2 minutes ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

I find TrueSky to be good, as long as you aren't flying at night. Then I get some weird yellow-like reflections on the horizon, etc... Also, precipitation is a mixed bag with it on right now. So, on my current settings, I have EA disabled. 

For a major release, I'd love for them to dump some of the old FSX models and textures, mainly stuff like fuel pumps etc... Those look GNARLY. I know Rex has Global Airports product for P3D, but it's not compatible with 5.1 at the moment. I don't know if there is anything else out there that improves default airport models/textures - I am definitely NOT interested in payware airports for P3D as I feel that would be dumping more money into an environment that will never compare with MSFS and if you start buying a bunch of airports, well... that's WAY more than the 2K or so I already spent on this platform. Buildings? I do have Orbx buildings, and they are... ok, I guess. Passable. 

With buildings I mean:

- accurate position 

- bigger coverage and density

- right type

- right height 

- right roof model (shape and maybe color)

And default airports should better blend or fit into the environment. 

Those quadratic grass fields surrounding the runways and lack of lighting have to improve as well as the airport default Nav data 

Regarding Truesky I have a at least 10 point long topic list with issues and visual glitches or to improve visuals

Red Orange Mars like effect at dawn and dusk

PBR issues should get solved now

Better precipitation

Better raleigh scattering

Less pixelated clouds

Better shadow\light tracing effect outside and in cockpit

Odd horizontal shadow line in OC conditions

Better TC and cirrus clouds

Better cloud layer positioning and more shaped to match the form of the earth (fully flat now)

Less quick moving clouds at weather change (caused by injection via weather addon app like ASP3D or others)

Add Fog at night with visual reduction

And probably more.....

I’ll echo what others have said, LM themselves have even said their target audience with P3D was government customers.  Their activities and communications are par for the course of a large government contractor.

There are probably thousands of us who have this same discussion with ourselves at least once a week. At his point I have not even been tempted by the MSFS thingy and I stick with Prepar3d. This is due to a several of things. Probably the number one thing is that almost every day when I log into AVSIM and look at the recent topic, I see post after post like I can't get it to download. The new update broke everything. We are just going backwards and then there is every Joe and Bubba in the world who now think they are flight sim add on designers and yes some of them are probably doing some good work. After a ton of years in the hobby I just don't want to deal with a new sim every day. Would I like some pretty pictures and a new version of P3d today. Sure I would! That would be great but, not at the expense of poor weather from Active sky and not if it breaks all my home cockpit switches. Long story short, it depends on what is important to us personally. LM is never going to throw a bunch of marketing trash at you like you see from MS. They are just two different kinds of companies. One makes and hypes for more the gaming community and the other builds systems that may someday take us to another planet. 

17 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

They are just two different kinds of companies. One makes and hypes for more the gaming community and the other builds systems that may someday take us to another planet. 

I know that MS doesn't get a lot of love (sometimes for very good reason), but let's not make assumptions:

https://www.investopedia.com/microsoft-msft-unveils-space-ambitions-5083834

https://www.space.com/spaceborne-computer-2-microsoft-hpe-launching-to-space-station

 

For me I got to say that thanks to MSFS I found payware airports. Few months ago there was sale for Basel for both versions. And also for GSX. I bought both and I got to say it made me really happy with my P3D V5. I didnt know that there could be such difference for me with GSX and payware airports. Also payware airports come with custom surroundings which make approach much nicer in airliners in P3D. I dont have that efficient PC setup and in last versions MSFS graphics is not that it used to be - it is sort of grainy or very saturated. I dont know how to describe it. With P3DV5 I find graphics with payware airports very nice and with my PC setup very stable (no CTDs) and very fluent / smooth - comparing to MSFS. 

But I am not happy that I do not know what to expect from P3D in future. Lets paraphase that: should I buy more addon airports and so? Or should I be moving to MSFS (buying addons)? I dont want to waste money on two simulators. 

So I get that we might not be the target audience, but man - is it really that hard to put out some information about future plans? I mean common... it is 2021 and we have internet. Information basically spread by themselves - yes they work for army and so, but I believe where there is a will there is a way.

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by Lazer_cz
typo

13 minutes ago, F737NG said:

I know that MS doesn't get a lot of love (sometimes for very good reason), but let's not make assumptions:

https://www.investopedia.com/microsoft-msft-unveils-space-ambitions-5083834

https://www.space.com/spaceborne-computer-2-microsoft-hpe-launching-to-space-station

 

You seem to mix up your wishes with the content of this article and a assumption that Microsoft MSFT will combine data or knowledge for MSFS.

MSFS and ASOBO do hype.....gaming market.....That is a obvious fact. 

LM is clearly not. 

First....this is not a MSFS thread here. 

Second....LM Is already in space, in military, in weapon and  have much more accurate data wich technically would be very very interesting for flight simulation BUT may probably not be used for Flightsim. 

Who says that MSFT is sharing data or knowledge with MSFS?

And if.....after how many years this will happen? 

I would appreciate it if we can return to P3D and talk about its future or what is liked to be seen from users in P3Ds future

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by mpo910

51 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

right roof model (shape and maybe color)

See Arno Gerretson's latest blog, he's makind MDLs with accurate roofs in Scenproc, but using better textures for autogen.  Hell Marcus, get Arno on board the damned P3D  inside team please!

https://www.scenerydesign.org/

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by kevinfirth

9 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

You seem to mix up your wishes with the content of this article and a assumption that Microsoft MSFT will combine data or knowledge for MSFS.

MSFS and ASOBO do hype.....gaming market.....That is a obvious fact. 

LM is clearly not. 

First....this is not a MSFS thread here. 

Second....LM Is already in space, in military, in weapon and  have much more accurate data wich technically would be very very interesting for flight simulation BUT may probably not be used for Flightsim. 

Who says that MSFT is sharing data or knowledge with MSFS?

And if.....after how many years this will happen? 

I would appreciate it if we can return to P3D and talk about its future or what is liked to be seen from users in P3Ds future

I think you have completely misunderstood my post. I linked a couple of articles talking about spaceflight and Microsoft's involvement, something that another poster said that only LM appears to have interest in.

Nothing to do with MSFS, so I don't understand your hostility to my post.
 

24 minutes ago, F737NG said:

I think you have completely misunderstood my post. I linked a couple of articles talking about spaceflight and Microsoft's involvement, something that another poster said that only LM appears to have interest in.

Nothing to do with MSFS, so I don't understand your hostility to my post.
 

Sorry.......that's probably my fault..... Please don't take my MSFS light allergies not to personal. 

 

49 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

See Arno Gerretson's latest blog, he's makind MDLs with accurate roofs in Scenproc, but using better textures for autogen.  Hell Marcus, get Arno on board the damned P3D  inside team please!

https://www.scenerydesign.org/

Kevin. How's life? A bit impatient here 😃? 

Small but decent steps........for a small but very competent decent LM Team. 

if you had to choose between stunning Atmospherics + related fixes or new\updated Autogen......what would You choose (1 change\option possible )?

And now imagine a Backlog filled with many many Bugs, Technical Debts, User Stories etc. 

But...I understand you......

I find this Google Earth like looking scenery incl city\building density and shapes\colors a very nice thought....

Imagine this with Enhanced or updated TrueSky........no need to hop over to MSFS......would save me LOTS of time, money and frustration........(as my AP in MSFS still does not work properly)

Marcus

 

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by mpo910

4 hours ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

I am fairly new to P3D - bought it in January with a ton of Orbx scenery and aircraft - about $2000 worth. It's been enjoyable. I really miss A2A in MSFS. QualityWings, PMDG, FSLabs... All those are stellar. But, truth be told, MSFS is just a lot easier on the eyes and with the CRJ out as well as a PMDG announcement that 2021 may see the 737 in MSFS, I am THIS close to uninstalling it mostly due to silence from LM.

For anyone who is new to flight simulation and wants to explore flying, I would say that MSFS is the right choice because it is cheaper, requires almost no add-ons and offers better visuals than P3D. However, if you have already bought lots of add-ons during the FSX era from reputable developers (ORBX, FSDT, DD, etc.), these add-ons can be used in the newest version at no extra charge or for a small upgrade fee. And if you like to fly fast and high, all of the best airplanes are currently only available for P3D - that includes FS Labs, Majestic Software, PMDG, Leonardo, and so on. You wrote that "2021 may see the 737 in MSFS". The key word here is MAY (not the month 😉 ). In the past, how many times did add-on developers release a product on time that they announced a year before?  Do you have any concrete, credible information that goes beyond "may"?  I doubt it.

My personal approach: I use MSFS for low & slow, and P3Dv4 for the heavies. You may object to the visuals, but believe me, if you fly a jet, you don't care if a certain building is placed at the right spot as in the real world or not - more so as the brown and generic AI buildings in MSFS outside of popular cities don't constitute eye candy. Having good LCs gives me an immersion at high altitudes that is not really harder on the eyes than satellite images. However, departures and approaches can be more immersive in P3D if you use AI traffic, and I also like that you can see more cars and boats than in MSFS, which gives the scenery a lot of life.

It doesn't answer your question, but I would just enjoy what you have.

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by Afterburner

3 hours ago, Johnny19 said:

We gamers/simmers are not LM's targeted audience and we all need to understand that. Period. 

I agree, however just to turn this around the other way , as an airline pilot that uses PC simulation both as a hobby and as tool for practice and familiarisation I’d say I’m not really MSFS targeted audience.

MSFS as it is now is way too limited and game like for what I need. Maybe it’s improved? I’ve not used it for a few months, I can’t be bothered with the multi-hour mandatory downloads every time I try and load it up, so I’ve left it alone.

I’ll probably use it again once it’s out on the Xbox and I can go flying in formation with my son, but for now it’s taking up valuable hard drive space so it might be heading for the recycle bin.It’s very pretty, but superficially so , and when complex airliners do arrive will it still be able to look so pretty above 15 FPS? I don’t know.

Having just flown over Europe in VR using P3D 5.1 , EA  on, Orbx LC Europe and Germany regions , on a route I flew for real yesterday morning at FL380 , it was an an exact replica. The view out of my virtual windscreen Was honestly  lacking nothing and I don’t know how it could  have been improved upon.

Of course if you just fly light GA VFR your mileage may vary between sims, but even there personally  I still prefer Orbx true earth to the streaming bing and AI stuff, too many errant trees.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Afterburner said:

For anyone who is new to flight simulation and wants to explore flying, I would say that MSFS is the right choice because it is cheaper, requires almost no add-ons and offers better visuals than P3D. However, if you have already bought lots of add-ons during the FSX era from reputable developers (ORBX, FSDT, DD, etc.), these add-ons can be used in the newest version at no extra charge or for a small upgrade fee. And if you like to fly fast and high, all of the best airplanes are currently only available for P3D - that includes FS Labs, Majestic Software, PMDG, Leonardo, and so on. You wrote that "2021 may see the 737 in MSFS". The key word here is MAY (not the month 😉 ). In the past, how many times did add-on developers release a product on time that they announced a year before?  Do you have any concrete, credible information that goes beyond "may"?  I doubt it.

My personal approach: I use MSFS for low & slow, and P3Dv4 for the heavies. You may object to the visuals, but believe me, if you fly a jet, you don't care if a certain building is placed at the right spot as in the real world or not. Having good LCs gives me an immersion at high altitudes that is not really harder on the eyes than satellite images. However, departures and approaches can be more immersive in P3D if you use AI traffic, and I also like that you can see more cars and boats than in MSFS, which gives the scenery a lot of life.

It doesn't answer your question, but I would just enjoy what you have.

I am not really new to Flight Simulation, I used X-Plane for a decade and I came to P3D FROM MSFS... 😉 So I am quite happy to have both P3D AND MSFS. 

 

I do hope that Rex brings Worldwide Airports into P3D v5. It looks miles above what default P3D airports look like. But on the same token, I really wish LM would get on the ball a little bit and replace some of the old FSX stuff in the default sim. I am not asking for Bing scenery. I am just talking about some default models. Those fuel pumps look horrid! CERTAINLY an amount of graphical improvements CAN be brought to P3D without reinventing the wheel. I remember when I first bought P3D in January, I actually uninstalled it and got a refund because the default scenery was UNBEARABLE coming from MSFS. Everything was Minecraft-looking. Then two weeks later I gave it another chance and I am happy I did, but that only worked because I also bought ALL of the Obrx Global Range products. THAT made the sim enjoyable so that I could invest all the money into the aircraft. 

10 minutes ago, jon b said:

I agree, however just to turn this around the other way , as an airline pilot that uses PC simulation both as a hobby and as tool for practice and familiarisation I’d say I’m not really MSFS targeted audience.

MSFS as it is now is way too limited and game like for what I need. Maybe it’s improved? I’ve not used it for a few months, I can’t be bothered with the multi-hour mandatory downloads every time I try and load it up, so I’ve left it alone.

I’ll probably use it again once it’s out on the Xbox and I can go flying in formation with my son, but for now it’s taking up valuable hard drive space so it might be heading for the recycle bin.It’s very pretty, but superficially so , and when complex airliners do arrive will it still be able to look so pretty above 15 FPS? I don’t know.

Having just flown over Europe in VR using P3D 5.1 , EA  on, Orbx LC Europe and Germany regions , on a route I flew for real yesterday morning at FL380 , it was an an exact replica. The view out of my virtual windscreen Was honestly  lacking nothing and I don’t know how it could  have been improved upon.

Of course if you just fly light GA VFR your mileage may vary between sims, but even there personally  I still prefer Orbx true earth to the streaming bing and AI stuff, too many errant trees.

 

 

I have all of ORBX Global stuff, but no regions (either regions or TrueEarth, which I heard the latter one is a frame-killer)... Are regions worth it? Most importantly, the reason I haven't bought them is because on Orbx's store it says they aren't FULLY compatible with 5.1. 

 

But you bring up an interesting point. Let's subtract high-fidelity aircraft. What does P3D offer that MSFS doesn't? Its default planner doesn't even support SIDs and STARs! Yes, I use SimBrief and program my own flight plans, but the ATC in P3D NAGS you to turn to specific headings even though they don't coincide with your flight plan. What does P3D offer you in terms of realism that MSFS doesn't? Again, availability to aircraft excluded. Because, to ME, the availability of that aircraft is really the ONLY reason P3D is right now superior. 

If/when highly detailed come to MSFS (really more of a when), P3D is pretty much done outside of niche uses. It's all about the add-on ecosystem, and I don't see how it's going to thrive when airports cost twice as much as their MSFS counterparts. 

It doesn't help that LM fumbles every new feature like EA.