20 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

Was a P3Dv5 compatible installer for the C310 redux ever released ?

If memory serves me correctly and sometimes it does not, the installers for the Bobcat and the Twin Comanche were made compatible for P3D v.5 but not the C310 Redux. I was able to install the 310R into P3D v. 5.1 and it for the most part worked fine. The only thing that was problematic was no cockpit and instrument lighting so no night flights. That is the same situation for both the Bobcat and "Twinkie" as well. The Milviz "MVAMS" does not work for P3D v. 5, so with that I probably will pass on their sale. 

5 minutes ago, micstatic said:

Yes!  You nailed it.  This is literally the worst part of MSFS.  If it would just get to the finish line I would probably use it more and then not care the devs all followed it over. 

And yet if High-End P3D add-on sales are collapsing due to MSFS it's because people are choosing to switch to it - no-one is being forced, they are just taking their money that way.

Edited January 25, 20224 yr by Matchstick

Made the mistake of buying the Porter for MSFS as I like the P3D porter and thought I would get a decent plane in MSFS (the only third party plane I purchased for that platform), what a disappointment. The MSFS version flies just like the default default planes. Bounces all over the place when landing, can not get it to slow down without the prop going into beta, tips over just before it comes to a stop no matter how careful you are with the brakes and they took the cheap way out by using standard MSFS avionics, they promised updates but nothing yet. A rushed release when they realised MS will be releasing a free Porter. No more Milviz for me even at any discount. I even purchased the P180 Avanti for P3D on the promise of a discounted MSFS version (no sign of it yet) but if it is like the Porter I will not be spending any additional money on it.

5 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

And yet if High-End P3D add-on sales are collapsing due to MSFS it's because people are choosing to switch to it - no-one is being forced, they are just taking their money that way.

You are not really making a point that wasn't already made.  My situation is the same as many.  I own both.  It's not like I'm not allowed to use either one.  The other point.  Sales numbers have no influence on my personal usage.  I mean mcdonalds sells the most burgers.  But that doesn't mean they are the best tasting to many. 

I don't want anybody to think I'm angry at milviz for this move.  I get it. 

Edited January 25, 20224 yr by micstatic

4 minutes ago, micstatic said:

If it would just get to the finish line I would probably use it more and then not care the devs all followed it over. 

The problem is....How do you know when it reaches the finish line? They could have a solid perfect product out tomorrow and then based on past performance that gets blown out of the water on the following release in a few days. If the NASA space program were to follow their example then the list of want to be Astro-nuts would be very short...LOL!!

Wonder how much would MSFS dilute the simulated completeness we've grown accustomed with some P3D products. Wish MILVIZ luck with their decision. 

3 minutes ago, micstatic said:

You are not really making a point that wasn't already made.  My situation is the same as many.  I own both.  It's not like I'm not allowed to use either one.  The other point.  Sales numbers have no influence on my personal usage.  I mean mcdonalds sells the most burgers.  But that doesn't mean they are the best tasting to many. 

I don't want anybody to think I'm angry at milviz for this move.  I get it. 

But why should anyone be upset at MSFS for the collapse in P3D support either ?
They've just created a product and users can switch to it if they want - it's not like at this point people don't know what MSFS is like, if people are continuing to switching to it from P3D they are doing it with their eyes open.

10 minutes ago, pinepix62 said:

Made the mistake of buying the Porter for MSFS as I like the P3D porter and thought I would get a decent plane in MSFS (the only third party plane I purchased for that platform), what a disappointment. The MSFS version flies just like the default default planes. Bounces all over the place when landing, can not get it to slow down without the prop going into beta, tips over just before it comes to a stop no matter how careful you are with the brakes and they took the cheap way out by using standard MSFS avionics, they promised updates but nothing yet. A rushed release when they realised MS will be releasing a free Porter. No more Milviz for me even at any discount. I even purchased the P180 Avanti for P3D on the promise of a discounted MSFS version (no sign of it yet) but if it is like the Porter I will not be spending any additional money on it.

🤦‍♂️

Not my experience at all after flying this bird some 60 hours in MSFS. Its an excellent product. She flies great, no bouncing on landing, no tipping over on braking, taxiing her slow is easy if you know what a CL is made for and the GNXi 1000 works great in this bird. It is not perfect of course but a pretty good product.

5 hours ago, jon b said:

Milviz announced that they are leaving the P3D enthusiast market. 

 

 

 

... or rather is it the other way round, the P3D enthusiast market has left the developers 😉 ? MV stays active in the P3D market where people buy their stuff, the pro market.  

33 minutes ago, David Vega said:

Wonder how much would MSFS dilute the simulated completeness we've grown accustomed with some P3D products. Wish MILVIZ luck with their decision. 

It is a good question. Colin Pearson explains it well in the stream. There are things which were possible in P3D (with "hacks") that are not (yet ?) in MSFS. Like some limitations in the simconnect protocols for instance.  That will delay the release of the ATR .

This is a very interesting stream worth watching. He brings a lot of balanced perspectives to P3D and MSFS

Luck or not luck, in any case you don't cater for what has become for them a minuscule market.

And anyway, like A2A, they make their money with the military now.

Edited January 25, 20224 yr by Dominique_K

29 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

But why should anyone be upset at MSFS for the collapse in P3D support either ?
They've just created a product and users can switch to it if they want - it's not like at this point people don't know what MSFS is like, if people are continuing to switching to it from P3D they are doing it with their eyes open.

I’m not upset at msfs. I’m upset because I still feel it’s not up to par for airliner flying. I am hopeful the product will mature though 

47 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

But why should anyone be upset at MSFS for the collapse in P3D support either ?
They've just created a product and users can switch to it if they want - it's not like at this point people don't know what MSFS is like, if people are continuing to switching to it from P3D they are doing it with their eyes open.

It's frustrating when a mature offering like P3D (still a lot in common with FSX so more than 15 years of dev experience) drops off a cliff in third-party support when the successor (MSFS) still lacks the very high fidelity aircraft sims we're used to in the old product.

I agree that it's not the fault of consumers - people go for what they want, and for the majority of consumers the other offerings from MSFS make up for the lack of very high quality study-sim aircraft at present.

But there is a real gap in the market at the moment. Many devs have stopped developing for P3D, but MSFS still hasn't got its SDK/ third party support in order yet so development is a lot slower. Not all of it is Microsoft/ Asobo's fault, a sim as new as MSFS will take a few years before devs are as comfortable with developing for it as they were with FSX/ P3D, but also the fact that third party support doesn't seem to be a top-tier priority means that this process is particularly slow.

So basically, P3D, still the preferred sim for a decent number of us who prioritise the aircraft over the sim itself, is increasingly no longer served by many devs but without MSFS being a viable replacement yet, and it is not clear for how long this will be the case.

I think it can be agreed that in the current stafe of affairs there won't be many more all-new aircraft projects begun for P3D, but supporting existing products to at least function properly in newer versions of P3D goes a long way towards keeping people satisfied. Certainly I don't see much reason for this not to happen in the scenery department considering the amount of P3D scenery ported to MSFS since its release.

In essence, MSFS is frustrating for existing p3d users because it's split the market and for the moment is forcing a choice between being able to fly a good range of study-level aircraft or being able to rely on consistent third-party support. From a consumer perspective I would much rather there was more of 'phase-down' approach to P3D to make the transition easier.

Edited January 25, 20224 yr by SimeonWilbury

I bought 5 Milviz Aircraft all of which I thought where great. The 737-200c was one of the most fun aircraft to fly. I'm pretty sure I bought that one twice. One of my all time favourites the Sabre. The Bell 407 and MD503 and finally the F-4e. Moving along with sim updates over the years my recollection is that for the most part there where only very short windows of opportunity when any of these aircraft actually work in the sim. Milviz was one of the best developers but in my opinion the worst at keeping pace with sim updates right from get go.

1 hour ago, Matchstick said:

why should anyone be upset at MSFS for the collapse in P3D support either ?

Not upset per se, just disappointed that they created unrealistic expectations of what their new flight sim platform could do from the outset. Not to mention that I feel that MS over-promise and under-deliver at each and every major update so far.

From the outside, MSFS looks fantastic. I love the concepts they have brought to flight simming, it looks every bit a modern piece of software.
And yet, whenever I've used it (if I can actually get it started), it just doesn't have the depth of simulation that I have in P3D. If people swear blind that MSFS is the only flight sim for them, that's their prerogative. It's disappointing that so many people want to publicly disparage P3D and refuse to return to it because "the future is MSFS" even though to-date, that is not guaranteed. It's almost cult-like that no criticism whatsoever is tolerated by so many MSFS fans, despite criticism usually involving pointing out areas that could realistically be improved upon. I was an alpha and beta tester for MSFS. I don't have the time to continue being one nearly a year and a half after its release to market.

Furthermore, I have P3D setup that is a long way off from being matched, let alone beaten by MSFS. Yes, that's in no small part due to complex payware airliners, yet it is also due to the fact I don't need to put full rudder in during a take-off roll, landings are not guaranteed until all wheels are on the tarmac, live weather is reproduced as reported in the real world, turbulence and cross-winds that don't make me feel like I'm on a bucking bronco when the conditions are reported as light chop at worst, and a LOD that enables me to see all objects and terrain more than 10 miles into the distance.

 

57 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

...or rather is it the other way round, the P3D enthusiast market has left the developers 😉 ? MV stays active in the P3D market where people buy their stuff, the pro market.

While it's the customers flocking to the new sim and abandoning P3D products, there's not a lot to entice them to stay or return. Drzewiecki bemoaned a lack of sales, despite nothing new in their portfolio for some time, whereas (IIRC), Flightbeam admitted that their NZAA for P3D was the biggest sale volume for any of their products at the time.
I think FB and MK-Studios (among a few others) probably have the best solution, which is to develop for both flight sim platforms until either MSFS has matured enough to stop requiring fundamental changes at each sim update, the P3D market has become even smaller as to become entirely unworkable or a combination of the two. Assuming, of course, that MSFS actually matures and becomes the sim of choice for most of us still here.

Edited January 25, 20224 yr by F737NG

45 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

... or rather is it the other way round, the P3D enthusiast market has left the developers 😉 ?

Fair point yes. 

Either way it's a sad situation.