I haven't even started P3D since MSFS came out!

While it will always be a passion of mine, these days flight sim for me is more of a thing that I dip in and out of rather than use solidly all of the time. The endless tweaking trying to get P3D to perform smoothly enough, and the myriad of add ons I had running concurrently that all needed updating separately meant that of the time I had dedicated to simming, less than half of it was actually flying time.

MSFS isn't perfect, we all know that. But for me at least, it does everything I want it to right out of the box. It updates itself frequently and pretty much automatically. The graphics are insane. It's far quicker to load than P3D with photo scenery. And for me at least it performs far better than P3D ever did, considering the graphical quality it's rendering. I can load it up whenever I fancy and fly wherever I fancy within a matter of a few minutes, by and large, it just works. And that's what I personally have been waiting for for years.

Edited December 18, 20205 yr by Tom Wright

8 hours ago, W2DR said:

Those who like to fly use P3D. Those that like to look use MSFS. Simple........

I love flying and only use MSFS. I mostly use the A320 and the Caravan.

4 hours ago, FlyingInACessna said:

From what I remember, P3D doesn’t update nav data for you and you need a provider like Navigraph. Navigraph has nav data for MSFS too, so not sure what you’re getting at.

And MSFS is also upding it's navdata every cycle now. Though there's so errors, like half the ILS approaches missing for some reason.

Been doing a Toliss flight the other day on XP. It was awesome. MSFS is still miles away from that level of detail in airliners. But when I saw those billboard trees popping up below me and generic houses in cities that look nothing like how it looks IRL, I knew again that it is 100% MSFS for VFR flying. 🙂

Edited December 18, 20205 yr by tweekz

Totally ditched MSFS and went back to hauling the Mail. 757.767,MD11 and 737 BCF.

Deleted P3D and all my addons went with it. I’ll miss my PMDG but I can do without it.

MSFS is it for me. Everything I wanted and more graphics wise. No more having to use your imagination when flying over boring bland scenery. 

Oh I accidentally lied earlier when I said I hadn't played P3D since the Alpha. I did try playing it for a bit during the Alpha, but I just couldn't stand it. MSFS was so much smoother and better looking.

For me it depends on the time what I have left for simming. If it's only one hour or less, than I fire up MSFS for some short VFR flights  mostly in a Cessna 172 in rural areas. If I have more time, then I enjoy flight planning, cockpit preparation (PMDG), ... at larger hubs with all this ai traffic, GSX2, etc... If I count together I'm more in P3D than in MSFS.

37 minutes ago, Azapata87 said:

No more having to use your imagination when flying over boring bland scenery. 

That's true.

You always had to think: Well, I guess I could pretend this looks like in real life. 😄

8 minutes ago, tweekz said:

That's true.

You always had to think: Well, I guess I could pretend this looks like in real life. 😄

No time to look whey you are looking at the dashboard pushing buttons 99% of the time.

I fly 90% P3D and 10% MSFS. MSFS graphics were amusing for a while, but i’m much more interested in high-fidelity aircraft simulation. P3D +PMDG/FSL/Maddog is still a much stronger platform for airliner simming.

2 hours ago, Tom Wright said:

While it will always be a passion of mine, these days flight sim for me is more of a thing that I dip in and out of rather than use solidly all of the time.

Yes! With family and work obligations I find MSFS suits me better too. Fun without much need to tweak!

I know for others tweaking is part of the fun, but with life going on outside of simming I am grateful for the respite.

No I will never use that junk again . 

I wonder how many people who used ORBx landclass scenery in P3D (and criticised photoscenery for being bland and unrealistic) now praise the photoscenery world of MSFS, and think that ORBx landclass scenery is bland and unrealistic.....

42 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I wonder how many people who used ORBx landclass scenery in P3D (and criticised photoscenery for being bland and unrealistic) now praise the photoscenery world of MSFS, and think that ORBx landclass scenery is bland and unrealistic.....

I always thought landclass was bland in many areas, there were spotty places I thought it was really good (Jackson Hole, WY -and- some of Ireland and Scotland). One thing that helped a lot was adjusting my color to add a bit of green saturation to some of their scenery. True earth was really good, but MSFS has brought everything up to a NEW level even beyond True Earth.

Is it the trees, is it the water, or is it the ground textures?
It's all of the above...

That said, the western US mtns (other than the extreme West Coast or the central plains), isn't that great even in MSFS. There are issues abound in WY-ID-MT and a few in CO (though less so, CO probably the best of the bunch). MT is just a mess and so is much of Wyoming with all the green textures, luckily a lot of Northern Utah looks fairly good (though still not as clean as the east). A lot of Canada is pretty bad too, but Canada is such a large area I haven't flown that much of it yet.

There are still places that MSFS needs to improve on, the Appalachian area looks fantastic however and amazes me. I really enjoy San Diego in the western US, and some of Colorado, but a lot of other areas I prefer to fly in the east. It was opposite for me before, whereas I almost always preferred the Western US. Seattle of course also looks fairly good, though I think the trees need a bit of reformulation in some areas even in MSFS.

Edited December 19, 20205 yr by Alpine Scenery

5 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

There are still places that MSFS needs to improve on, the Appalachian area looks fantastic however and amazes me. I really enjoy San Diego in the western US, and some of Colorado, but a lot of other areas I prefer to fly in the east. It was opposite for me before, whereas I almost always preferred the Western US. Seattle of course also looks fairly good, though I think the trees need a bit of reformulation in some areas even in MSFS.

The good thing about MSFS is the “only  limitation” is data availability. The data can be huge and it won’t be an issue, because it will be storaged on the  cloud and streamed to the user on the fly.