Msfs 2020 and back to P3D question

[rocketlaunch 614]

14 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

But this: "As soon as I can fly my........" part of your sentence can last a long long time..... (CAN, not MUST).

Seriously, it was not a complex sentence.

[mpo910 2,112]

3 minutes ago, rocketlaunch said:

Seriously, it was not a complex sentence.

You misunderstood me I think (probably due my way of writing here).

I agree with you!

But I think it can last a very long time till the moment we are able to fly the FSLabs in MSFS.

😉

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by mpo910

[OzWhitey 3,353]

3 hours ago, GSalden said:

Is that the app that can make coastlines/watermarks automatically without me having to cut out a coastline ?

Yes. It sounds like you have spent way to long hand drawing water masks in the past, just like I have!

The P3D version of Ortho4xp is a game-changer in that regard. I think 99%+ of P3D users don’t know it exists, but it’s a brilliant piece of software. Can be found on GitHub here: https://github.com/stackTom/Ortho4XP_FSX_P3D

[honanhal 1,420]

1 hour ago, mpo910 said:

BUT there is a huge BUT:

• Who says MSFS is wanting to head into this direction (=this direction BIG money and profit)

PMDG, FSLabs, Maddog, AIRLP are all left out yet. They get no information or have not reached the development level they would have liked to reach yet.....they have left out completely or are postponed till present time.

That’s just it — a sim doesn’t necessarily need the developer to do anything in particular for it to “mature” in the sense we’re talking about here. FSX in 2010 was “mature,” even though Aces stopped developing it several years earlier. The sim itself didn’t change, but the ecosystem did. Developers hit their stride and there was a robust (overwhelmingly payware) market.

You’re right that the “hardcore” market isn’t Asobo’s focus (was it Aces’?). Honestly, I don’t think that matters. To the extent the SDK is lacking, from what I’ve seen that can affect both “hardcore” and non-hardcore aircraft alike. And as I’ve said elsewhere, while we’ve heard from some developers that the SDK’s current state limits what they can do, we’ve heard from others that in fact developers can work around any limitations (albeit perhaps not economically if they’re trying to port their existing code).

So what’s missing for this to be a “mature” sim? Complex aircraft. Where do those stand right now?

PMDG: progressing, unclear at what rate. Likely 2022 release.

FSL: radio silence.

Maddog: radio silence. (NB that they announced their P3D Maddog almost right before release, out of the blue, if I recall correctly)

And then you’ve got WT and FBW. I’ll grant that it’s not the same as developing from scratch, but those will both be at “study level” by any reasonable definition in the next year, if not sooner.

As others have said in this thread, as soon as any of the “big fish” (eg PMDG, FSL) get an aircraft into MSFS, it’s over. That says volumes to me about which is the better platform. No one who’s tried both would stay in P3D if their preferred aircraft from their preferred developer was available in MSFS. It’s just a vastly better platform. The only question is what’s available in it.

I think that’s clearly more a matter of time than anything else.

James

[micstatic 4,319]

James.  One small point.  I don't disagree with your post in general.  I tend to think msfs will takeover p3d's market eventually.  But I think it will take more than just pmdg or fsl coming out with a plane in the new simulator.  We will actually have to like it also.  People could not take it due to the camera system not being as good as what they have now.  People with home cockpits may still have compatibility issues even then.  So I think it's more than just coming out in the new sim.  

[mpo910 2,112]

12 minutes ago, honanhal said:

That’s just it — a sim doesn’t necessarily need the developer to do anything in particular for it to “mature” in the sense we’re talking about here. FSX in 2010 was “mature,” even though Aces stopped developing it several years earlier. The sim itself didn’t change, but the ecosystem did. Developers hit their stride and there was a robust (overwhelmingly payware) market.

You’re right that the “hardcore” market isn’t Asobo’s focus (was it Aces’?). Honestly, I don’t think that matters. To the extent the SDK is lacking, from what I’ve seen that can affect both “hardcore” and non-hardcore aircraft alike. And as I’ve said elsewhere, while we’ve heard from some developers that the SDK’s current state limits what they can do, we’ve heard from others that in fact developers can work around any limitations (albeit perhaps not economically if they’re trying to port their existing code).

So what’s missing for this to be a “mature” sim? Complex aircraft. Where do those stand right now?

PMDG: progressing, unclear at what rate. Likely 2022 release.

FSL: radio silence.

Maddog: radio silence. (NB that they announced their P3D Maddog almost right before release, out of the blue, if I recall correctly)

And then you’ve got WT and FBW. I’ll grant that it’s not the same as developing from scratch, but those will both be at “study level” by any reasonable definition in the next year, if not sooner.

As others have said in this thread, as soon as any of the “big fish” (eg PMDG, FSL) get an aircraft into MSFS, it’s over. That says volumes to me about which is the better platform. No one who’s tried both would stay in P3D if their preferred aircraft from their preferred developer was available in MSFS. It’s just a vastly better platform. The only question is what’s available in it.

I think that’s clearly more a matter of time than anything else.

James

Of course.....all depending on the SDK. As you said....depending. 

I am very curious how this will be Handled. 

FBW is another story indeed. These are not add-ons but enhancement of existing default aircrafts. 

Of course....320 321 747 787 777

Freeware at study level like Zibo would be enough for many of us.

But this is not possible now. 787 default is closed...747 either. 

New addon 787 is impossible...as of lacking SDK features.....this counts for many others too. 

But that would also mean making money with payware in the same section will become obsolete. That is not good either. 

Because I don't like it to be dependent on Freeware......sounds strange....but the support of Freeware is not guaranteed. At least less guarantee compared to Payware. 

What I said before.....I would not BET on this to come for us......open end I think.

Marcus

Edited March 7, 2021 by mpo910

[GSalden 4,657]

10 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Yes. It sounds like you have spent way to long hand drawing water masks in the past, just like I have!

The P3D version of Ortho4xp is a game-changer in that regard. I think 99%+ of P3D users don’t know it exists, but it’s a brilliant piece of software. Can be found on GitHub here: https://github.com/stackTom/Ortho4XP_FSX_P3D

Thanks ! 😃

[omarsmak30 4,068]

6 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

New addon 787 is impossible...as of lacking SDK features.....this counts for many others too. 

Which SDK features that are lacking?

[honanhal 1,420]

6 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

But this is not possible now. 787 default is closed...747 either. 

Because I don't like it to be dependent on Freeware......sounds strange....but the support of Freeware is not guaranteed. At least less guarantee compared to Payware. 

I don’t know how, but someone on flightsim.to is upgrading the 787 avionics (I had also understood this to be impossible). We’ll see where that goes.

I understand your concern about long-term support, but I think you’re making a logical leap that isn’t borne out by my experience. I’ve seen both freeware and payware get abandoned by their developers, just as I’ve seen outstanding, “in it for the long haul” support from both camps. Of course, when a freeware developer disappears, it can be frustrating. But when a payware developer, whose pocket you’ve put money into, does...

In any case, I think we probably agree that the way MSFS has reinvigorated a freeware scene the likes of which we haven’t seen since Fs2004 is obviously a good thing.

James

[Simicro 247]

9 minutes ago, micstatic said:

But I think it will take more than just pmdg or fsl coming out with a plane in the new simulator.  We will actually have to like it also.  People could not take it due to the camera system not being as good as what they have now.  People with home cockpits may still have compatibility issues even then.  So I think it's more than just coming out in the new sim.  

PMDG, FSL, and other high end aircrafts are maybe not sufficient but required.

Once their aicrafts are available in MSFS, users will tend to follow.

And if users follow, other addon developers, attracted by the volume of users, will follow to clear the obstables and provide whatever is needed (camera system, etc.)

[mpo910 2,112]

Just now, omarsmak30 said:

Which SDK features that are lacking?

Download the SDK and look for all the red entrances with titles as: TBD, ?

Lots of them.

Payware developers are not able to develop from scratch and with the needed performance due the lack of SDK parts.

FBW does work around based on an existing aircraft wich is all open source code.

The existing 787 is closed code.....not possible to use for guys like they develop the a320

[jon b 2,047]

1 hour ago, mpo910 said:

The shift and priorities from MS/Asobo AND the differences between SIMMERS and GAMERS is very clear to me.

And if I am honest: The GAMERS market is MUCH bigger then the SIMMERS market. So I can really understand their goals (at least I think I do).

Big=masses=market=power=benefit. Simmers=niche.....

They say don’t they, that you are free to do whatever you want in life , as long as it doesn’t hurt other people.

Well in my view the release of MSFS at its current level of development has been the worst thing to have happened to the hobby of commercial aviation simulation, and it’s certainly hurt.

The level of complex airliner development In P3D and XP has recently been nothing short of breath taking, however this development has now practically ground  to a halt as developer’s turn their attention to porting over products to MSFS.

All their attention is focused on learning the new sim and bringing over existing P3D products. Attention and energy that previously would have been spent either improving and further developing existing aircraft or developing exciting new aircraft for the existing sims.

You can’t blame developers for this when they see there is a massive influx of “gamers”  thus revenue stream ,entering the hobby via MSFS and existing simulation enthusiasts post all over the community forums that they’ll never buy anything for P3D ever again as they’re off to MSFS. Although often only to return once they become aware of the new platforms’ s present limitations.

This would  be  all well and good if MSFS had been released in a state to accept the complex aircraft that many P3D users own or desire. However  it simply hasn’t , despite initial indications it would, see PMDG’s revised 737 plans as an example.
 

At present the situation is like going into hospital and having a vital organ removed Only to be then told  a suitable donor organ hasn’t yet been found, and it might be a couple of years before one is.

Sure MSFS can do a good job of capturing the pure visual beauty of flight , but as we all know there is so much more to simulation than just the visuals.

And the real elephant in the room here with the depth of detail in the new sim when combined with a complex aircraft like the PMDG 747 is performance, is there currently a computer available that will support such a complex aircraft flying over a complex city like London in MSFS?

And then we get into the horrible situation we had previously in simulation where only the very latest computer would just about struggle to use the latest software release. By the time the available hardware had caught up and you were just about happy then the next even more complex version of the simulator would be released and you’d be back at square one.

I looked at amazement, as we all did I’m sure ,at screen shots of the ornate railings, lampposts  and statues at Buckingham palace in MSFS’s recent U.K. update. However I then thought why would you ever need to see such detail in a flight simulator?

I must have flown my real world 747 over central London literally hundreds of times on the way into Heathrow and have never once made out the ornate railings at the palace. The only time you would ever get near enough to see such things in the middle of a city would be if you were landing a HEMS helicopter nearby for an emergency, but then of course  MSFS won’t have helicopters until 2022?

[omarsmak30 4,068]

1 minute ago, mpo910 said:

Download the SDK and look for all the red entrances with titles as: TBD, ?

Lots of them.

Payware developers are not able to develop from scratch and with the needed performance due the lack of SDK parts.

FBW does work around based on an existing aircraft wich is all open source code.

The existing 787 is closed code.....not possible to use for guys like they develop the a320

You meant this? https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm . 

[mpo910 2,112]

2 minutes ago, honanhal said:

I don’t know how, but someone on flightsim.to is upgrading the 787 avionics (I had also understood this to be impossible). We’ll see where that goes.

I understand your concern about long-term support, but I think you’re making a logical leap that isn’t borne out by my experience. I’ve seen both freeware and payware get abandoned by their developers, just as I’ve seen outstanding, “in it for the long haul” support from both camps. Of course, when a freeware developer disappears, it can be frustrating. But when a payware developer, whose pocket you’ve put money into, does...

In any case, I think we probably agree that the way MSFS has reinvigorated a freeware scene the likes of which we haven’t seen since Fs2004 is obviously a good thing.

James

Agreed. I am really curious to see what will happen. I'd love to fly FSLABS or FSLABS Like planes in MSFS. 

[omarsmak30 4,068]

14 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

FBW is another story indeed. These are not add-ons but enhancement of existing default

It is almost by now completely re-written, of course taking in account the custom autopilot, custom ATHR, custom engine model and the custom flightplan which are in experimental branch by now. What is left, the rest of the custom electric systems, custom hydraulics and the custom ND display which are of all these are actively WIP. When all these are done, it will be separated into its own add-one separated from the default A320, so to be put it like this is mostly by the 3D model that they use from the default a320