I own all three, I use all three plus DCS. MSFS is a beautiful sim but it doesn't offer everything I'm looking for ,yet. I fly mostly tubeliners and right now the FBW offering is the only one I use. Maybe once there is a more diverse choice and real weather is accurate all the time I'll make the switch completely. MSFS does make nice screenshots though.

59 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

I don't think Austin has the temperament to work under others. It's one reason why I doubt (but don't discount) a partnership with Google; I think it would mean giving up too much control of his baby.

"Baby" is the operative word. To survive, he needs to adapt, grow up, join the adult world, and work with them.

I am a P3Dv5 user and am perfectly satisfied with it.  I have not tried MSFS and don't intend to.  MSFS is the current end of the rainbow.  LM was when to went to 64bit and everyone was gushing oohs and aahs over it like they are now for MSFS.  In a few short years another end of the rainbow will pop up and people will be saying, "I just bought RealSim and am never going back to MSFS".

I just hope Orbx doesn't drop it, but if they do I am already buying and downloading freeware scenery and aircraft for it.  It's amazing how much FSX freeware aircraft work well with P3Dv5.  I have not tapped the bottom of that well yet.  And just this afternoon I purchased an FSX to P3Dv4 Lionheart aircraft that works well in my setup.  I don't have to buy MSFS and hope for some third party to develop my favorite aircraft or scenery.  I already have them.

As for improved graphics and more realistic airplanes for MSFS I already know nothing you can put on a desktop or laptop is ever going to replicate a real flying experience no matter how many new flight simulators you chase.

Ya know, I still fly FS2004 because nobody has yet improved on 1960s retro airports and aircraft like California Classic has.  It's a nice change of pace to go to and fly a Super Connie those old detailed airports without jetways.  Of course you can do that if you MSFS too.  And the propliners and global airports at California Classic Poropliners is all freeware.

Noel

Interesting question.  For me the question is would I spend dollars for MSFS addons at this time.  The only addon aircraft I have purchased so far is the Carenado Mooney, which has not been updated after SU5. Like many others I am eagerly awaiting the Milviz C310R, hopefully at some point a Milviz Baron, and a 182 from A2A.  I can only presume that such developers are holding back because as MSFS progresses it presents them with a moving target.  Are we in this community ready to pay them for related updates.  Great question!

I fly GA and so do not fly into many larger commercial traffic airports so not purchasing airports. I am however on layover at KPDX and using a very nice freeware addon airport.  I am much more keenly interested in additional integrated 3rd party avionics and weather engines, and to-date Asobo has responded "not planned".  The WTG1000 NXi is today the only GPS that is growing close for me and I am greatly appreciative for the NXi. However I long for more options that expand my choice of aircraft to fly in true IMC based on matching the real world avionics.

Weather support where I fly is still miserable in matching real time flying, something I have enjoyed for years prior to MSFS.  I find myself bouncing back and forth during flight from MSFS live, to REX WF live, to Unreal Weather live, and too often finding no joy!  I can can today fly in FSX SE with Active Sky 2016 and 95% of the time find real time weather that is a match. 

On both avionics and weather I would find it highly embarrassing to fall so short of matching what has been available for years.  Note the quote in my message footer.....

 

Edited September 14, 20214 yr by fppilot

4 minutes ago, birdguy said:

I am a P3Dv5 user and am perfectly satisfied with it.  I have not tried MSFS and don't intend to... 

Nothing wrong with the status quo if you're happy with it. I know a couple of people who refuse to use email and smartphones. They're happy with old fashion snail mail. One even insists on using old-fashion maps too. No GPS thingy for her. In her case, 'ignorance is bliss'. And she's a happy camper.

1 hour ago, fppilot said:

Interesting question.  For me the question is would I spend dollars for MSFS addons at this time.  The only addon aircraft I have purchased so far is the Carenado Mooney, which has not been updated after SU5. Like many others I am eagerly awaiting the Milviz C310R, hopefully at some point a Milviz Baron, and a 182 from A2A.  I can only presume that such developers are holding back because as MSFS progresses it presents them with a moving target.  Are we in this community ready to pay them for related updates.  Great question!

I fly GA and so do not fly into many larger commercial traffic airports so not purchasing airports. I am however on layover at KPDX and using a very nice freeware addon airport.  I am much more keenly interested in additional integrated 3rd party avionics and weather engines, and to-date Asobo has responded "not planned".  The WTG1000 NXi is today the only GPS that is growing close for me and I am greatly appreciative for the NXi. However I long for more options that expand my choice of aircraft to fly in true IMC based on matching the real world avionics.

Weather support where I fly is still miserable in matching real time flying, something I have enjoyed for years prior to MSFS.  I find myself bouncing back and forth during flight from MSFS live, to REX WF live, to Unreal Weather live, and too often finding no joy!  I can can today fly in FSX SE with Active Sky 2016 and 95% of the time find real time weather that is a match. 

On both avionics and weather I would find it highly embarrassing to fall so short of matching what has been available for years.  Note the quote in my message footer.....

 

The quote in your signature:  "I will never put my name on a product that does not have in it the best that is in me." - John Deere  -- probably sums up the reason why Germans are unable to create state-of-the-art software. My understanding is that they want only to produce the best. However, software changes so fast that by the time they perfect anything, it's already obsoleted.

6 hours ago, W2DR said:

Of course there are differences. LM's main concern is flight simulation and training while MSFS is mainly concerned with eye-candy.

Absolutely !

Waht XBox gamer is going to pay for a rig like this one.

12 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

they support CIGI (Image Generator) ... the entire graphics engine can be replaced with a 3rd party IG while still using the P3D core simulation engine.

Hmmm, maybe some smart dev crew can see a way to CIGI the MSFS scenery into P3D.

Best of both worlds then 🙂

Cheers

Well, for me any new version of X-Plane will be a day 1 buy !

It's simple - I still think the attention / detail put into tools like Plane and Airfoil Maker, the very open platform that X-Plane is, allowing 3pds to do their "magic" and create really remarkable / detailed / study-level add-ons, and Austin himself with is "being Austin" personality, have long conquered my loyalty to the X-Plane.

I am critic many times, as I am of any flight simulator, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the Potential and Unique characteristics even XP11 still offers to it's users.

I believe some of the already announced features will also make X-Plane even more fluid in my rig and the new autogen will, not being close to what MFS can do scenery-wise, still provide me a "plausible World" to fly placing my attention on "vlying" (*)  than sight-seeing...

Looking fwd for LR's presentation and the Sim Conference this month !

What about MFS ?  Well, I LOVE it too !

I finally have, at my growing age, a Blonde and a Brunette ... And VIAGRA ... Ooops! I wanted to write RTX 3060 Ti  + Ryzen 5700x, to enjoy both 🙂 thx to MD. Alexis who prescribed it !

 

(*) vlying =(virtually) flying

Edited September 14, 20214 yr by jcomm
stuff

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Speaking of LM/P3D only:

1.  No need, LM have their own very high resolution sats see HERE.

And the satellite data they collect and use is for commercial or military customers.  Meanwhile, MSFS is offering its users free satellite & photogrammetry streaming, after you purchase a copy of MSFS.  So if you purchased MSFS for $60 last year, Microsoft has not charged you a single extra cent to use that free satellite & photogrammetry streaming over the last year.

There is no way LM won't charge for that, and anything they do charge is probably too expensive for the home market consumer.  Not to mention you need the servers, bandwidth, and employees to maintain the server for streaming this.  And of course, it's nice to have a company like Blackshark AI which converts the 2D satellite houses and buildings into 3D objects, something that will also cost extra.

There is zero chance that LM will provide all that for free, which is effectively what Microsoft is charging after you purchase a copy of MSFS.

Edited September 14, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

There is zero chance that LM will provide all that for free, which is effectively what Microsoft is charging after you purchase a copy of MSFS.

Sooo.... Microsoft is running at a loss ?

Cannot imagine maintaining such servers and infrastructure can be maintained for a once off payment

Hope their pockets are deep.

Cheers

12 minutes ago, Rogen said:

Sooo.... Microsoft is running at a loss ?

Cannot imagine maintaining such servers and infrastructure can be maintained for a once off payment

Hope their pockets are deep.

Cheers

Azure cloud server infrastructure is a key difference between LM and Microsoft because Microsoft owns Azure.  As discussed in this thread, for Microsoft, adding MSFS to its Azure cloud services and streaming the satellite & photogrammetry data is dirt cheap relative to the costs of MSFS, because Microsoft already has the Azure cloud infrastructure setup.  

For LM, they don't specialize in mass cloud server infrastructure for the general market.  LM would have to go to a cloud vendor like Microsoft, to get such services.

Microsoft can probably continue to offer the satellite & photogrammetry streaming free for years to come because it doesn't cost them much extra, and they can just make their money from the MSFS marketplace and/or other add-ons they release.

Edited September 14, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

Well, speaking as one who sees the direct charges of bandwidth and enterprise level Azure and AWS cloud services they don't come cheap at all.

Yes they might be Microsoft's own services and therefore run at their cost, but the rich don't get richer by giving their stuff away and Microsoft will be anwserable to their shareholders.

Sooner or later there will be a crunch time... unless it's always been Microsoft's intention to run MSFS as a loss leader, which after spending ~6 years in dev with hundreds? of dev crew it would certainly be.

You just gotta compare the sales against other video games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great MS is willing to invest so much to showcase what they can do, I just hope they are able to keep it up.

Cheers

2 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

What LM are missing are better visuals and that's why they support CIGI (Image Generator) ... the entire graphics engine can be replaced with a 3rd party IG while still using the P3D core simulation engine.

But only in the professional plus version - licence cost $2500

14 hours ago, David Mills said:

There once was a sim from Meyer

Whose future appears to be dire.

X-Plane 11

Was thought to be heaven,

Then MS raised the bar higher.

More like wishful thinking, sorry to ruin it for you, last time I checked steam stats show that x-plane had a slight growth since MSFS released.

3rd party devs are as well claiming their sales on the platform are mostly untouched (unlike P3D) + even more developers are joining the x-plane eco system which currently has active developemnt of study level aircrafts that MSFS can only dream of for now; just to name a few: LEVELUP 737, FF777, FF787, TOLISS A340, INI A380, FELIS 747-200. 

Also professional contracts (this is where the true money in flight simulation really comes from, and not a random user on avsim pretending to be a737 captain) + millions of other customers on the mobile platform. The latter mobile category, just an FYI, has more users than all of MSFS's sales combined. 

All of this while everyone who uses XP11 is mostly waiting for 25.9 when the next major version is announced.

"Whose future appears to be dire" , massive LOL, at least you got 4 likes and some more confidence boost online, this forum is a bubble indeed, your opinion is a niche of a niche compared to real stats and numbers, I hope you get over it soon it seems like you really wanted it to happen.

Edited September 14, 20214 yr by mtaxp