Mathijs Kok’s vision on Fs ( also on P3D )

[mpo910 2,112]

17 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I think Nov 2021 would be very optimistic for complex aircraft at the FSLabs/PMDG level ... heck, multi-monitor support isn't 2022 on Asobo's schedule.  And what about shared cockpit?

And where does the assumption development will stop for P3D, XP as we wait for Asobo to provide the features we want 1-2 years out?

And finally, the visual differences between the two platforms are "different" and both can look extremely good and both can look extremely bad at times ... there just isn't enough visual differences for me to pick one or the other ... but one does provide complex aircraft, a complete ground services experience (thank you Umberto), a fantastic camera experience (thank you ChasePlane), wonderful FX experience (thank you Immersion, Keven, Raul).

I like MSFS for what it is, not for what it "might be".  It has warts also, pretty significant ones ... the faster you fly the worse Photogrammetry is and just starts getting dali esque very quickly (like being on pain meds after an operation) as the streaming just can't keep up.

And the "out of the box" debate just isn't relevant for those of use with our existing P3D add-on infrastructure ... MSFS looks better out of the box, agree, everyone already knows that, but I'd venture a guess that 95% P3D users don't have a default configuration.  And I get it, devs want to cash in NOW while they still can, we all understand that.  This is NOT an anti-MSFS thread, but it's also not an anti-P3D nor anti-XP thread.

I'm not going to buy MSFS airports that I already have in P3D that looks great ... even less likely to buy MSFS products when I have everything I need now in P3D (like I listed above) ... what would be the point in that?  I would however pay for updates to existing airports (at whatever cost is deemed appropriate) in P3D that brought them up to features support in P3D V5.

And why is it that so many people think this is MSFS bashing ... it is possible to like more than one flight simulator ... it is possible to be critical of more than one flight simulator.  Where does the mentality of there can ONLY BE ONE come from?  And even stranger where does the mentality to guide everyone to ONLY ONE come from?  I believe in "choice" ... I'm ecstatic that AMD now finally have CPUs and GPUs that can compete with Intel/nVidia ... that's choice, choice is good.

Cheers, Rob.

Of course Rob. I understand that. But you and me are not the whole market. I like both. But just one fits most to me, P3D. So having both but using 1. All possible.

I do not understand this whole MSFS vs P3D thing either. Would like to have a good sim with good performance and nice visuals. First of all stable and capable for IFR flights. Airliners instead of smaller props. If both can handle that...fine too.

I don't have any numbers about MSFS stats. But I don't care.

It is obviously that devs develop MSFS scenery at the moment. And complex add-ons want but can't. 

So that's it. P3D does fill that gab for me. And probably will for a long time. And for sure will improve from release to release as they always have. And if complex airliners lasts 24 months to get functional in MSFS...ok...fine. i

If MSFS gets stable sometime, has complex add-ons like mentioned before, has good performance and nice looks with good immersion with atc ground handling etc.....I will use it probably more compared to now. But who has the glass bowl with the future being predicted?  12 to 24 months... Is a long time.  

P3D is the sim for me. There IS NOT ONE comparable product out here which does for me what P3D does.

And to be honest....MSFS has not really  matured and satisfies the last months. Lots of complains from today where there at release AND prior release. We know that. But hundreds of thousands users do not have anything to compare...they start from a beginning.. like me....just 2 years ago at Xplane.....I liked it...till I tried P3D....just out of curiosity. Xplane uninstalled as I don't like to maintain 2 platforms. And I had the whole world with ortho! Lots of data.....spend weeks to manage that.

MSFS have a long way to go

 

Marcus

[neilhewitt 493]

2 hours ago, mpo910 said:

P3D is the sim for me. There IS NOT ONE comparable product out here which does for me what P3D does.

Similar story for me. P3D, plus many great add-ons made by developers in our community, allows me to have a 180 degree wraparound display (soon to be 270 degree) and create a cockpit environment which, while it isn't a patch on the 737 or Airbus sims some people out there have, gives me far greater immersion than VR could (not to mention I'm one of those people who get pretty violently motion-sick in VR simming), and I'm not about to go back from there. MSFS simply cannot support my use case today, and probably not until some unspecified time in 2022, maybe not even then. I alpha- and beta-tested it but I did not buy it and I won't until it's ready for my setup. I don't really care if it's a better pure flying experience - that's not what I want. But at the same time, I know lots of people do, and that's fine.

I find myself resonating with a point made earlier - once up on a time, there was FSX, and that was pretty much it. Yes, there was X-Plane but it was years before it became a truly viable alternative platform, its long-term enthusiasts notwithstanding. So developers had a single target. Then there was FSX and P3D and X-Plane, and while many add-ons could be made compatible with both FSX and P3D, once the latter started to really pile on the new features, the market split further between old FSX-era products that could still be used on modern versions of P3D and the new developments that we saw for the P3Dv4 era. There are now too many moving targets. MSFS offers a route to much bigger sales than you could otherwise enjoy for new products as well as ports of existing products. I get why it's so attractive for the developers and as much as I am disappointed that development for P3D and in particular product updates for v5 have been impacted, I don't blame anyone for taking the opportunity. I do think some people are overplaying the whole 'P3D is dying' thing and that bothers me, not least because it's patently not true. If every single one of us stopped using P3D tomorrow, Lockheed Martin would still be able to develop and sell it.  

What worries me is what happens when the honeymoon is over and the influx of new MSFS users gets over the initial 'gold rush' stage and MSFS sales settle down to what they're likely to be going forward. I don't want to see smaller developers going out of business because no single platform can keep them afloat and it's too expensive to develop for all three. I for one would rather pay more for quality add-ons than see that happen. 

Whatever happens, I will continue to buy P3D add-ons for as long as I'm using P3D, and I will keep on supporting developers who support the platform. 

 

[G-RFRY 1,709]

If you look on the screenshot forum MSFS Asobo updated airports vs third party payware airports why buy when you can get it free, and Asobo can do it as good if not better, the Devs may see a drop off in payware for MSFS.

[Scottoest 1,561]

On 11/26/2020 at 10:07 PM, Bryn said:

I saw this on the MSFS Developer update, which seemed like a bit of a jab at PMDG and FSL on that...

November 25th, 2020 Development Update - Microsoft Flight Simulator

• Just to mention it, we are super excited to see what Aerosoft, Hans, Stefan and the rest of the team are doing with the CRJ. It’s so rewarding to see a team embrace the SDK and create a complex aircraft with it. It’s just great quality and we are so excited to see this come together!

It's not a jab at anyone - Aerosoft have been assisting Asobo with the development of the SDK through their development of the CRJ, communicating where roadblocks are, etc.  Both parties have mentioned this more than once.

The CRJ is basically a test bed for Asobo, going through the process of making a third-party complex aircraft from scratch for the sim.

They have nothing to gain from "jabbing" at the most popular 3PD aircraft makers, and indeed Randazzo has made it clear they are in frequent communication with Asobo about their needs from the SDK.

[Scottoest 1,561]

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

If you look on the screenshot forum MSFS Asobo updated airports vs third party payware airports why buy when you can get it free, and Asobo can do it as good if not better, the Devs may see a drop off in payware for MSFS.

My assumption is that Asobo probably communicate to their third-party partners what their content roadmap looks like, so they can plan around it.  And in the case of Japan, some of those new airports were literally made by Gaya, a third-party, contracted by Asobo.  I wouldn't be surprised if the USA update was the same.

[Arklight1 140]

I can't wait for the CRJ. I've spent thousands and thousands of dollars on P3D and even after all that it can't touch the visible immersion of MSFS. 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy P3D for what it is, but what it isn't is in any way shape or form as good looking as MSFS, even with a tremendous amount of addons. Roll on MSFS improvements!

Edited November 29, 2020 by Arklight1

[CaptKornDog 282]

3 hours ago, neilhewitt said:

I for one would rather pay more for quality add-ons than see that happen

“Quality” needs to be heavily emphasized in that kind of scenario; with “quality” not being merely a measure of the amount of hours spent developing a product.

[Scottoest 1,561]

13 hours ago, GSalden said:

Regarding complex airliners: you cannot have all eyecandy , the best weather , lots of AI traffic ( ac and cars ) and complex airliners and expect a complete smooth experience. The default airliners already cause stutters in the outside view when instruments are onscreen too...

That depends entirely on the reason for the chugging performance in a game.  Hardware and code are both parts of the equation, and having a modern piece of software coded from the ground up with efficient modern rendering techniques and a modern engine, can indeed extract more visual fidelity from the same hardware.

Sims like XP and P3D undoubtedly have years of technical debt from patching in more modern engine functionality over the years without radically overhauling the core codebase.  LR have taken a bunch of time to try and pay off some of that tech debt, with the recent move to Vulkan - which lo and behold, led to some better performance from the same visuals.

[GSalden 4,656]

44 minutes ago, Scottoest said:

That depends entirely on the reason for the chugging performance in a game.  Hardware and code are both parts of the equation, and having a modern piece of software coded from the ground up with efficient modern rendering techniques and a modern engine, can indeed extract more visual fidelity from the same hardware.

Sims like XP and P3D undoubtedly have years of technical debt from patching in more modern engine functionality over the years without radically overhauling the core codebase.  LR have taken a bunch of time to try and pay off some of that tech debt, with the recent move to Vulkan - which lo and behold, led to some better performance from the same visuals.

If you take the onscreen instruments out and have the systems running outside the app than MSFS can be smooth :

https://youtu.be/icfJmvdRqV

 

[virtuali 4,421]

15 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

As in the case of P3D adding:

PBR (which you did used)

So that's out of the question.

 

15 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Sloped Runways (which you didn't use)

Yes but, the way P3D sloped runways work, it would require a huge amount of work, both on the AFCAD ( each point is supposed to have the height individually specified ) and on the 3d modeling itself. While there is some sloping at KORD, the runways are so long that it hardly matters, at least visually, and I'm afraid people buy what they can "see", it's not very exciting saying "your ground altitude will be *exactly* right at all runway ends. I don't think any other developer made sloped runways in P3D for that reason: too much work for little return. In MSFS, they are *very* easy to do, and their method won't port back to P3D.

What I would really like to have is:

- Sloped runways that affect terrain and the AFCAD that conforms to it too, without having to specify individual altitudes.

- Support for *tunnels* to create overpass. In this case, BOTH P3D and MSFS are *equally* bad.

 

15 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Material Scripting (which you did use, I think)

Sure we did.

 

15 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Dynamic Reflection support (you used it on some items)

We used everywhere it's needed.

 

15 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Dynamic Lighting (which you used)

Of course we did, and with the help of our software modules, we have more of them with almost zero impact on fps.

 

15 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Speed Trees (you never used)

You think it's reasonable to expect a surge of sales JUST to get custom trees ? It's not as if we cannot use SpeedTrees now, because we surely place the default ones, the 6000$ license would only give us the ability to create new custom types. Are you SURE this is something users would be willing to pay for an upgrade.

However, you only cited some items which can be done without "just" a basic usage of the SDK. With KORD V2, we went FAR BEYOND THAT, we used the SDK and the PDK to its full extent, with the Render to Texture features that *nobody* else has ( active panels, monitors that shows AI departures/arrivals in real time ), and we even went *beyond* what the SDK can do, with our custom collision system that allow very precise optimizations in the way the detailed interiors are loaded, the way dynamic lights are handled under our control to keep the fps up, the way custom animated vehicles go through the airport using a custom waypoint system which is more advanced than the one offered by default.

KORD V2 for P3D should be the *poster child* of what is POSSIBLE with the P3D powerful SDK, and I also think most users *know* that. The problem, I'm afraid, it's too simple and is: there are just not enough of them left.

Or, at least, not enough to justify 2 years in the making. Not where we are located ( Switzerland ), which is one of the countries with the highest wages/cost of living.

So, for the time being, just enjoy our upcoming FREE update to KORD V2, which will be available for P3D4, 5 and MSFS. 

[mpo910 2,112]

16 minutes ago, virtuali said:

So that's out of the question.

 

Yes but, the way P3D sloped runways work, it would require a huge amount of work, both on the AFCAD ( each point is supposed to have the height individually specified ) and on the 3d modeling itself. While there is some sloping at KORD, the runways are so long that it hardly matters, at least visually, and I'm afraid people buy what they can "see", it's not very exciting saying "your ground altitude will be *exactly* right at all runway ends. I don't think any other developer made sloped runways in P3D for that reason: too much work for little return. In MSFS, they are *very* easy to do, and their method won't port back to P3D.

What I would really like to have is:

- Sloped runways that affect terrain and the AFCAD that conforms to it too, without having to specify individual altitudes.

- Support for *tunnels* to create overpass. In this case, BOTH P3D and MSFS are *equally* bad.

 

Sure we did.

 

We used everywhere it's needed.

 

Of course we did, and with the help of our software modules, we have more of them with almost zero impact on fps.

 

You think it's reasonable to expect a surge of sales JUST to get custom trees ? It's not as if we cannot use SpeedTrees now, because we surely place the default ones, the 6000$ license would only give us the ability to create new custom types. Are you SURE this is something users would be willing to pay for an upgrade.

However, you only cited some items which can be done without "just" a basic usage of the SDK. With KORD V2, we went FAR BEYOND THAT, we used the SDK and the PDK to its full extent, with the Render to Texture features that *nobody* else has ( active panels, monitors that shows AI departures/arrivals in real time ), and we even went *beyond* what the SDK can do, with our custom collision system that allow very precise optimizations in the way the detailed interiors are loaded, the way dynamic lights are handled under our control to keep the fps up, the way custom animated vehicles go through the airport using a custom waypoint system which is more advanced than the one offered by default.

KORD V2 for P3D should be the *poster child* of what is POSSIBLE with the P3D powerful SDK, and I also think most users *know* that. The problem, I'm afraid, it's too simple and is: there are just not enough of them left.

Or, at least, not enough to justify 2 years in the making. Not where we are located ( Switzerland ), which is one of the countries with the highest wages/cost of living.

So, for the time being, just enjoy our upcoming FREE update to KORD V2, which will be available for P3D4, 5 and MSFS. 

My issue with trees is less the look but more the amount which already comes with performance hit where every FPS counts.

Trees are not that bad at all. And if we will have MSFS like looking trees, which are very good looking, than also in the amount and that will probably bring P3D and speedtrees to it´s knees or? 

I do not want to pay for nice speedtrees IF they will hit fps. only if they are less demanding AND better looking AND more of them can be "set" compared to the "amount" in P3D used today. I set them to dense or very dense and even then they do NOT cover all forest square meters/kilometers.

Same counts for buildings. 

Having nicer looking buildings does not do it for me. I even uninstalled ORBX HD buildings due the 4k resolution they use for nothing. i can not see them proper after climbing above FL100.

BUT having MORE buildings on the right place, there I will be happy to pay for IF they come NOT with more performance hit compared to the present ones.

So to summarize: As @virtuali says......speedtrees are not really "beloved" I think even not if they will look much better. At least not by so many users they will help to reach your ROI

I think here has LM to something about the way they are drawn? Popping and stuttering is not the way to go.

5.2GhZ on 10 cores and RTX 3090! 😉

Marcus

Edited November 29, 2020 by mpo910

[mpo910 2,112]

And again something about "speedtrees":

I think LM made a HUGE mistake by expecting a addon dev would buy a 6000 Dollar license for just "selling" trees? I did really laugh at this as I read it the first time.

We want other things, obviously! Already by the name "speedtrees" I laughed thought THAT could simply not work.

• Bad name
• Very High costs
• Bad "example implementation" from LM......the eye wants also some candy...it had simply very marketing this way
• probably Performance hit on top

I would even give more for removing the horrible waves.

Getting better looking clouds (THERE I would really pay EUR 60 for ones)!

Better looking water (also there I would pay for!!)

But trees....if someone would like better trees, he would probably have bought ORBX HD trees or terraflora about EUR 20? each.

@Rob_Ainscough

Do you also really think people at MSFS would like better looking grass/trees?

Well, I bet not. They are so amazed about the grass and trees as it is. Especially those who compare them with X Plane and P3D.

They want planes! Big planes, vr, 3 screens running, and liveries and better ATC. I think THAT are the high prioritized features which will make MSFS more attractive (and seasons which is promised already).

But trees....and grass....that looks already 1000x better compared to what we have.

Marcus

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by mpo910

[flycln 435]

Eh, MSFS trees are horrible. Mushy green messes with tons of graphical artifacts and oversaturated ugliness. 
 

How you can look at those, from any distance, and consider them good or even spectacular is totally beyond me. 
 

There are things where MSFS shines. Trees aren’t one of those things. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by flycln

[virtuali 4,421]

16 hours ago, B777ER said:

Let's put it a different way. It's Black Friday 2021, PMDG posts a week prior that due to the still inadequate SDK, they are still a year away at the earliest.

Both scenarios can easily happen. Mine I bet stands a better chance. 

Sure, anything is possible ( I think FS Labs delayed the A320 like 4 or 5 years in a row ) but, while I find this scenario to be less likely, I don't think it's even a problem, if it ever happens.

As far as I know, PMDG and FS Labs both do lots of their simulation entirely out of the box of what  the simulator does, they are not relying that much on default systems and, from what I can see looking at the SDK "limitations", is that the area in which MSFS is weaker right now, is some Simconnect functions that are still missing, and I think I KNOW what I'm talking about, because those are precisely the features that we are waiting to come back in order to port GSX over, that is mainly creation of menus in game, creation and control of ground vehicles and other objects outside the user airplane.

However, I don't see how the lack of these functions would have a serious impact on making a complex airliner. Sure, without them, PMDG might not be able to create its own GPU or its own Pushback but, is *that* the most important feature of the product ?

The most critical areas are :

1) Graphic in glass cockpit gauges.

In FSX/P3D, it was made mostly using GDI+, with some developers using DirectX. I think I KNOW what I'm talking about, since I wrote the GDI+ sample code that comes with the FSX/ESP SDK which has likely been used by so many airplane developers as a starting point...not sure if PMDG uses GDI+ or DirectX but:

- MSFS provides a GDI+ wrapper for WASM. It's not 100% complete, but they are working at it, and it has been already updated a few times. This is supposed to help airplane developers to convert their exiting GDI+ gauges more easily. That doesn't mean it will work automatically: work is still required, but it's surely helpful.

- There's a new graphic engine for gauges, called NanoVG, which might be preferred by some developers because it's more modern and likely faster. It's *possible* a developer that used GDI+ might decide instead to convert his code to NanoVG instead of using the GDI+ wrapper. It might take longer, but it might work better in the end.

- There's *another* graphic engine for gauges, which stays at even lower level than NanoVG, and it's called FsRender, and it's a very thin layer on top of DirectX, since "true" DirectX access will never be possible with WASM. This should offer the best performances ( much better than GDI+ for sure ), but it requires the most changes in the source code.

2) Sound

The MSFS has a completely new sound engine, which is WAY more powerful than ever before, but it's NEW, and it's *different* so, if a developer used DirectSound or OpenAL or both to create custom sounds, there's a significant amount of work required to switch to the new audio engine. 

3) Access to the Windows API

This is probably the most important limitation. I really cannot say how this could affect a product like a complex airliner. Surely not in the system simulation itself. You surely don't need any help from Windows to write a custom autopilot, or a custom FMC, or sub-systems like electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, failures, etc, this can all be done with standard C++ code. Lack of Windows API access might cause problems when is required to interface with the outside world. For example, it might not be very easy to create a web server to let other apps accessing the airplane system. However, there are other methods, like using Simconnect as a transport so, it's not that it *cannot* be done, it will just require lots of work.

That's why I think should be expected, considering how the SDK looks right now, that PMDG announced delays, and it's very well possible they might announce other delays too. But what difference it makes, in the grand scheme of things, if PMDG arrives in 2021 or 2022 ? A quick check on PMDG Wikipedia page reveals that:

- Their first product for FSX, the 747, came out in Oct. 2007, a year after FSX came out, and it was derived from the FS9 version, which wasn't *that* much different ( almost the same, when gauges are concerned ) from FSX.

- Their first native product for FSX, the 777, came out in 2013, that is 7 YEARS after FSX original release, and it took ANOTHER 2 years ( 2015 ) before it came out for P3D.

- The 747 QotS came for both FSX and P3D in 2017, that is 11 years after FSX came out.

- Their first 64 bit product, the 737 NGXu for P3D4, came out in November 2019, that is 2.5 YEARS AFTER P3D4 came out.

So, I don't think a delay to support MSFS is surprising at all and, in fact, I could consider a remarkable achievement if they managed to release the 737 NGXu AS EARLY as end of 2021.

Edited November 29, 2020 by virtuali

[mpo910 2,112]

37 minutes ago, flycln said:

Eh, MSFS trees are horrible. Mushy green messes with tons of graphical artifacts and oversaturated ugliness. 
 

How you can look at those, from any distance, and consider them good or even spectacular is totally beyond me. 
 

There are things where MSFS shines. Trees aren’t one of those things. 

But only the photogrammity ones right? Or did I saw that not right? Could be possible as it is LOOOOONG ago I used MSFS.

But of course you put me in the right direction. Looks has lot to do with personal taste and priorities what you find ok may I found bad and vise versa.

😉 

Marcus

Edited November 29, 2020 by mpo910