17 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

🤣 I just don’t see it happening. Is the MSFS engine capable of supporting Mach 2?

And you have to question who has the skills to create a proper Concorde with a fully operational Flight Engineer’s panel capable of moving fuel around the 13 tanks. Only Andrew Wilson I’m afraid and there’s zero chance of him jumping ship.

Why wouldn't it be capable? Where did they say the engine couldn't support supersonic flight?   There are already high altitude supersonic aircraft operating at Mach 2.4+ in MSFS...  As for only one person being capable I'd question how many would really want to take that project on right now capable or not.  It's a very niche market and if you can't do it with a virtual FE like PMDG did with the -6 then the market becomes even more niche.    

From the F-22A freeware already available.

• Accurate weight and fuel quantities (includes additional fuel to simulate 2 x 600 gallon ferry 
  drop tanks; visual drop tank models and drag model not included)
• Optional stores configuration available to simulate 6 x AIM 120D and 2 x Aim 9X missiles 
  (weapons modeling / animations not included)
• Engine model tuned to realistic specifications for thrust and performance.
• Drag and lift model tuned to estimated specifications. Sustained 5G+ maneuvers at 40,000 feet 
  and above are possible
• Mach 2.4+ maximum speed
• Mach 1.7+ supercruise capability
• Supersonic climb to high altitude
• Incredible acceleration rates at full throttle.
• Supersonic capability up to 60,000 feet and above

Edited July 10, 20214 yr by psolk

@psolk, because the last I heard Mach 1 was not possible without hacking flight models designed for FSX.

Maybe Asobo have changed things. What does the SDK say?

Hello Ray, are you still writing as someone who does not have MSFS?

3 minutes ago, Reader said:

Hello Ray, are you still writing as someone who does not have MSFS?

Yes.

4 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

P3D is the glorified version of a game called FSX 😉.

Yes and modern jets are just improved bi-planes.😁

22 hours ago, mwilk said:

Commercial customers as a rule aren't interested in scenery. They're interested in aircraft fidelity and interaction with the environment around the airplane. Every see the graphics of a Level-D simulator? 

True enough, but flight simulators designed for home computers are focused on us hobbyists, not commercial customers. Who among us would be satisfied with bare-bones scenery like that used in professional flight-training simulators? At the same time, fight training does not require highly detailed scenery like that in MSFS. These are two completely different markets.

Edited July 10, 20214 yr by cobalt

The state of new P3D addons is a bit sad.  I've only made 3 purchases this year (KIND, KCLE, and Sharklets), not for a lack of trying but for a lack of new product.  This is a fraction of the number of purchases I used to make.

When was the last Carenado P3D aircraft?  The XL560 from Jan 2020?  If Carenado/Alabeo have stopped churning out airplanes every couple of months for P3D, you know there is a major shift in consumer dollars happening.

I've purchased and loaded MSFS, but haven't spent one second in the cockpit yet.  I'm content now with P3D 5.2, considering the investment I've made and the fact that I only fly tubes.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Maybe Asobo have changed things.

If not already, they will "change things" when the free TopGun expansion becomes available in the autumn. An F-14 unable to go supersonic would be unthinkable - I'm sure Andrew will have noticed ...

10 hours ago, GCBraun said:

So, I have been using the DC-6 to fly VOR/NDB routes and approaches and that includes (a lot) of flight planning not only to get a serviceable flight plan, but also to make sure I don't crash into mountains or fly into extreme weather. I do this without much help from the Flight Engineer, which means that I need to monitor all systems pretty much during the whole flight. Is this hardcore enough for you or am I still not a simmer because I am using Flight Simulator and not P3D?

And then I want to try something else, I can revert to the FBW A320 (which is, at least, on Aerosoft's level and fast improving), the CRJ, or WT's CJ4/TBM etc.

You might be one of the last holding this "MSFS is Arcade" banner...watch out.

How, exactly, does one do legitimate flight planning without the ability to forecast enroute/destination/alternate weather?  How do you determine a proper fuel load without enroute winds and temps?  We still can't set visibility even locally in MSFS--is not visibility an important factor in any IFR takeoff/approach? 

There are critical elements of a complete simulation scenario missing from MSFS.  If you're telling me that you can get a serviceable flight plan with no idea of the enroute and destination conditions, your idea of "serviceable" is a lot different than mine.  Flying a circling approach with visibility at minimums is a whole different animal than below a cloud deck in the clear, and a Cat II or III ILS is somewhat pointless without vis below 1/2 mile.

And my point on aircraft fideilty remains what I said...a wide variety of aircraft with hi fidelity systems and flight dynamics may be coming, but they're not there now.  The FBW A320 and CJ4 are great freeware efforts, but that 320 is no substitute for something like the FSL A320. 

So, as I said, at present, I consider MSFS to be more of an arcade novelty because at present it's lacking critical capabilities that prevent flying a complete mission-oriented flight simulation scenerio.  More troubling is the fact that the developer is steadfastly refusing to address one critical shortcoming--the inability to use historical/custom weather scenarios.  Heck, right now in MSFS we can't even fly with weather from a different time of day--if you're in Germany flying a simulated approach on Saturday morning into Dallas, you're doing it using middle of the night weather--temps in the 70s (F) rather than triple digits, no thunderstorms etc...  People keep saying "it's coming"...but the developer has been pretty clear in stating "no, it's not."

Clearly, the MSFS market is expanding, and some of that expansion is from people that have left P3D for MSFS.  But we're not all leaving P3D behind, and as I've tried to articulate, there are some very good reasons not to (and one *can* use both sims).  Yes, many of the add-on developers like Justflight have shifted their focus to MSFS, yes that'll make the new offerings in P3D fewer and farther between (however there are many already), but P3D still brings important capabilities to the table that MSFS does not, and may never.

I am not one of the last holdouts.  I'm just one of the more vocal ones...

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@psolk, because the last I heard Mach 1 was not possible without hacking flight models designed for FSX.

Maybe Asobo have changed things. What does the SDK say?

There is a Top Gun expansion coming this fall to MSFS, at the same time Top Gun 2 is released in the theaters.  It would be really weird if MSFS doesn't support supersonic flight when that expansion comes out.

1 hour ago, cobalt said:

True enough, but flight simulators designed for home computers are focused on us hobbyists, not commercial customers. Who among us would be satisfied with bare-bones scenery like that used in professional flight-training simulators? At the same time, fight training does not require highly detailed scenery like that in MSFS. These are two completely different markets.

If you go back earlier in the thread that was the point I was making to another poster. I never thought we were ever really the target market for P3D. Would that make us useful idiots?

24 minutes ago, w6kd said:

How, exactly, does one do legitimate flight planning without the ability to forecast enroute/destination/alternate weather? 

Exactly. One of the best planners is PFPX but they have more or less ended support except when their servers go offline. It can read Active Sky weather data and of course AS provides historical weather.

Your point about historical weather is why I cannot contemplate MSFS for serious flying. Unless you stay close to your own time zone (+/-2 hrs) you’re not flying with relevant weather.

When will Asobo realise they have to either open wx to third parties or provide historical wx themselves. Has anyone asked that question and if so, what was the reply.

11 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

There is a Top Gun expansion coming this fall to MSFS, at the same time Top Gun 2 is released in the theaters.  It would be really weird if MSFS doesn't support supersonic flight when that expansion comes out.

It will be interesting to see if anyone then announces a Concorde will be produced. Those for 64-bit P3D are not fully modelled. 

36 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Exactly. One of the best planners is PFPX but they have more or less ended support except when their servers go offline. It can read Active Sky weather data and of course AS provides historical weather.

Your point about historical weather is why I cannot contemplate MSFS for serious flying. Unless you stay close to your own time zone (+/-2 hrs) you’re not flying with relevant weather.

When will Asobo realise they have to either open wx to third parties or provide historical wx themselves. Has anyone asked that question and if so, what was the reply.

It's coming in REX.  Wx is already open to 3rd parties and Damian has stated he is working on something that will deliver what the MeteoBlue capabilities can not as well.  

https://rexsimulations.com/weatherforce.html

 

43 minutes ago, psolk said:

It's coming in REX.  Wx is already open to 3rd parties and Damian has stated he is working on something that will deliver what the MeteoBlue capabilities can not as well.  

https://rexsimulations.com/weatherforce.html

 

That link says real-time weather engine. No mention of historical weather.

But how does that stack up against a development plan I saw today that clearly states 3rd party weather support “Not planned”?