1 year in, what's your general view on payware aircraft??

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

Only have the DC-6 and the Aerosoft CRJ. Like the CRJ but the DC-6 is my favorite. That one is coziness and immersion manifest in physical form.

[abrams_tank 7,419]

5 hours ago, mtaxp said:

End of Development for Xplane platforms: For some time we have been watching market metrics with the Xplane platform and evaluating our own development schedule in order to find a gap into which we can slide a dedicated Xplane development cycle. As part of our strategic objective to simplify our development agenda, we are pivoting to dedicate all of our development resources to our Prepar3D v4 product lines and to our upcoming Microsoft Flight Simulator product lines. Effective immediately, we are no longer evaluating an Xplane development cycle at any point in the current five year window, nor do we see any active XPlane development time being allocated at PMDG.

Given the resources that PMDG has, PMDG is just following the money.  And they knew the money would be in MSFS, not X-Plane.  I'm sure if MSFS never arrived on the scene, PMDG would be making planes for X-Plane now.  But MSFS did arrive on the scene, and given the resources PMDG had, it was simply a better business decision to make their planes for MSFS.  

I suspect that the DC-6 sold quite well for PMDG on MSFS.  It would be nice if PMDG confirmed how good the DC-6 sales for MSFS was though.

Edited August 23, 2021 by abrams_tank

[PIC007 82]

12 hours ago, JYW said:

I must admit, the sudden veering on take off really bugs me.  It's similar to X-Plane's unstable ground handling. For all it's antiquity, it's a problem FSX never had!  I wholly appreciate torque effect, wind, etc, etc, but I believe the veering (which feels like the wheels, rather than from the flight surfaces) is greatly overdone, in both MSFS and XP11.  (Can't speak for P3D as never used it).

I solved it by switching to 'Legacy' and lowering the torque and P factor sliders....end of issue! Of course the "LEGACY NOOOOO" fans will chime in but it works great for me 🙂

 

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

For anyone fretting about the future of aircraft releases, might be worth rewatching this video PMDG put out at their announcement for the DC-6.

PMDG did in fact go so far as to say...

"In fact, I think its fair to say that the new Microsoft flight simulator is absolutely the best platform yet for the kind of products PMDG makes" - at the 4:06 mark.

They are not hindered by the SDK, and have been getting great support from Asobo.  He even mentions being able to take advantage of capabilities and put it into the DC6 release that werent available in earlier sims.  To be fair, this is before SU5, which I believe Richard did describe as a "clown car of fun", but they've dealt with it and released a patch and all is working as before.

 

Does all of this make MSFS the "best sim ever?"  Hardly, but I think hearing significant praise from a respected developer of "study level aircraft" should at least reassure anyone who is worrying about whether more quality aircraft are coming/possible.  If there were anything fundamentally hindering the release of such, be it from the SDK or flight model inadequacies, we would hear it from them .. not from self appointed experts on internet forums.

 

 

[ray hughes 165]

Just like to throw a bone to the freeware mod people doing the A320NX. Yeah it is not payware..but heck it is. wonderful work and pretty much all i fly at the moment..(i have exactly 3 payware aircraft..the PMDG DC6 being one of them and enjoyable, a carenado twin.. not bad, but not as real as it gets and asobo light for site seeing....i am waiting for the PMDG 737 and qualitywings 787. I imagine SU5 caused a pause with development teams as to the way it was pumped out without apparently full consultation with Developers..Aerosoft certainly were quick to spit the dummy by cancelling their upcoming traffic add on.(i understand a kiss and makeup may have occurred since)?.

Due to the ongoing changes i imagine many developers are taking a cautious approach.. i know i would not want to constantly have to modify a released aircraft with each successive patch update.

[Biology 1,347]

16 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

They are all bad. Every single of them. My overall impression after conducting a lot of testing, research, survey and talking to real world pilots and flight model programmers is that the code for the flight model and avionics was most probably copied from a cheap micky mouse video game and then pasted into this garbage that they dare to charge $60 for. This doesn't mean the 3rd party developers did a bad job. They did their best.

Thanks for the laugh.

So, according to you, every single MSFS add-on aircraft suffers from severe flight model issues which is also enough to disqualify MSFS as a realistic flight simulator, right? Sorry to burst your buble, but have you ever tried PMDG aircraft in FSX/P3D, which according to you are "proper flight simulators"? While they are great aircraft especially in terms of systems, flight modelling on them is quite wrong, not even mentioning the fact that those issues have been throughly documented over the years, but yet still you ignore all of it. Here are a few examples:

Try inputting some rudder in PMDG 737 NGXu, you will see that slipping behavior of the aircraft is simply wrong. Also you will notice that it will not have enough tendency to roll, which is not right as one wing would produce more lift than the other when noise is pointing towards the freestream velocity with an angle.

This is aircraft performance 101, yet all PMDG aircraft for FSX/P3D still get that simple behavior wrong to date. I haven't even mentioned the infinite energy issue in PMDG 737 NGX yet, which has been there for several years - you could essentially float indefinitely before touchdown without losing energy.

In short, third party add-on aircraft for FSX/P3D have similar and even worse flight modelling issues which are not enough to disqualify FSX/P3D as a "proper flight simulator" for you, but somehow significantly less severe issues MSFS have are enough to do so. Talk about double standards.

And no, please do not mention inability of overriding flight models in MSFS, as it is demonstrably false. Look at FlyInside Bell 47, Aerowinx PSX and more. Not enough? Here is an open source project for you: https://github.com/tml1024/flying-brick

Quote

But an environment with inaccurate, gamey flight model will only generate inaccurate results regardless of whether you put a PMDG, ProSim, Fenix, FsLabs or NASA-made aircraft addon in it.

Wrong. For many high-fidelity add-on aircraft, the platform is nothing more than a visuals generator. All they need is to run their code, which MSFS already allows.

Quote

For example, Just Flight's Piper flight models in MSFS 2020 are wrong most of the times (This is not my opinion. Their own developers said it in public)

Wrong most of the times? They have never said that. They have mentioned issues with MSFS flight dynamics engine, they have mentioned that their aircraft behaves inaccurately some of the time, but they have never said that their aircraft behaves inaccurately most of the time.

Quote

Whereas the flight models of the same products in other real aviation simulators perform highly accurately and convincingly.

Given that you have mentioned Just Flight aircraft, have you tried flying them in FSX/P3D? Here is a hint: They use the default FSX/P3D flight model as is, the flight model you admitted to be worse than MSFS. Oh, have I even mentioned the fact that Robert Randazzo thinks DC-6 flies better in MSFS compared to P3D version, even though the difference is small? You cannot deny that fact. If you think Randazzo is lying, many pilots and other people have demonstrated that PMDG DC-6 for MSFS similarly flies by-the-book, just like its P3D counterpart. Both have issues in similar severity, in different areas, but overall they both reflect DC-6 performance very well. Your usage of very interesting derogatory terms for MSFS flight dynamics engine will not change that fact.

Quote

PMDGs only addon for MSFS 2020, the DC-6, has the exact same type of issue and they are not too happy either.

PMDGs add-ons for FSX/P3D, including DC-6 have similar inaccuracies, some even worse in severity, caused by the worse flight dynamics engine of FSX/P3D.

Also, did you really just mention that PMDG is not too happy? Why don't you ask them? Or what about listening to Robert Randazzo's his own comments:

If you really seek truth and ask for evidence as your nickname suggests, you cannot ignore those facts. If you are not here for the truth, could you please stop trolling?

Edited August 23, 2021 by BiologicalNanobot

[Biology 1,347]

16 hours ago, GoranM said:

This is incorrect, and there are many in the XP corner of flight simming who know exactly what happened.  It is not the reason PMDG left.  But that's another forum post.  

(For those who are contemplating calling me a troll for this 1, small correction in someones post, don't bother.  You will be added to my ignore list without reply.)

PMDG has cited limitations of X-Plane as one of the main reasons for their inability to bring their aircraft to X-Plane. The exact same thing was done by ProSim as well (https://forum.prosim-ar.com/viewtopic.php?t=12986) which criticized X-Plane's flight modelling severely - they even mentioned how they care about flight model and procedural realism instead of visuals. According to them visual realism is the only strength of X-Plane, and it falls short of P3D when it comes to other aspects - directly quoting them: "Are some individually lit pixels more important than having realistic landing or flying capabilities"

Developing for X-Plane, I know that all of those claims are simply wrong. With that being said, though, I wish you also defended the truth for MSFS as well. Currently it is pretty much getting the exact same treatment X-Plane did at that time for very similar reasons. Developing for MSFS, I also know that MSFS does not have ANY major limitations other than proper collimated HUD (due to lack of camera parameters) and accurate weather radar (which is currently a limitation of X-Plane as well, to some degree) for having realistic third party aircraft add-ons.

Edited August 23, 2021 by BiologicalNanobot

[Todd2 2,097]

One thing that I've noticed is that all payware aircraft cost money.

Another thing I've noticed is that I've parted with a bunch of money on said aircraft in the past year! 😳

[scotchegg 4,186]

16 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

PMDG has cited limitations of X-Plane as one of the main reasons for their inability to bring their aircraft to X-Plane. The exact same thing was done by ProSim as well (https://forum.prosim-ar.com/viewtopic.php?t=12986) which criticized X-Plane's flight modelling severely - they even mentioned how they care about flight model and procedural realism instead of visuals. According to them visual realism is the only strength of X-Plane, and it falls short of P3D when it comes to other aspects - directly quoting them: "Are some individually lit pixels more important than having realistic landing or flying capabilities"

That thread was an interesting read.

[WestAir 2,522]

4 hours ago, JYW said:

You're ridiculing someone for blocking another user that they don't see eye to eye with?  (...) Are we really mocking people for ignoring certain users, in order to aspire to a generally friendly and convivial community?

Refusing to have a discussion on a forum is destructive, because if all of us did that the forums would be dead. If he's within his rights to state that anyone who disagrees gets ignored, I'm within my right to say anyone who says such a thing is silly. Discordance is a two way street after all.

[Chock 17,769]

7 hours ago, GoranM said:

Like I said, I have to correct you.  

I don't spread rumours.  You are the one misinforming people.  

I can't believe how defensive you folks are.  

🤦‍♂️

Pointing out what a developer said about something is hardly spreading a rumour, is it? Neither is it misinforming people if I simply mention what someone said, so I'm not being defensive about it, I am pointing out that you were incorrect in claiming I'd done anything other than this.

[Chock 17,769]

Double post - deleted

Edited August 23, 2021 by Chock

[Doug47 574]

1 hour ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

 I haven't even mentioned the infinite energy issue in PMDG 737 NGX yet, which has been there for several years - you could essentially float indefinitely before touchdown without losing energy.

In short, third party add-on aircraft for FSX/P3D have similar and even worse flight modelling issues which are not enough to disqualify FSX/P3D as a "proper flight simulator" for you, but somehow significantly less severe issues MSFS have are enough to do so. Talk about double standards.

 

Oh, have I even mentioned the fact that Robert Randazzo thinks DC-6 flies better in MSFS compared to P3D version, even though the difference is small? You cannot deny that fact. If you think Randazzo is lying, many pilots and other people have demonstrated that PMDG DC-6 for MSFS similarly flies by-the-book, just like its P3D counterpart. Both have issues in similar severity, in different areas, but overall they both reflect DC-6 performance very well. Your usage of very interesting derogatory terms for MSFS flight dynamics engine will not change that 

 

To be fair the ‘issue’ with the NGX had nothing to do with any sim platform. Only that is was how PMDG saw the ground effect for the NG. Most developers always had the ground effect  underdone. PMDG as usual overdid everything. Ground effect, over the top engine sounds, wind flex. The teens loved it though. 

And nobody, and I mean NOBODY spins things, oh so sorry, markets products like PMDG.  Hence why we’ve all bought the same NGX around 7 times. Lol. 
 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Doug47

[JeffF 26]

I have only one, the PMDG DC-6 and to me it was worth every penny.  It being the same generation as me and having gotten my private certificate in those days has a lot to do with it.

[GoranM 3,764]

 

5 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

I wish you also defended the truth for MSFS as well.

I'll discuss a few things with you in private, but I'll address this part in here.  I've defended MSFS many, many times.  I've said it in the X-Plane forums.  MSFS environment is absolutely outstanding!  There are some minor issues with a few areas in the graphics, but overall, of course it's a stellar product. I never said otherwise.  I did try it for a month, but as an overall sim, it wasn't for me.  That's just my opinion.  

 

My original point was to correct Alan on something PMDG allegedly said.  If they did, indeed say that X-Plane has limitations on what they wanted to implement, then they must have said it very early on, and then changed their official stance.  I do know more about their reasons, but it's not something I'm willing to go into detail about in here.  

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by GoranM