2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

And stuff like this is exactly why the IPhone overtook Blackberry and Nokia. Because you could do stuff easier and faster with the IPhone versus Blackberry and Nokia.  And if P3D and X-Plane don’t adjust, they will follow the path of Blackberry and Nokia.

yeah that doesn't really make sense.  I'm guessing you know Lockheed primarily services the commercial market for flight training software.  My original already stated points remain.  You seem to think MSFS doesn't have it's own large issues.  I disagree.  my megascenery earth/nuvecta look better at cruise than MSFS which looks blurry.  The weird melted wax look of photogrammetry.  not always ideal.  Weather that isn't always real world.  Not good for me.  Forced updates that break things or diminish performance.  I fly both P3d AND msfs.  But not everything is rosy over here.  Let's not kid ourselves. 

2 minutes ago, micstatic said:

yeah that doesn't really make sense.  I'm guessing you know Lockheed primarily services the commercial market for flight training software.  My original already stated points remain.  You seem to think MSFS doesn't have it's own large issues.  I disagree.  my megascenery earth/nuvecta look better at cruise than MSFS which looks blurry.  The weird melted wax look of photogrammetry.  not always ideal.  Weather that isn't always real world.  Not good for me.  Forced updates that break things or diminish performance.  I fly both P3d AND msfs.  But not everything is rosy over here.  Let's not kid ourselves. 

Well sorry, but I disagree with you.  Every picture or video I have seen of P3D and X-Plane with all the best add ons and ortho typically looks so much worse than MSFS.  MSFS looks 10 years more advanced graphically than P3D and X-Plane, especially at low altitudes, and it shows. 

 

12 minutes ago, nirgal76 said:

About this subject, i'm asking what will happen in 10 years,

There will probably be even something newer and better on the block by then. 

10 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Well sorry, but I disagree with you.  Every picture or video I have seen of P3D and X-Plane with all the best add ons and ortho typically looks so much worse than MSFS.  MSFS looks 10 years more advanced graphically than P3D and X-Plane, especially at low altitudes, and it shows. 

 

P3D ( and I am flying it right now while my new PC is in the shop), and X Plane which I have recently tried, look like 15 year old sims, compared to MSFS. There is no comparison. Looking at the scenery in P3D while flying at 4,000 feet is like watching paint dry. 

Edited May 22, 20215 yr by Bobsk8

Started with a PMDG announcement .. and here we are on page 16 with the biggest thread drift I have EVER seen.... tst tst tst ..

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Well sorry, but I disagree with you.  Every picture or video I have seen of P3D and X-Plane with all the best add ons and ortho typically looks so much worse than MSFS.  MSFS looks 10 years more advanced graphically than P3D and X-Plane, especially at low altitudes, and it shows. 

Here we go again. P3D and Xplane are not even in the same stratosphere, as P3D can barely even process aerial imagery without massive texture reloading, and it cannot handle high poly counts like Xplane can.

You can get pretty close to the same level of graphics in MSFS and Xplane. You have to mod it heavily. This isn't conjecture or supposition, it's just a fact. If you claim that EVERY part of MSFS is so much better looking than Xplane, then the fact is you didn't know how to MOD it, period.

When flying True Earth Great Britain, it is hardly any step back from MSFS, in some areas it looks better. Also, a giant chunk of the US is really messed up aerial wise from the Bing imagery, in Xplane you have choices to the provider. Furhtermore, MSFS is using the equivalent of ABOUT 80 cm imagery across most of the world, whereas with Xplane you can use 60cm and it looks FAR FAR better in some areas, especially if you use shader tweaks. 

I am not sure why you think 80cm looks better than 30-60cm, even flying low 30cm will blow 80cm away, and so does 60cm if the source is good. I'm sorry, but 30-60 cm with the better Mesh in Xplane looks better thann MSFS. If you are flying over mountains with good aerial in Xplane, MSFS is going to look like the dated sim at times.

Edited May 23, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

21 minutes ago, nirgal76 said:

About this subject, i'm asking what will happen in 10 years, at the end of the announced support if MS decide to stop the adventure (they already did ) ? is the streaming will be closed and we will have a empty box ?

This is out of our control and could happen much sooner than that.. in the meantime, lets enjoy it while it works! 😉

3 minutes ago, SAPilot said:

Started with a PMDG announcement .. and here we are on page 16 with the biggest thread drift I have EVER seen.... tst tst tst ..

Indeed.  Folks, the topic is PMDG's entry to MSFS, not MSFS vs sim X.  Let's get back to that.

Just now, w6kd said:

Indeed.  Folks, the topic is PMDG's entry to MSFS, not MSFS vs sim X.  Let's get back to that.

True, I didn't even notice which thread this was. Just now noticed...

2 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

This is out of our control and could happen much sooner than that.. in the meantime, lets enjoy it while it works! 😉

That's why i have decided to reinstall it after a pause of several months, bored by bugged updates and didn't see things really evolved in 1 years. But i give it another chance, after all, fsx P3D or XP as take times to be at their actual (high) level of simulation. i have faith it will be the same for this one. i have now decided to be positive and constructive, especially with people/dev wanted to make the sim better (and not only easy money).

It just strikes me that there is a difference between PMDG developing a complete airplane, complete with its own custom avionics, and the issue of smaller 3rd parties developing addons to current airplanes.  WT has already shown with its CJ4 mods that a complete, functioning airplane is possible, whereas new outfits like TDS are clearly struggling with interfacing to the autopilot, HSI, FD, etc which was indeed possible/supported in earlier sims.

So lets not try to extrapolate from the PMDG announcement, it does not make the SDK "good" for others.. but what we should do, I believe, is have some faith in WT and their efforts to accomplish just that... 😉

Edited May 22, 20215 yr by Bert Pieke

So much doom and gloom. I am quite happy about the upcoming PMDG 737. Of course not all is perfect as a flight simulator is never complete. I really wish they could get the change of seasons squared away. It was strange never having winter look like winter. At least in the northern hemisphere. Smile! It will be OK.

20 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

You can get pretty close to the same level of graphics in MSFS and Xplane. You have to mod it heavily. This isn't conjecture or supposition, it's just a fact. If you claim that EVERY part of MSFS is so much better looking than Xplane, then the fact is you didn't know how to MOD it, period.

Even with all the mods and shader tweaks xplane doesn't hold a candle to msfs. Period.

26 minutes ago, w6kd said:

What you interpret as me "spreading negativity" I intend to be a frank, no-rose-colored-glasses look at what the announcement might mean to us. 

IMHO, as a leader of these forums, with a bright red admin tag next to your name and highlighted posts, you hold a responsibility to set the tone within topics. Also, similar to a respected journalist, you should be posting impartial facts without hyperbole. When you list your credentials and then proceed to vent your own personal problems with the sim, as well as make inferences to future development and stability, I personally feel that is abusing the status you hold and is indeed "spreading negativity".

I'm glad you will go back and test some of your findings, but honestly you should have done that before your initial post.

4 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

Even with all the mods and shader tweaks xplane doesn't hold a candle to msfs. Period.

Take it to the other thread as mod noted, but disagree, if you are flying low staring at trees or water, then we agree, if you are flying at normal altitudes (as in legal altitudes), then any sharp mountain peaks look pretty bad in MSFS. It can only do hills, not mtns. You need a good 60cm source, and in some areas Bing's 30cm is even poor, as is many. I don't like the ridiculous amount of disk space, but I definitely miss the photo-realistic looking mtn peaks with good aerial in Xplane.

The only time mountains look good in MSFS is from a terrain import (but they have those visible splices when you get close up). Yes, in that case, like Zion National Park addon at Flightsim.TO, then MSFS can win, but those areas are few and far between.

Edited May 22, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery