50 minutes ago, richjb2 said:

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 

And I have done instrument approaches in P3D, for many years, and you land at many airports that looks like  blobs, with a runway, in the middle of nowhere. That is real world to you? give me a break.  Let's face it, the other two sims have a much longer way to go to get to realism, then MSFS does right now, and MSFS has been around for  less than a year instead of 2 or 3 decades. 

4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

And I have done instrument approaches in P3D, for many years, and you land at many airports that looks like  blobs, with a runway, in the middle of nowhere. That is real world to you? give me a break.  Let's face it, the other two sims have a much longer way to go to get to realism, then MSFS does right now, and MSFS has been around for  less than a year instead of 2 or 3 decades. 

Nope...sorry.  Two more airports with grass in the runways.  KGPI and KMSO.  Yes, the generic airports in P3D are not that great. But then I don't get a runway looks like a roller-coaster, e.g. KMSO rwy 12.  

Just now, richjb2 said:

Nope...sorry.  Two more airports with grass in the runways.  KGPI and KMSO.  Yes, the generic airports in P3D are not that great. But then I don't get a runway looks like a roller-coaster, e.g. KMSO rwy 12.  

How about the runways in P3D that are all perfectly flat. Have you ever seen that in real life? 

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

How about the runways in P3D that are all perfectly flat. Have you ever seen that in real life? 

No..but they're still usable in P3D.  I'm bouncing all over the place on landing, not to mention throughout the flight. Turbulence is little over the top.

Rich

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

How about the runways in P3D that are all perfectly flat. Have you ever seen that in real life? 

Bob,

That was one nice thing about being limited to slow Cherokee 180 type aircraft when I was flying IRL - even if the entire length of the runway wasn't flat, I could fit the Cherokee into the flat bit.

1 minute ago, richjb2 said:

No..but they're still usable in P3D.  I'm bouncing all over the place on landing, not to mention throughout the flight. Turbulence is little over the top.

Rich

I fly into different airports on every flight I do, never the same airports twice. Done about 350 flights in MSFS, some into major airports, some into small airports. Only have two that I can recall with pavement irregularities. As far as turbulence, seems like real life to me, rather than "flying on rails"......LOL

P3d always had a horrid graphics engine with micro stutters and scenery pop-ins regardless of PC specs. Time to bury that sim.

Can anyone remember how many years it was in FSX and P3D before serious Garmin developers like Reality XP offered full functionality?  Presumably in MSFS world we should be waiting no more than half that time, but can't expect full A2A, PMDG and Garmin emulation in the first 18 months.

4 hours ago, PilotPete99 said:

I really have no issue in purchasing P3d addons as I will likely receive a discount off the MSFS version (in many cases). In any event, I fail to understand why bashing P3d is so often done in connection with promoting MSFS. I use both for different purposes and I am glad to have both sims installed. Anyway, I’m looking forward to getting a quality ATR regardless of which sim it gets released for.

Cheers, Pete

They did the same thing with FSX when P3D was first released. I guess it's human nature. If I diminish what I used to have I build up what I'm using now.

5 minutes ago, mwilk said:

They did the same thing with FSX when P3D was first released. I guess it's human nature. If I diminish what I used to have I build up what I'm using now.

FSX to P3D was a polishing of FSX, nothing more.  P3D to MSFS is a quantum leap. 

7 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Flying P3D after a few months of flying MSFS, is like being subject to water torture. 

I totally agree 

22 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

FSX to P3D was a polishing of FSX, nothing more.  P3D to MSFS is a quantum leap. 

Sorry you can't diminish the work that was taken to move the engine to 64 bit and then to DX10/11/12 ...

P3D has added so much under the hood for advancement of the platform that was taken advantage of by other developers and tools.

It does not work for you cause you like the MSFS scenery and that is fine..... that is totally fair....  but facts about where the platform grew too and with a focus on everything required for training and professional development was more important.

2 hours ago, ark said:

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.

+1

10 minutes ago, LesOReilly said:

Sorry you can't diminish the work that was taken to move the engine to 64 bit and then to DX10/11/12 ....

That was only lipstick on the pig. It did not address the real issues (dll hell) that was Microsoft's old graphics engine. The only real solution was to rewrite the core engine. Which is what Asobo did.  Thankfully now we will have this and a good performing one at the end of this month. Fluid, smooth, and realistic looking visuals. That's a major milestone in the entire history of flight sim. Watershed moment is here.

Greazer.

19 minutes ago, LesOReilly said:

Sorry you can't diminish the work that was taken to move the engine to 64 bit and then to DX10/11/12 ...

P3D has added so much under the hood for advancement of the platform that was taken advantage of by other developers and tools.

It does not work for you cause you like the MSFS scenery and that is fine..... that is totally fair....  but facts about where the platform grew too and with a focus on everything required for training and professional development was more important.

How many years did users of P3D have to experiences OOMs, before LM finally moved it to 64 bit?