This path has no turning back... MSFS2020 is the future. We are seeing many developers stop producing addons for other platforms to dedicate to MSFS.

 

I'm just sad with the thousands of dollars spent on addons on P3D and XP11.

Edited July 17, 20214 yr by JLuis

It's weird how things come full circle

Microsoft - Once the king of flight simming. 

P3D - Claimed the  abandoned throne. Could do no wrong. King/Queen of ESP 

P3D - Made little to no true advancements in technology with it. Was FSX on steroids  with yearly medical checkups

X-Plane - Same. Basically milking the same tired technology for years and never made any true technological advancements beyond buzz words

Microsoft -  CHOO CHOO.. We're back (words not allowed) to set standards again. Thanks for keeping the throne warm

Edited July 17, 20214 yr by styckx

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Do you honestly think that people coming into training with LM, aren't going to mention to people that LMs sim looks like word not allowed compared to the one they are flying at home on their PC? After hearing that numerous times, they will probably start looking at MSFS 2020 as an up to date alternative. 

So what am I missing in MSFS 2020? 

No, in the training world they won't care in the least how the sim world looks.  They're too busy accomplishing the training objectives to care whether the buildings in the scenery look like generic boxes, like 3D computer-drawn models in P3D or like the deformed molten gumdrops in MSFS.  I've trained and instructed in multimillion dollar level-D full-motion sims that had vector CGI graphics that were aesthetically primitive even compared to what we had in FS9 18 years ago.  It was never, ever an issue. 

As to what you're missing for an IFR flight...the ability to set visibility comes immediately to mind.  In an IFR training scenario, you need to be able to control the vis...when it's set to 1/2 mile, the runway environment should be just peeking through--not at 3/4 mile, not at 3/8 of a mile...at 1/2 mile.  Right now you can't set visibility at all in MSFS, accurate or otherwise. 

Milviz does a fair bit of business with DoD using P3D, and I just don't see those customers moving to an arcade game that's designed with the XBox in mind.  Milviz may be coming to MSFS, but the unstated assumptions that they're leaving P3D behind are pretty doubtful, because there's lucrative military/commercial business that's remaining firmly rooted in that arena.

1 hour ago, Gazzareth said:

Back to the topic at hand, glad to hear that MilViz are coming to MSFS.

 

+1

57 minutes ago, JLuis said:

We are seeing many developers stop producing addons for other platforms to dedicate to MSFS.

And others who are so far hindered or locked out of bring excellent and much needed products forward.

2 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

P3D is on a  long slow death but the fact that we are seeing 3rd party dev already admitting they are abandoning P3D tells me that the P3D market is shrinking at a higher pace than expected. 

If you believe on Mathjis Kok, P3D market stalled just after MSFS announcement on the E3 2019.

I'm sorry, I am still not sold on MSFS.  I'm an 11,500 hour pilot, professionally flying Learjets and Challengers. I have flown desktop simulators since Sub Logic's ATP and Elite back in the late '80s. I still remember why you needed a math co-processers to even run a decent flight simulator in a 286 platform. Yes, MSFS has a lot of eye candy and it has a lot of potential.  Yet, it still fails in many ways from a truly useable flight simulator. 

The flight dynamics are still questionable in the airplanes that are available, but that may be the degree to which the airplane developer has designed their airplane.  Perhaps PMDG with the NG3 will change my mind later this summer.

I did s simple flight from TWF to SUN two weeks ago in the CJ4 (the extra addon on)..  A lot of eye candy to be sure, and some decent functionality with the FMS, but still not what I would expect from the real airplane.  

As to the scenery, well.... I get on final approach to runway 31 at SUN, and something looks very strange in the touchdown zone.  I took it to be an aberration until I got into the landing flare.  It turned out that it was grass.  After I landing and during rollout, the grass kept popping up in front of me.  About 50' in front of the aircraft was runway, the rest as I taxied turned to grass.  That kind of spoils it for me.  

MSFS is still very much a work in progress. I get that.  However, I still find P3D V4.5 to be quite useful, and my go-to simulator for real world flying practice.  There is still a long road ahead for MSFS to get to that point.  Not saying it won't or can't get there. I'm just saying that it is not there yet.  That's my view.

Rich Boll

Wichita, KS 

2 hours ago, suncoastflyer said:

Currently doing my IR right now. We don't use autopilot or GPS to fly the holds. We just fly the plane manually. It may have a G1000 but that's a luxury many GA aircraft don't have. Although it's definitely a good thing in single pilot IFR to not have to worry about flying a hold I can imagine. So hopefully it's a feature that comes in the G1000 Nxi that WT are working on.

I did my instrument Rating back in 2019 and the hold I had to fly was on a GPS waypoint 🙂 for my flight test... As per the rules I was able to use the AP during that portion and as per the TC guidelines leverage all of the resources available to me to demonstrate strong decision making skills.... so yeah we use the AP and the GPS to fly holds.... especially since the VOR in YOW is also where the departure path off 32 is...

56 minutes ago, w6kd said:

No, in the training world they won't care in the least how the sim world looks.  They're too busy accomplishing the training objectives to care whether the buildings in the scenery look like generic boxes, like 3D computer-drawn models in P3D or like the deformed molten gumdrops in MSFS.  I've trained and instructed in multimillion dollar level-D full-motion sims that had vector CGI graphics that were aesthetically primitive even compared to what we had in FS9 18 years ago.  It was never, ever an issue. 

As to what you're missing for an IFR flight...the ability to set visibility comes immediately to mind.  In an IFR training scenario, you need to be able to control the vis...when it's set to 1/2 mile, the runway environment should be just peeking through--not at 3/4 mile, not at 3/8 of a mile...at 1/2 mile.  Right now you can't set visibility at all in MSFS, accurate or otherwise. 

Milviz does a fair bit of business with DoD using P3D, and I just don't see those customers moving to an arcade game that's designed with the XBox in mind.  Milviz may be coming to MSFS, but the unstated assumptions that they're leaving P3D behind are pretty doubtful, because there's lucrative military/commercial business that's remaining firmly rooted in that arena.

Arcade game lol. Have fun with your ancient sim which is defacto more arcade than msfs

2 hours ago, Chock said:

To be honest, if anyone is solely reliant on having a GPS fly a hold for them or an approach, they've got more to worry about in regard to training than whether their sim will replicate a Garmin.

While I agree with this, I don't think the competence, or lack thereof, of a pilot is the real issue here.

What I don't understand is why the powers that be at MS apparently think a modern state-of-the-art-Flight Simulator program designed for GA enthusiasts should not natively support the implementation of a state-of-the-art addon like the GTN750/650s that are in wide spread use throughout the world.

Al 

3 minutes ago, ark said:

While I agree with this, I don't think the competence, or lack thereof, of a pilot is the real issue here.

What I don't understand is why the powers that be at MS apparently think a modern state-of-the-art-Flight Simulator program designed for GA enthusiasts should not natively support the implementation of a state-of-the-art addon like the GTN750/650s that are in wide spread use throughout the world.

Al 

Sure, that's probably why they've had partnered with WT. 

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

No, in the training world they won't care in the least how the sim world looks. 

We do care how world look! While I respect your opinion as season aviator training professionals, before those  professionals step into Level D cockpit, they go through hands of thousand CFI like myself who conduct initial training. In our world eyes suppose to be outside the cockpit  and student must look at engine cowing with reference to horizon during steep turn to determine if airplane sinks or climbs. We teach to use gold courses, building, roads, power plant stacks and other visual references to know how to navigate airspaces. And so visual does matter for us! 

Wake me up when MSFS grants ActiveSky and other weather developers access to the weather API (even though it has been stated they won’t)

 

the weather will never be where it needs to be with Meteoblu incharge. 

37 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Sure, that's probably why they've had partnered with WT. 

Sure, we can 'probably' so hope. Based on what I've read my admittedly limited understanding is that WT was hired to work their demonstrated magic on the G1000/G3000 and G3X type gauges. To date I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates they will also be allowed to address the SDK deficiencies which seem to be preventing developers from producing a reasonably functioning GTN750/650 for MSFS.  If you can point me to something that suggests the GTN750/650 type gauges are within the WT scope of work I'd appreciate seeing it.

Thx,

Al

EDIT: Apologies for getting off the thread's main topic.

Edited July 18, 20214 yr by ark

3 minutes ago, ark said:

Well, we can 'probably' so hope. Based on what I've read my admittedly limited understanding is that WT was hired to work their demonstrated magic on the G1000/G3000 and G3X type gauges. To date I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates they will also be allowed to address the SDK deficiencies which seem to be preventing developers from producing a reasonably functioning GTN750/650 for MSFS.  If you can point me to something that suggests the GTN750/650 type gauges are within the WT scope of work I'd appreciate seeing it.

Thx,

Al 

@MattNischan Is probably the best to talk about that, but I think they are working on more things than just their G1000, G3000 and G3X. SDK seems to be included on their role there.