply because I can see a photogrammetry version of a city from the air which I can also see from google maps. As I see it, the graphics quality in both sims is plenty good enough to simulate both VFR and IFR conditions. MSFS is obviously better for VFR but (and maybe a pilot can correct me if I'm way off base) I can't really see too many pilots navigating by using specific physical objects that are not shown in P3D (for example - fly to the Eiffel tower and turn right...). In fact, with a GPS, why would anyone navigate by staring out the window? Again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. Yes, I can see some issues with avoiding power lines, etc. in VFR that aren't simulated but you can't have everything...

At least when I learned to fly 10 years ago, being able to navigate by looking out the window and finding things on a VFR sectional chart was one of the first things they taught you. If the GPS fails you still have to be able to know where you are.

MSFS is the first sim that has made VFR flying a joy for me. P3D doesn't even hold a candle to it, even with hundreds of dollars in addons poured into it.

The thing I was counting on P3D for was IFR flying and airliners. But if you fly an instrument approach in low visibility only to see trees and buildings popping out through the fog, that is absolutely unacceptable for a supposedly out-of-beta, now-default EA.

Edited October 29, 20205 yr by bbain1187

V5 without EA is just P3D 4.6. Why even release 5.1 if EA is still partially broken?

2 hours ago, Jeff_Fortuna said:

IMHO, a considerable number of people use a flight "simulator" to "fly" around and look at the scenery. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this - anyone that paid for the software can use it whatever way they want - subject, of course, to the license restrictions. However, the reason I reach this conclusion is that I can't figure out why some are so concerned with how the sim looks if one is primarily concerned with simulating aviation. I got into this back in the mid 80's to learn something about aviation using SubLOGIC's sim and obviously the graphics were awful. But it was a "simulator" - the graphics weren't all that important. Same applies today. 

I hope that P3D v5 has a long life. So far, 5.1 with just a client update has been painless. Yes, there are still many issues with EA but again, I don't see that as a big deal. What worries me most is that 3PD's will completely lose interest simply because those that are most interested in sightseeing will abandon P3D. I have about 50 airplane addons for P3D and it will be a LONG time before MSFS gets there. 

Incidentally, I have a 3090 and I can certainly keep the graphic fidelity very high in both sims. However, I get absolutely NO additional joy from MSFS simply because I can see a photogrammetry version of a city from the air which I can also see from google maps. As I see it, the graphics quality in both sims is plenty good enough to simulate both VFR and IFR conditions. MSFS is obviously better for VFR but (and maybe a pilot can correct me if I'm way off base) I can't really see too many pilots navigating by using specific physical objects that are not shown in P3D (for example - fly to the Eiffel tower and turn right...). In fact, with a GPS, why would anyone navigate by staring out the window? Again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. Yes, I can see some issues with avoiding power lines, etc. in VFR that aren't simulated but you can't have everything...

That is exactly how I feel, do you want a flight simulator or a world simulator?

3 minutes ago, rob0203 said:

That is exactly how I feel, do you want a flight simulator or a world simulator?

I want both!