56 minutes ago, RobF2 said:

Can anyone remember how many years it was in FSX and P3D before serious Garmin developers like Reality XP offered full functionality? 

Robust GNS implementation was first provided by Reality XP for FS9, limited by the state of the Garmin Trainer at the time. When I first adopted RXP GNS in FSX in late 2010 it offered greater functionality than is still available in MSFS with some very talented help.  If you want to continue down that road then look back at the undeniable fact that there were no barriers in place with FSX and p3D as there currently is with MSFS. 

It is an absolute shame to ignore what has been available for almost 20 years.

29 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.

P3D had “incremental” improvement over the last 10 years. It let the technology outrun the simulator.  MSFS is “revolutionary” improvement over P3D, especially in the areas of graphics and the streaming of satellite/photogrammetry for the entire world. MSFS brought flight simulation to the 2020s and the market agrees.

MSFS has also lowered the cost of flight simming for the average consumer.  I don’t have to buy tons of add-ons to make my simulator look good.  I also don’t have to buy a dedicated hard drive to store GBs worth of ortho.  That in itself is another example of the “revolutionary” change MSFS has brought.

Edited July 18, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

5 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).

Which is in and of itself rather telling on where the market stands right now.

Edited July 18, 20214 yr by MrNuke

Holy smokes...I like MSFS and am extremely excited to watch it mature into a capable IFR platform. But some of you guys have some serious blind spots regarding the deficiencies in GPS based navigation at the moment. For that reason P3D and XP still reside on my computer. I'm hopeful that Working Title will help MSFS address the deficiencies wherever they may reside.

As for Milviz, I'm very happy to see another highly respected developer focusing on MSFS. My personal wish is to see their B55 Baron in the sim. I did my commercial multi-engine rating in an A55 and jumping on P3D in the B55 brings me right back to training. If the King Air 350i ever shows up on MSFS...well they would have at least one guaranteed buyer!

10 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Holy smokes...I like MSFS and am extremely excited to watch it mature into a capable IFR platform. But some of you guys have some serious blind spots regarding the deficiencies in GPS based navigation at the moment. For that reason P3D and XP still reside on my computer. I'm hopeful that Working Title will help MSFS address the deficiencies wherever they may reside.

As for Milviz, I'm very happy to see another highly respected developer focusing on MSFS. My personal wish is to see their B55 Baron in the sim. I did my commercial multi-engine rating in an A55 and jumping on P3D in the B55 brings me right back to training. If the King Air 350i ever shows up on MSFS...well they would have at least one guaranteed buyer!

they are getting fixed by workingtitle and in a few months it will be ancient history. People are not blind to the limitation, they just decided they are willing to live with the downside for now. 

You guys are pro's at being off topic aren't you?  Can't resist taking your weekly potshots?

I'd love to see their King Air 350i in MSFS too.  It's fantastic.  If someone can produce a Collins PL-21 or whatever that is, it would really be icing on the cake.

16 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Holy smokes...I like MSFS and am extremely excited to watch it mature into a capable IFR platform. But some of you guys have some serious blind spots regarding the deficiencies in GPS based navigation at the moment. For that reason P3D and XP still reside on my computer. I'm hopeful that Working Title will help MSFS address the deficiencies wherever they may reside.

 

Hehe I hear ya there.  I think most of the guys who used to fly irl and now use the sim aren't even aware of the many inconsistencies in MSFS regarding RNAV(GPS) navigation.  Maybe they never used modern waas capable units in the first place.  Excluding the WT CJ4, everything else usually fails badly in MSFS.  I think WT's new G1000 NXi will change this though.  From previews and chat I believe the functionality will be better than default XP11 G1000.

And ooops I forgot this was a Milviz thread!  As a tester I think you guys will be excited!!

 

Edited July 18, 20214 yr by ryanbatcund

5 hours ago, DavidP said:

 

What do you do if you are holding at an IFR waypoint? (IFR Pilot and Instructor)

I explained that a little clumsily. I should've said we don't use the hold function on the G1000. Instead we just OBS and set the inbound TRK to the hold and manually fly as required, left/right turns, allowing for drift etc.

Needless to say, in a non-training environment if you've got it - use it, if you don't - you better know how to do it yourself or let ATC know you're unable. That's at least how I like to think.

ok, guys, this one has gotten a tad out of control and needs to go. Also I doubt anything new can come from it.

3 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

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! 

At the initial stage of training, virtually every professional CFI I know warns their students to stay away from flight sims because of all the bad habits it creates.  Having to unlearn poor technique before learning the right way is seriously counterproductive.

So I agree--visual cues do matter...but in initial training, those cues should be learned in the airplane, not on a PC.  You'll find the best visual fidelity in the world there when you need it most.