Future of p3d ?

[G-RFRY 1,712]

In the end it`s still the same use the sim that suit your choice but don`t dump on other sims, If only one survives then you have no choice bad for the sim community. 

[psolk 3,040]

14 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

One thing that occurred to me today when flying from Istanbul to Athens was the extensive cloud cover making ground viewing difficult. It wasn’t really a factor with P3D with all scenery installed but if you were flying that route in MSFS and were streaming the scenery you would have been downloading many megabytes of data you wouldn’t have seen.

In Europe and especially the UK this time of year can result in overcast conditions for many days. That makes using MSFS and it’s wonderful scenery somewhat pointless if you can’t see it except for the first few minutes at the start and end of a flight but I’m generally concentrating on flying the aircraft then, not admiring the view.

Low level flying wouldn’t have this problem if you remained at 1500ft or thereabouts. That’s why I would only use it for VFR sightseeing flights. Those would be highly enjoyable in MSFS; less so in P3D.

 

Again, your opinion and totally valid Ray.  BUT I think you are actually looking for reasons at this point....  

That is assuming the only thing MSFS does better is draw scenery below the clouds Ray.  To your point, any scenery would be "pointless" in Overcast conditions. Am I streaming data to get it sure but it's only those who are data or ISP constrained that should care about that...  And if you are data or ISP constrained then MSFS isn't your only issue these days...  It does seem to me you are really going to lengths to state reasons MSFS doesn't make sense but I am probably just reading to much into it and if so I do apologize in advance.  But you do seem to have VERY strong opinions as to why MSFS isn't for you and have made them extremely clear 😉  

But I can tell you emphatically everything above the clouds looks better as well even without add-ons.  Yes, at 39,000 feet being able to see a front way off in the distance and contemplate do I go through it or around it becomes a very real consideration in MSFS.  In P3D I could care less about clouds they were just grids of images that repeated in awkward squares most of the time.  In MSFS it feels like a living world.  

Here you have bone stock, no add-ons showing a front rolling in while the nice white fluffy clouds dynamically get darker and darker as I approach the front.  So much so the plane started icing and as I was out of de-icing fluid I had to turn back.  For as much as I love P3D and loved my KEWR-LLBG flight two days ago and my KEWR-PHOG flight yesterday both in the PMDG 777 nothing in P3D gives me this, ESPECIALLY without a single penny spent on add-ons.  This is a default $59 sim delivering this out of the box.  

Edited November 15, 2021 by psolk

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

@psolk, how about the winds and especially the upper air temps? Were those accurate?

Hard to judge the accuracy of the weather modelling without reference to a met chart and location.

Icing is nice. I don’t know why that can’t be modelled in P3D.

I’m not limited by my isp and my download speed is 900Mbps.

[psolk 3,040]

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@psolk, how about the winds and especially the upper air temps? Were those accurate?

Hard to judge the accuracy of the weather modelling without reference to a met chart and location.

Icing is nice. I don’t know why that can’t be modelled in P3D.

Good morning @Ray Proudfoot, Happy Monday hope you have a great week!!!

Air temps dropped to -20 from +25 at takeoff.  So to be totally honest not sure if they were "accurate" as to what real temps were doing but they were modelling the right behavior if that makes sense...

Same with winds.  They were accurate at takeoff and I was expecting a pretty strong headwind, sure enough it was hitting me right on the nose. So much so I started having genuine fuel concerns in addition to the icing.  

I can tell you in P3D I've  never aborted a flight due to weather...  I've done it twice in MSFS already and the two times I "tried" to navigate IFR in 0/0 conditions my chart reading skills were apparently less than "good" and I ended up crashing into a mountain in Rothera and a mountain in Maui LOL!!!  I've already left DC6 parts all over the globe LOL 

So to your point, were they accurate not 100% sure but they were simulating what I would have expected at that point if that makes any sense.  

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

Greetings Paul. Thanks and likewise to you. 😁

6 minutes ago, psolk said:

Air temps dropped to -20 from +25 at takeoff.  So to be totally honest not sure if they were "accurate" as to what real temps were doing but they were modelling the right behavior if that makes sense...

-20°C at FL390 seems warm. I’d expect -50C or thereabouts. Did you run low on fuel? Maybe Asobo are still tweaking the weather engine.

I’m sure it was a tremendous experience flying in such adverse conditions. One day maybe I’ll try it but not yet.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

@psolk, I flew Rhodes to Larnaca, Cyprus this morning and have just checked my Aivlasoft EFB log. At FL370 the OAT was -56C.

You should report than temp discrepancy to Microsoft. It's nowhere near accurate.

[Afterburner 374]

43 minutes ago, psolk said:

If you ask me, I find that the clouds on that picture look very blobby, blurry and somewhat like light volcanic ashes (which has been a problem since MSFS' debut). Nowhere near reality (where the clouds are white).

[psolk 3,040]

58 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Greetings Paul. Thanks and likewise to you. 😁

-20°C at FL390 seems warm. I’d expect -50C or thereabouts. Did you run low on fuel? Maybe Asobo are still tweaking the weather engine.

I’m sure it was a tremendous experience flying in such adverse conditions. One day maybe I’ll try it but not yet.

I wasn't quite that high Ray, my trusted DC6 would crumble to pieces before she got to FL390 🙂  I was ~ 18k when that shot was taken over South America.  I did run low on fuel due to poor planning for the headwinds on my part.  Simbrief gave me an exorbitantly high fuel load for the number of hours I was set to be airborne so in my infinite wisdom I decided I knew best, opted for 2k lbs less fuel than recommended and as usual, I was wrong LOL...  For summing it was ok but I didn't have alternate fuel left... 

@Afterburner cloud coloring is dependent on lighting.  That shot is later in the day, southern hemisphere with a cloud layer on top darkening the clouds.  

All you have to do is change the day, lighting or weather to get bright white clouds.  

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

6 minutes ago, psolk said:

wasn't quite that high Ray, my trusted DC6 would crumble to pieces before she got to FL390 🙂  I was ~ 18k when that shot was taken over South America.

Okay Paul, clearly a mixup with your two flights. -20C is fine for FL180. I've used PFPX for years and not having that available for MSFS would be a huge drawback. It's very good at calculating fuel and gets winds / temps from ASP3D.

Agreed a DC8 wouldn't cope very well at that altitude!

[SAS443 1,723]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You should report than temp discrepancy to Microsoft. It's nowhere near accurate.

it is accurate if ram rise is acounted for (can be up to 35C delta between OAT and TAT).

Keep in mind the OAT readout on airliners is a value already corrected by an air data computer. 

Older planes with simple probes (DC6 perhaps) would always be susceptible to ram rise at higher speeds.

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

1 minute ago, SAS443 said:

it is accurate if ram rise is acounted for (can be up to 35C delta between OAT and TAT).

It was a misunderstanding about the flight and altitude. You can disregard my post.

[out 769]

2 hours ago, Afterburner said:

the clouds on that picture look very blobby, blurry and somewhat like light volcanic ashes

Funny you write it! One of the (many) reasons I haven't so far been convinced to invest in MFSF is the clouds.
Many people talk about awesome looking clouds in MSFS and I always think they look like volcanic ash instead.
Well, maybe a bit of a mixture of the above and bath foam. 🤭

Edited November 15, 2021 by Rafal

[DD_Arthur 1,050]

[cowpatz 243]

As tends to happen there has been a drift from the original post into a "comparison" between one sim and another.
I really do hope that LM starts to communicate again with all the members of it's customer base and give us a glimpse of their development road map.....if there even is one. It must be hurting quite a few developers as sales of addons must be at an all time low as simmers ponder if P3D is still worth investing in.
Ironically if P3D did update to 5.3 or even better 6.0, there is no assurance that current P3D models will be updated, as all eyes are on the new kid on the block.....literally..
 

i

Edited November 15, 2021 by cowpatz

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

30 minutes ago, cowpatz said:

As tends to happen there has been a drift from the original post into a "comparison" between one sim and another.

It is difficult to debate one sim without reference to others. It’s interesting that few have mentioned XP which suggests few have both P3D and XP. Does that suggest XP is not seen as a viable alternative to P3D users disillusioned with new products having dried up?

It isn’t for me as I would have to start afresh with scenery, aircraft and lose the ability to fly the forthcoming Concorde from FSL. So really, I’m tied to P3D.

Microsoft are restricting some third party developers to the inner workings of MSFS for reasons I cannot understand. They seem to want to control far more than was suggested when it first appeared and they welcomed outside developers. Compare that to P3D which is very open despite the lack of communication from LM.

I would never buy v6 unless it was a radical change from v5. They can only go so far with the original code. Ai needs sorting out and a better ATC wouldn’t go amiss. Sadly, I don’t expect either to change.