Comically bizarre, yes. Especially if you once head over at simmarket and check the sales, I recommend going through the top 20 of this weeks sales. Surprisingly, several P3D-only products are there, so I wonder how Aerosoft comes to the conclusion that nobody is buying addons for P3D anymore.

Personally, I did indeed stop buying addons for P3D the moment MSFS arrived. But I also did not buy addons for MSFS so far. I am simply holding back my Dollars until things get settled but then it might be easily possible that I buy the one or other addon for P3D still... But certainly not from AS after all those "announcements". 

Besides this, I am still convinced that those novel simmers are totally overrated in terms of potential customers. Most of them might buy the one or other addon, for example the airport close to the place where they live. I highly doubt that those people using MSFS mainly for sightseeing and joy, even on a console, will ever be those customers buying a lot of addons like the "hardcore" simming community did for XP or P3D.

I AM a gamer, I do KNOW a lot of gamers and honestly, MSFS does not provide enough to them. They might buy the sim once, via gamepass or other means, do their sightseeing and then they will put it away simply due to the fact that MSFS does not offer enough for a gamer. MS/Asobo tried to serve both gamers and "hardcore" simmers with MSFS and basically failed for both. A gamer has nothing to do in the sim and for the hardcore simmers, to many things are still bugged, broken or simply non-existent. 

The same fate already some driving "sims" suffered from. Trying to serve both casual players and hardcore simmers is never easy and with some exceptions, most games failed in doing so. You put either so much "gaming" stuff into the game that it will be a success amongst gamers, but hardcore simmers will avoid it due to the extensive "gaming" content, or vice versa, you try to get those hardcore simmers into your product and then all the "gamers" stay away from the product because there is "nothing to do" with it. Simple as that...

I think there is an assumption that Aerosoft, or similar companies who have a "direct line" to MSFS, are somehow going to produce knockout products. But given the current woeful flight modelling and autopilot in core coding in MSFS, I'm not convinced they will be much better than default aircraft, which at least are attractively designed, have decent 3d modelling and pretty good textures.

Aerosoft produces to a certain standard, but their biggest problem is (yet again) flight dynamics (none of their Airbuses feel right) and poor frame rates in some products.

There are a lot of default aircraft in MSFS. They just need improving - radically. But the potential is there. Most payware aircraft currently available are not as graphically pleasing as the default MSFS aircraft. Unless the developing SDK has magic powers I cannot see anytime soon that payware is going to be significantly better than the potential in default material.

7 hours ago, F737NG said:

That said, P3D has finally(!) received an update that makes it perform extremely well on a lot of PCs, the clouds are finally(!) reproduced in 3D, Ortho4XP_P3D edition makes most of the world available in photo scenery for free, there's a *huge* back catalogue of airport scenery to choose from and most importantly, there are some outstanding payware aircraft that no developer is anywhere near replicating in MSFS for the foreseeable future.
 

1) MSFS performs extremely well on lower-end PCs out of the box

2) Clouds in MSFS are very good, out of the box

3) MSFS delivers a living and breathing world, based on real life data, out of the box

4) There are already hundreds of very good freeware sceneries available, three months after the release of the core sim. Some of them are just as good as the payware stuff.

5) How long did it take before the first "outstanding payware aircraft" for FSX and P3D were available?

5a) A series of great mods - FlyByWire, Working Title, Robert Young, numerous improvements made by other members of the community, are pushing the default planes closer to payware, this for a sim that has been on the market for only three months

 

7 hours ago, pmb said:

The hate is from both sides. This is the MSFS forum where you mainly read the hate on P3D. Go to the P3D forum where you find the hate on MSFS.

It makes me really sad.

Kind regards, Michael

Indeed , I think one reason some members from the other camp (you know who for example) were completely hating and bashing MSFS like even months before release which in my opinion resulted in this opposite hate from the other camp as well and the heated debate all the time.

 

14 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

out of the box ....etc

 

Indeed so. But what you left out is that for those mods and addons to work it took several hundred hours work to overcome a lot of stuff that was not very well implemented in the basic sim. I do agree on the potential of everything else however. But as I repeatedly state, it is a FLIGHT simulator and that should be at least the same priority as the very pretty scenery and other features.

There really should  be only 2 perspectives here.  Developers and publishers are more concerned to be sure they are in business now and in the future. One that makes sense.  Clearly thats where the users are spending their money.  Addons make the simulation market.   Just look at farming simulator and truck simulator.  At face value, they are rather boring, but the sheer number of mods,takes them to a whole other level that expands and brings a new experience all the time be it paid DLC or freeware community mods. Its pretty clear that MSFS has that capacity at a much greater level.  But its still developers decisions which way they want to go.  

For the rest of us, we are Flight Simulation Fans and Aviation fans.  So belittling other sim platforms doesnt make sense. Sure  as with any fan who has an interest in their hobby, or particular subject, will have strong preferences of which shines the best, provides the best value and experience with the best quality.  But in the end, we support flight simulation. Everyone will prefer their sim platform of choice, however its still herd mentality here.  If the vast majority are flying with MSFS, then thats where the undecided will go.  For years its been P3D and XP.  Before that FSX and XP.  Now we are entering another era that is shifting. Just a normal cycle. Its just in a greatly fluxed state right now, and seemingly rather contentious.  But in time, it will get ironed out, and the FS weather vane is pointing in MSFS direction.  With a bunch of xbox users on board and 3PD high fidelity aircraft in the near  future im guessing this will be more clear cut. 

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

Comically bizarre, yes. Especially if you once head over at simmarket and check the sales, I recommend going through the top 20 of this weeks sales. Surprisingly, several P3D-only products are there, so I wonder how Aerosoft comes to the conclusion that nobody is buying addons for P3D anymore.

Since most MSFS addons are being sold through the in-game marketplace it is not surprising that Simmarket sales figures show mostly P3D or X-plane products. I think that X-Plane has its own merits and that MSFS and X-Plane can both florish. X-Plane might even benefit from the extra attention that flightsimulation has got because of MSFS.

For P3D however, I doubt there is a future for most of the gamer/simmers. For a few years, until more aircraft addons become available for MSFS, it will still be used by a number of enthousiasts but most of them will already have purchased all that they were going to. Future addons will probably still be made for professional users of P3D but the smaller market will dictate a price level that only professionals will be prepared to pay. Hobbyists will still be able to enjoy the quality addons that they already have purchased until Lockheed decides otherwise.

Well, I am seriously hoping that this latest patch that Asobo/MS released this week, which has all but broken the auto pilot coding for every aircraft, scuppers Aerosoft's plans to release their CRJ by the holidays (less than a month from now in my books).

Not because I don't like Aerosoft - I'm rather looking forward to their CRJ. I'm hoping this is the case for selfish reasons - so that the team at Aerosoft goes stomping into the Asobo offices demanding that they get their act together. If they do have some special connection with Asobo, this might be our only hope of an autopilot fix sooner than a month or more from now. 

3 hours ago, robert young said:

it took several hundred hours work to overcome a lot of stuff that was not very well implemented in the basic sim.

The fact that people are willing to devote these kinds of resources to a sim that's barely out 3 months speaks volumes about where simmers think the future of flight simming is heading.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by Ricardo41

I am just astonished that people have been so blinded by the graphics that they are willing to over look the utterly woeful, woeful flight model and sub par flight dynamics of MSFS. Yes it looks great, but its solely riding on that one factor. The way X-Plane is discussed is completely  disingenuous. MSFS Can not hold a candle to X-Plane in terms of simulating flight, that's a fact that cant be dismissed. Its terrible, it does not simulate flight at all realistically. Yes it looks great, but everything is from the "Supposed mechanical turbulence of flying over mountain updrafts" is baked in. Look in the SDK, its a value not calculated based on current conditions.

If graphics mean this much then fine, but dont try to put MSFS that is sold a "simulator" on a pedestal of flight simulation especially after the latest patch. If you want to simulate flying then XPlane, P3D is the place to be, MSFS is little more that Tourist sim at the moment, You cant even say VFR at present, due to the bugs. VOR's are off, the Auto Pilot is a joke. There really needs to be some perspective here, and rather than arguing about what is better which is very clear if you break the argument up Graphics/Flight Dynamics and defending the indefensible we should be looking and communicating to ASOBO that we want this improved! 

They have gained many new simmers which is great, but a lot of these people dont have a clue, and they think pressing a few buttons and the plane "Seemingly" doing what they expect means it works, its must be a sim. One of the things I learnt when learning to fly was use every available tool to help you maintain a consistent and stable flight, this includes the AP if you are trained, the conditions are right. Some of the new simmers think hand flying an A320 for 1000NM is realistic, but why have they done that? because the AP does not work, and we all know that's not how it goes. But they defend it based the fact the flight was successful, when it clearly its broken form the start! and then you get well "I hand fly AP is for babies" this on the official forums! Its a mess.

I want this to be my go to sim, not just a way to see the world whilst in lock down. I am sorry but graphics mean squat, when the sim is in the sate it is.

 

Flame away, but what I am saying is true.

14 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

The engine for XPlane is so far behind.  Not sure how they can improve the graphics with an old engine.  ..

This is 100% wrong.

X-plane engine based on Vulkan, so be sure they CAN improve the graphics with the newest and fastest graphics API as a foundation.

If you want read more..https://developer.x-plane.com/2020/11/stuff-we-are-working-on/

 

The second thing, study level airliners will take YEARS to come, this a bigger gap for the MSFS world as is to be closed than x-plane's graphics gap.

And lastly, x-plane's team is bigger these days. It is no longer the only 3-4 developers, they are more now and are working on making the scenery and art assets to look better working with another "eastern european" artists that they hired not a while ago. 

Only 2 developers worked in rewriting the engine for vulkan for 3 years, the others, they claim, have been working BTS on the NG of x-plane.

Austin already confirmed some details about the next scenery, stuff like 3d vegetation are already in pre-alpha demos as he said.

Ben supnik also confirmed working on lightning for a long time now. Who knows, maybe a hybrid ray tracing and GI? with Vulkan they have access to the newest graphics tech. So expect many new features, i wpuld not be surprised if they have a big thing to talk about in the next flightsimcon.

I thing "the clock" is ticking for both as they need what the other already has. Interesting times indeed.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by mtaxp

13 minutes ago, a321 said:

Flame away, but what I am saying is true.

Will you say me that this is better than default MSFS? Or are you just another one comparing x-plane with hundreds $ to stock MSFS?

 

12 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

This is 100% wrong.

X-plane engine based on Vulkan, so be sure they CAN improve the graphics with the newest and fastest graphics API as a foundation.

If you want read more..https://developer.x-plane.com/2020/11/stuff-we-are-working-on/

 

The second thing, study level airliners will take YEARS to come, this a bigger gap for the MSFS world as is to be closed than x-plane's graphics gap.

And lastly, x-plane's team is bigger these days. It is no longer the only 3-4 developers, they are more now and are working on making the scenery and art assets to look better working with another "easter european" artists that they hired not a while ago. 

Only 2 developers worked in rewriting the engine for vulkan for 3 years, the others, they claim, have been working BTS on the NG of x-plane.

Austin already confirmed some details about the next scenery, stuff like 3d vegetation are obviously in pre-alpha demos as he said.

Ben supnik also confirmed working on lightning for a long time now. Who knows, maybe a hybrid ray tracing and GI? with Vulkan they have access to the newest graphics tech. So expect many new features, i wpuld not be surprised if they have a big thing to talk about in the next flightsimcon.

I thing "the clock" is ticking for both as they need what the other already has. Interesting times indeed.

I'll believe it when I see it, when X-Plane's graphics matches MSFS one day.  Since I am a software developer myself, I can tell you that you can't alter an engine that quickly.  Since Austin seems to be prioritizing graphics improvement now, I don't doubt that XPlane's graphics will improve.  But my guess is there will still be a large, large, gap between XPlane and MSFS.  In the Q&A session two days ago with Asobo, Sebastian talked about further optimization of MSFS, which would allow Asobo to improve the graphics of MSFS further.  So even if XPlane's graphics improve, if MSFS's graphics also improve, the gap may not close.

As I mentioned before, I have no loyalty to either simulator.  I will pick the one that is better and cheaper.  If XPlane can give the same graphics as MSFS, with the same computer hardware, with the entire world streamed to my computer with real life landmarks (NOT autogenerated as the path Austin wants to go), and I don't need to buy add-ons just to make XPlane decent, then I may consider switching to XPlane one day.

However, I doubt that.  XPlane seems to need you to buy a ton of addons before it's even half decent so I need to spend so much $$$ in the first place.  And the only way XPlane can stream the world to me is if they do a partnership with Google.  And I don't want to upgrade my computer if a future XPlane is more hardware intensive because MSFS works just fine on my mediocre computer.  In other words, I want quality at a cheap price, like every other consumer out there and I am skeptical if XPlane can do that (just the $$$ you have to spend on add ons alone to make XPlane decent is ridiculous compared to MSFS).

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by abrams_tank

2 hours ago, andrecarli737 said:

Will you say me that this is better than default MSFS? Or are you just another one comparing x-plane with hundreds $ to stock MSFS?

We said it has potential with graphics updates, not that it looks better by default. I personally do not have any fish in the fire yet, and I am also betting for MSFS to stay on top, and all my current sceneries (mostly freeware right now) will be for MSFS only right now. I have done some Xplane stuff in the past though.

I am just hoping Xplane improves the graphics and at least remains a competitor. It will be best if we have at least 2 active sims in the market, not one. If there is one, it will be like Intel vs. AMD if AMD were no more. As MSFS were to age, the pricing model may change and this would give Microsoft ultimate power to do whatever they want.

Xplane has 2 choices, get Google in their camp (maybe), or use NAIP + Local GIS from States and use overlay texturing like Asobo did to fix the bad ground textures at lower altitudes. The main issue with the second part is they will have to implement some AI color correcting. They need to hire a specialist in this, and I know exactly where the specialists that know how to do this stuff are (it's super complicated), they are in the tone mapping fields. The guys that wrote the HDR DTM algorithms for TV's and other video devices, you just need one of those guys and combine that with one guy that knows a lot of color correcting. Given a bit of time, 2 guys working together like that can make NAIP high contrast and great color, then you have a separate company to do the overlay texturing (maybe that European company they are already using).

That is what they need to do, whether or not they do it is another story. As far as the streaming issues go, that is not even an issue, as I noted prior it doesn't cost anything, they can initially set it up using any large VM platform provider, even Digital Ocean would work, it's just raw cheap bandwidth they need.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by SceneryFX

22 minutes ago, a321 said:

MSFS Can not hold a candle to X-Plane in terms of simulating flight, that's a fact that cant be dismissed. Its terrible, it does not simulate flight at all realistically.

Where is this coming from? The default 152 is the best handling plane I've flown in flight sim, and I also fly it irl.