...but it's not a REAL simulator...

[Noel 4,577]

5 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

This is the crux of the matter. The other "sims" have turned into procedure and button mashing simulations....They are very good at what they do but they are not "flight" sims.

P3D is a fabulous platform for simulating airline cockpit operations and far surpasses what MSFS currently offers no doubt there.  To get there, you found yourself adding a slew of scenery and atmospherics and weather add-ons.  Each one demanding its own installation, updating and setup as each iteration of P3D as they arrived if you chose to keep up.

For simulating flying in a 3D photoreal world that spans from the ground right on up to the stratosphere and beyond MSFS is the clear winner no doubt there, and that all came out of a single package to install.   Often those who find the need to tacitly defend P3D's landclass based scenery will use the term, "eye candy" in a dismissive way, which is really a tip off that they fully understand where P3D falls down in that domain.  What I've found is the 3D photoreal world incredibly increases the immersion factor and enhances the sense of flight.  I 'hand-fly' now far more often than I ever did, and that accentuates that sense of flying.  I've had some of my most incredible landings in MSFS that I've ever had.  I do ILS/RNAV/VOR DME and visual approaches in the TBM, and it all works very well now.  In P3D, most of the time it was fly-by-wire at some level no matter what the plane, even in the "Crash 8".  Of course, even MSFS' default planes like the lovely TBM930 offer significant cockpit simulation in their own right, so somewhat of a balanced approach, today, in its current state.

Here is some choice 'eye candy' that is so tasty you feel pretty fortunate to be able to fly over and thru these areas, and of course get set for your RNAV approach.

The medieval Bavarian village of Rotenburg ob der Tauber:

Flying towards central Yellowstone Nat'l Park out of Cody WY past Buffalo Bill Reservoir

The lovely Cote d'Azur flying out of Nice FR:

WDC

Lovely hamlet Füssen, Bavaria where we stayed w/ our 14y twin girls in 2001:

I look forward to the day both domains exist in the same platform.  So far, MSFS is closer to that goal I feel.  To me, what they have already done is vastly greater in an efficient single package.  To enable the SDK to accomodate high quality aircraft payware, to fine tune the weather and scenery system, seems to  me to be far far easier to pull off than, for example seeing P3D integrate into one fully robust package versus the potpourri of add-ons required to make it sing AND add the same or better 3D photoreal scenery.  

Until that day comes, if it comes and I bet it will, it's really nice to have both platforms up and running.  They are vastly different, and both excel in their own domains.  I tell you what is very liberating at least for me:  no need to try to make P3D compete visually w/ MSFS.  So now I turn down sliders to ones that my system can easily handle using vsync to 30Hz.   That means autogen down to Sparse, and the object and distance sliders well down when flying out of KDEN for example in the PMDG 777.  We're focused on the cockpit and the outside world is really almost irrelevant.   When I complete a perfect flight I pat myself on the back, and that's that.  In MSFS, I marvel at what I saw beneath me in South Africa from Cape Town to Johannesburg Pretoria, a part of the world I had no idea about until that flight, complete w/ a lovely ILS landing at dusk.  Very different experiences, both just fabulous!

Edited December 19, 2020 by Noel

[TASCHMANN 200]

It has been said many times but bears repeating.  Their are clearly two kinds of enthusiasts:  Those who are primarily interested in aircraft fidelity and those for whom the scenery is a first priority.

I read, with interest, the interview with the developers in the Jan/Feb issue of PcPilot on "The Future of MSFS."  They went on for four pages about plans for the scenery.  There was not a word about the future of aircraft, of the flight models, or of the SDK which, of course, is crucial to future development of quality aircraft by third parties. 

It could not have been clearer which of the two groups of simmers are a priority for them.  The rest of us should be aware of that and temper our expectations about MSFS accordingly.  The other two major sims, P3D and, especially X-Plane have far better flight models and aircraft because those are the priorities of their developers.  They are likely to remain the favorites of those of us who are primarily interested in...airplanes.

I don't anticipate MSFS ever offering serious competition to P3D or X-Plane in the area of flight dynamics and aircraft systems because it seems very clear from their performance and their public statements that they don't want to.

The final, and happy, result is that there is something for both groups of simmers at the present time.

[scotchegg 4,311]

3 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

I don't anticipate MSFS ever offering serious competition to P3D or X-Plane in the area of flight dynamics and aircraft systems because it seems very clear from their performance and their public statements that they don't want to.

I strongly disagree, not only because of the reports from so many real world pilots approving the current MSFS flight model (while acknowledging its no more complete than the others’), or that community groups like FBW are already moving default aircraft closer to study level 4months into release, but mainly because MS / Asobo have shown commitment to satisfying both types of simmer you claim there are. They may do the world stuff first, but the gripes with systems will slowly be chipped away.

Which do you think is more likely; P3D / XP raise their visual level to a competitive level with MSFS, or MSFS raises their systems game?

[Noel 4,577]

2 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Which do you think is more likely; P3D / XP raise their visual level to a competitive level with MSFS, or MSFS raises their systems game?

In my mind the easy part is the SDK required to create that systems game.  The full-on simulation comes from the 3rd party devs like PMDG.  Let's face it: it's already been done!  There is vast knowledge about it, and ample history to work off of.  IOW, for all that MS/Asobo has already done much of which was completely new & innovative to the entire genre, to get it up to the level of P3D will be a relatively minor set of tasks by comparison as I say to everything that has already been done.  I've also seen the comments from RW pilots of superior flight modeling in MSFS as well.  I wonder if RW pilots on the whole are starting to prefer MSFS over the others.  I may be very wrong here so sounds like it's time for another...poll!  

[mikegrr 110]

I would like to add that the "feeling" of flying is important in any simulator. Hard to define but easier to comprehend. So, if I take off in a 172 and the climb rate maybe slightly off, but I raise the flaps turn crosswind at a certain altitude, and into the pattern, i try to maintain some speed control, reduce rpm's downwind lower flaps and turn base and then final maintaining close to 70 knots, and flair to land...this feels like a simulator and and MSFS does this well as the plane is bouncing slightly and reasonably responsive and the runway approach looks right.. As a side note, who knows what the actual performance of a ~20 year old plane is anyway. I followed the checklist and started and stopped the plane as specified. I used the visual landmarks and the speed "felt" right and it looks like what you would see out a small aircraft with amazing replication of cities, roads and landmarks . . And the lousy ATC gives me crazy instructions to the parking area. You can't really feel ground effect with a joystick or the impact of the wheels on the ground. I personally think it's a little too easy to land GA planes in MSFS. However there is a stall speed and reasonable reaction and if you work hard enough you can get some planes to spin. Some systems are off and leaning the engine is still not right.

Is the mark of a simulator at the extremes of the flight envelope or in day to day flying.

Later I take off in the DA62 with a flight plan , set cdi to gps, enable auto pilot, nav mode, and adjust vertical speed to reach an altitude and settle into flight towards a destination following waypoints and monitoring accurate instruments, enjoying the scenery and the weather effects along the way. So again, maybe the climb rate is slightly off and it takes too long to turn to the next leg...all true but the process is still in the ballpark. The ATC is off, but at least there's some semblance of communication. This is near impossible in XP.   Can you program an approach? yes. Can you track an ILS. Almost always. Will the autopilot take you right to the threshold...that's a maybe. Is the functionality of the G1000 close to the real thing, I would say yes.

Finally using the A320 mod, you can get close to experiencing most systems and procedures. I don't think this can train you to be a airline pilot, and it's shame that some systems aren't working. Certainly MSFS is better at GA aircraft. Hopefully this will get fixed.

[overspeed3 410]

Is it da plane! - da plane!  Or is it the eye candy?  Is it a game? Is it a simulator?  You say you want a resolution?  So many thousands of words in this Forum debating those imponderables...

I say: Just fly and let the Earth-bound sort it all out.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by overspeed3

[mtaxp 666]

3 hours ago, scotchegg said:

 

Which do you think is more likely; P3D / XP raise their visual level to a competitive level with MSFS, or MSFS raises their systems game?

Moving dx11 to dx12, or opengl to vulkan, is already a much bigger task for msfs crew to do than what p3d/xp have to do for graphics.

And i haven't spoke about systems, airliners etc.. which all might come, in best case, in 2021 winter, and even then it'll take more time for msfs market to close the gap so it reaches p3d/xp variety.

So my bet is p3d/xp will close the graphics before msfs reaches system and simulation standards. I would also be very surprised if in the next flightsimcon we won't have actual info about xp12, so then we can be smarter.

 

[scotchegg 4,311]

41 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Moving dx11 to dx12, or opengl to vulkan, is already a much bigger task for msfs crew to do than what p3d/xp have to do for graphics.

Seriously? DX12 is due with the Xbox launch in summer 2021, so P3D/XP are going to have to radically overhaul their scenery engines in the next 6 months to satisfy your prediction. I would say that’s a tad optimistic.

Not that I wouldn’t like XP to present some compelling competition.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

52 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Moving dx11 to dx12, or opengl to vulkan, is already a much bigger task for msfs crew to do than what p3d/xp have to do for graphics.

And i haven't spoke about systems, airliners etc.. which all might come, in best case, in 2021 winter, and even then it'll take more time for msfs market to close the gap so it reaches p3d/xp variety.

So my bet is p3d/xp will close the graphics before msfs reaches system and simulation standards. I would also be very surprised if in the next flightsimcon we won't have actual info about xp12, so then we can be smarter.

 

it does take a lot of labor to move to something like DX 12 or Vulkan, but trying to recreate lighting and textures to the same level of quality as Asobo or Rockstar games or any of the giant game studios, is still a monolithic task. It's a lot easier finding programmers that can help work on a game engine move than it is to find "the best" rendering people to work in DX 12 for smaller budget projects. Most of those people are overseas or for the US they are on the West Coast. Water textures and lighting are difficult to get right, but ground textures are incredibly hard, and trees are the easiest of the three, but for trees the issue is optimization (water too but not as bad).

I would say some of the graphics (like trees) can be easily improved in XP 12 (and the water to a degree), but the ground textures is an incredibly complicated task.

I would never say never because all it takes is one super-talented developer to raise the entire level of a team, but the chances of getting that guy (or multiple guys like that) are much lower for smaller projects like P3D or XP 12, but it could happen.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Alpine Scenery

[HighTowers 1,439]

Opening statement is very well said.  But again the thread is turning into a comparison sim platform again.  Comparing systems fidelity to platforms that have been around for a decade or more vs something thats been 6 months from release?  Come on.  Its pretty clear that MS know very well, that if you cant retain the dedicated high level simmer, then this wont be able to sustain itself, because the Xbox crowd will come and go and be on a much more leisure level, yet on a far less committed one.   The question to ask in a fair way, is what will MSFS look like in a year from now?  How about 5 years?  To gauge it, what did P3D/XP do in 5 years? I see amazing stuff coming from the freeware community already just 5-6 months in, and we havnt really seen what the professional payware side can do yet.  The SDK will further get polished and refined, there will be very high quality aircraft of all types in 1-2 years, we will have the ability to edit airports and all the AI we can imagine, and on top of it, outstanding visuals.  This is not the FSW Dovetail attempted. This a whole different animal.  

I am enjoying the flights with the custom FBW mod already, because it is really that good for being freeware, and can be incorporated with all the flight planning and charts used in P3D.  while I miss the other airliners in P3D, its just too ugly to go back. In the not too distant future, we will have even more aircraft to fly.   And this is how we move forward with technology. You can advocate for FS9 XP or P3D all you want, but for me, there's a reason why I dumped VHS/Beta for DVDs, and then moved on to streaming, and its not on a CRT TV/monitor either. 

[maler131 1]

I actually struggle to find the time to fly all of them. And then, whenever I finally manage to switch my rig on, I watch my mouse cursor hovering over the desktop icons and thinking: Which one do I fancy tonight? Airliner hop? Keep perfecting my PPL while RW flight is halted due to the pandemic? Maybe some helicopter mountain flying challenge? Or even some carrier landings in that DCS F18 that I never take the time to learn?

Aren’t we all lucky of having the choice...?

[mtaxp 666]

 

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I would never say never because all it takes is one super-talented developer to raise the entire level of a team, but the chances of getting that guy (or multiple guys like that) are much lower for smaller projects like P3D or XP 12, but it could happen.

Laminar hired an army of eastern european artists for that, they have been working probably for a couple of years at least on the "next gen scenery" BTS.

Lastly, you are still not accurate, Vulkan/dx12 is a much, like a really much more complicated task to perfect than creating textures, art or better lightning altogether. Just like building the foundations of your house is a more complicated task than painting it.

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

Seriously? DX12 is due with the Xbox launch in summer 2021, so P3D/XP are going to have to radically overhaul their scenery engines in the next 6 months to satisfy your prediction. I would say that’s a tad optimistic.

Not that I wouldn’t like XP to present some compelling competition.

Seriously yes.

1) even if dx12 will be perfect out of the box for xbox, it is still not immediately obsolete for PC, there is a difference than optimising for a fixed hardware.

2) dx12 wont be perfect out of the box and they'll still suffer and fix problems xplane/p3d are already beyond.

3) you assume xp12 development just started, while in reality, a year and a half ago ben supnik confirmed they are already working on it.

[CFIJose 5,485]

7 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

It has been said many times but bears repeating.  Their are clearly two kinds of enthusiasts:  Those who are primarily interested in aircraft fidelity and those for whom the scenery is a first priority.

I read, with interest, the interview with the developers in the Jan/Feb issue of PcPilot on "The Future of MSFS."  They went on for four pages about plans for the scenery.  There was not a word about the future of aircraft, of the flight models, or of the SDK which, of course, is crucial to future development of quality aircraft by third parties. 

It could not have been clearer which of the two groups of simmers are a priority for them.  The rest of us should be aware of that and temper our expectations about MSFS accordingly.  The other two major sims, P3D and, especially X-Plane have far better flight models and aircraft because those are the priorities of their developers.  They are likely to remain the favorites of those of us who are primarily interested in...airplanes.

I don't anticipate MSFS ever offering serious competition to P3D or X-Plane in the area of flight dynamics and aircraft systems because it seems very clear from their performance and their public statements that they don't want to.

The final, and happy, result is that there is something for both groups of simmers at the present time.

Since it's evident what has happened to this thread, I'll give my opinion since I have years of expertise with both P3D & XP.

When it comes to airplane realism (the feeling of flight,) MSFS blows both those sims away in every area. It's not even close and I'm comparing it to P3D/XP payware aircraft not default.

[tweekz 2,165]

4 hours ago, mtaxp said:

Moving dx11 to dx12, or opengl to vulkan, is already a much bigger task for msfs crew to do than what p3d/xp have to do for graphics.

DX12 is coming 2021 with the XBox release. Looking good in that regard.

Scenery wise, procedurally generated scenery will not match MSFS unless they partner up with Google. Procedural generation based on OSM is actually what MSFS does in OFFLINE mode (admittedly, they didn't care doing nice textures for it though). 🙂

Anyhow, a procedurally generated scenery can only look plausible - never authentic. Those distinct patterns in fields, unique local characteristics...

MSFS needs payware airliners and some sim improvements - then it will be hard to beat. FBW is already showing that it's possible. And until then I enjoy MSFS & XP. I don't let stubbornness limit my life. Not with a flight sim at least. 😉

Edited December 19, 2020 by tweekz

[omarsmak30 4,069]

1 hour ago, mtaxp said:

Vulkan/dx12 is a much, like a really much more complicated task to perfect than creating textures, art or better lightning altogether. Just like building the foundations of your house is a more complicated task than painting it.

I would say this is right for old engines like P3D and XP. Just picture, you have tons of C++ code that is dated back to 15 years or even more and migrate that to DX12, hell of big job indeed.

However in case of MSFS, since it is using modern gaming engine (Forza tech engine) and I also, I would assume when Asobo modified the original engine, they had in mind that they have to move this engine to DX12 that requires different APIs, so yeah I foresee the amount of work required to move MSFS to DX12 less than P3D and XP for Vulcan