I don't think anyone is happy about the situation but it is reality. I wish LM had come up with something as I have thousands of dollars invested in it! 

I really don't see what the problem is here.  I have had so much utility out of my PMDG aircraft (I have almost all of them) and looking forward to them in MSFS.  I don't expect any company to support software indefinitely.  If these aircraft were sold a subscriptions (Like Navigraph, Real Live Traffic, etc), we would have all paid many times more over the years than the one time purchase model.  Right now I use MSFS and P3D and can't wait for all of my favorite aircraft to release to MSFS so I can move on and have just one sim.

If you replace Rob with Kok, the statement would sound the same. 😁

Mike

43 minutes ago, MarkW said:

I really don't see what the problem is here.  I have had so much utility out of my PMDG aircraft (I have almost all of them) and looking forward to them in MSFS.  I don't expect any company to support software indefinitely.  If these aircraft were sold a subscriptions (Like Navigraph, Real Live Traffic, etc), we would have all paid many times more over the years than the one time purchase model.  Right now I use MSFS and P3D and can't wait for all of my favorite aircraft to release to MSFS so I can move on and have just one sim.

I think the most honest way would be to say it like this.  Some of us don't love MSFS as much as many of you guys do.  But at the same time many devs have moved there.  Or elsewhere.   It feels like we are being pushed in a direction where there are some pretty serious deal killers.  Hopefully it gets worked out.  But that's where the frustration comes from.  I had a few good MSFS months.  I'm hoping with all my heart I can rekindle that feeling.  The first thing I see when I boot up MSFS is the fuzzy projected mesh thing.  It's almost as if I'm looking at one of those pictures that 7 people see one way.  But I'm one of the other 3.  So it's tough.  You take those feelings and combine them with people who continuously start topics that can't have been started for any other reason than to incite argument.  Does that make any sense?

1 hour ago, DWadsworth said:

Michael,

Use the reg edit method and install in into v5.  Last PMDG I'll ever buy.  I wonder what happened to GFO...  Promises made and not kept...

 

Where can I find this method?

10 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I think the most honest way would be to say it like this.  Some of us don't love MSFS as much as many of you guys do.  But at the same time many devs have moved there.  Or elsewhere.   It feels like we are being pushed in a direction where there are some pretty serious deal killers.  Hopefully it gets worked out.  But that's where the frustration comes from.  I had a few good MSFS months.  I'm hoping with all my heart I can rekindle that feeling.  The first thing I see when I boot up MSFS is the fuzzy projected mesh thing.  It's almost as if I'm looking at one of those pictures that 7 people see one way.  But I'm one of the other 3.  So it's tough.  You take those feelings and combine them with people who continuously start topics that can't have been started for any other reason than to incite argument.  Does that make any sense?

Totally understand.  I was a very hard core FSX and then P3D guy.  I picked up MSFS more out of interest than any serious plans to dump P3D and expected at least 2 years before anything was available that I would normally fly in P3D.  I still love my P3D addons, but I also really like the scenery and weather/lighting/clouds in MSFS.  Right now I am mostly flying jets in P3D and the Kodiak in MSFS (sometimes the FBW A320 with FS2Crew).  My issue with P3D is the cartoon like ground textures...it never bothered me before but compared to MSFS it is very noticeable now.  The other problem with P3D for me (and its is probably more unique to me) is that I am plagued with dxgi device hung errors that just showed up one day and are more or less ruining the experience.  

7 minutes ago, newtie said:

Where can I find this method?

This is what i have used for the DC6 and works without any  issues whatsoever

https://youtu.be/gTsDNwhAsVE

 

8 minutes ago, MarkW said:

Totally understand.  I was a very hard core FSX and then P3D guy.  I picked up MSFS more out of interest than any serious plans to dump P3D and expected at least 2 years before anything was available that I would normally fly in P3D.  I still love my P3D addons, but I also really like the scenery and weather/lighting/clouds in MSFS.  Right now I am mostly flying jets in P3D and the Kodiak in MSFS (sometimes the FBW A320 with FS2Crew).  My issue with P3D is the cartoon like ground textures...it never bothered me before but compared to MSFS it is very noticeable now.  The other problem with P3D for me (and its is probably more unique to me) is that I am plagued with dxgi device hung errors that just showed up one day and are more or less ruining the experience.  

I also totally understand your statement.  I've had some amazing piston flights in the pacific northwest and catalina island.  Just amazing. 

I’m going to write my thoughts simply from a customer and business point of view. So being that I am in the P3D forum I ask everyone to have an open mindedness with my opinion I’m going to post. 
 

When I compare P3D to MSFS or XPlane, there are a couple of things that I see from a business stand point that are creating the results we’re seeing from my perspective. 

1. Lack of significant change to the terrain and clouds.

Given that P3D unfortunately lis meant to be used mostly in a commercial/military environment has had a complete lack of proper evolution  to the terrain depiction and then there has been a lack of follow through with the depiction of clouds ( EA is nice but let’s be frank it is no where near a completed integration).  When looking at this from a consumer perspective it becomes difficult to remain on the platform with the same technology of BGL and low resolution textures on the ground. You really have to be in love with specific features of P3D to justify the dated technology on those two fronts. These  two systems make the simulator look old regardless of how many new features you put in it. In one example, I still to this day can see sometimes see a BGL building literally cutting through a major Highway because the autogen system is old and outdated and just does not match the terrain. If it does it’s sometimes not actually aligned to be on top of where a house actually is. 

- MSFS as we know provides a dynamic global weather system with a truly incredible depiction of clouds. Does it need work? Yes. However, it is new technology non the less.  Terrain is mostly satellite based streamed data with overlays that are shaded and realistically placed  with open street map data and bing data. 

- XP 11 has had slight changes in clouds because of add ons (still far from perfect).  But, when looking at the terrain of XP11 you can see where the overlays of satellite photography using free mods it then creates more stunning visuals. Even the basic “plausible world” from an elevation is more organized and “plausible”. 

These two things make a big impact to the simulation experience. 

 

2. Some of this is done by add on developers own doing, in my opinion. Let me explain.

When it comes to this topic. 
Let’s ask our selves this question. How many of you just keep hearing about 737’s /777’s/ 747’s/ A320’s being developed? It feels to me like over the last 10 years that’s all I hear about. Their rational seems to be that these are the most popular ones so they just keep developing new versions of it. Sometimes completely ignoring to bring other highly popular models or new renditions that open new markets for them to capture more sales even if from the same consumer base. 

For example  we look at the iniBuilds A300 line in XPlane. The A300 series is a test case for an airliner that does not have high popularity. It mostly lives in freighter conversions now. Yet iniBuilds managed to capture so many sim enthusiasts over because of the development of something new and different. To the point where iniBuilds managed to get a high amount of people so interested in the new aircraft that several bought/reinstalled/immersed themselves  more into XPlane just to fly that airplane. Myself included. Another example is the Toliss A340. How many can say that it’s not “impressive”  then to see how that aircraft sold/flew in real life.  Yet so many times I hear from developers “Most simmers won’t fly and airplane for 8-10 hours”. Ok, fine. But I still would like to fly it! 

So I have to wonder what would have happened if PMDG/IFLY/AEROSOFT would have developed something new. Or bring back something like the 767 to the current standards of the 777. Or PMDG break  their “Boeing” rule and maybe created something that would be equally as versatile to fly but different to their standards. Like an E-JET.  I personally would have been waiting in line to buy it no questions asked. Yet with the NGXU I clearly remember saying to my self, why would I buy this if I’m fine with the NGX? I had to get incentivized to make that decision. Instead what happens with these new renditions is we end up with old version of the same being sold with new models but old technologies. Example? Captainsim and Wilco. 

Lastly. The trend has not caught the market yet. But the marketing has been done. 
There are people waiting for  a high fidelity aircraft to be released. This will be when the waves hit the shore. We already saw this with the response of XP12 who now will be having very similar core features to MSFS. We don’t see the same from P3D because frankly, they don’t care. They only care about how it can integrate in training or military environment. They don’t care if it’s pretty.  We see it in the immediate response from iniBuilds to develop their A300 into MSFS.  I will be one of the first to buy it. 

The reason we haven’t seen a decrease in sales on XP yet is frankly because they have airliners we don’t have anywhere else with modern technologies. And again, compared to P3D, XPlane looks modern. With the lighting, terrain, Clouds (kind of even), but it does look impressive compared to older technology. Once the higher fidelity aircraft start rolling in we will see MSFS take a larger chunk from other platforms.  Why?

Marketing. 
I have had people who never in their lives after knowing them my entire life mention to me a simulator. Then, MSFS was mentioned everywhere and those same individuals would come to me talking about the “new simulator that I should check out”. Of course, me already knowing. The point is however, Microsoft is spending more money and putting their word out there more than any other platform ever has for flight simulation. Eventually, this new user-base will be bombarded with recommend videos, forum post and Social media about the “new add on that is hyper realistic” and some will buy it. Because at the end of the day the investment in marketing dollars will help not only Microsoft and Asobo but the add on developers as well  

So please remain open minded. The reality is that a lot of what is happening comes down to money. There are some developers complaining but they really didn’t innovate other than “revamp”. The simulator platform we love because it carried us on is following the same trend of “revamping”.  And finally, you can always reach more people with a megaphone than shouting. Those marketing dollars and campaigns by Microsoft  has still not finished paying out.  My prediction is that we will see that the release of these new products break records because the word is now out there. 
 

Thank you  

If you’re still here reading. This is a hello to you. 

@Alcides Segoviayou make some good points. Clouds. Not sure. Sometimes msfs clouds are better than anything. Other times the weather is flat out wrong. Worse I was under the impression the sim can’t even do stratus clouds yet?  Even worse than that. Some of the  storm clouds look like a volcano. 
you mention bgl clouds for p3d. That also ignores true sky.  Not trying to say it’s perfect. 

2 hours ago, Michael Moe said:

As time go by  i find myself more and more interested in the DC6 and Concorde for P3DV5. 

Crikey! That’s one heck of a difference speed wise. 🤪  I took my 32-bit FSL Concorde from JFK down to Barbados this afternoon. A little over 2 hours for the 1,892nm flight.

Everytime I switch back to subsonic aircraft it’s like running my sim at half speed.

10 minutes ago, micstatic said:

@Alcides Segoviayou make some good points. Clouds. Not sure. Sometimes msfs clouds are better than anything. Other times the weather is flat out wrong. Worse I was under the impression the sim can’t even do stratus clouds yet?  Even worse than that. Some of the  storm clouds look like a volcano. 
you mention bgl clouds for p3d. That also ignores true sky.  Not trying to say it’s perfect. 

The development team hinted that satellite weather, as in clouds and their positions as viewed by weather satellites are coming to MSFS. That will provide for the most accurate cloud placement ever seen. Of course they still need to get wind data correct. 

Edited February 8, 20224 yr by B777ER

1 minute ago, B777ER said:

The development team hinted that satellite weather, as in clouds and their positions as viewed by weather satellites are coming to MSFS. That will provide for the most accurate cloud placement ever seen. Of course they still need to get wind data correct. 

But still no historical weather. Major turnoff for anyone wanting to fly out of any airport more than a couple of hours outside their time zone.

So if I want to fly out of Honolulu to LAX I’m getting night time weather throughout the flight for my daytime departure. I can’t tell you how much of a turn off that is for me.

And as well as winds they’ll need accurate upper temps all the way up to FL600 for the forthcoming Concorde.

I say it over and over again, never ever trust Microsoft!

I bet within two to three years Microsoft will bust MSFS just like MS Flight and FSX before and the development of MSFS will be halted just like FSX. But other than FSX, MSFS will end up incomplete, still missing key features by then. We all know Microsoft.

Those developers who think about to abandon P3D today will be left out in the cold. But we simmers also too.

 

Robert Randazzo is doing everything he can to alienate me as a customer. Every time he posts about P3D, I just get angrier and angrier.

I don't have a problem with his enthusiasm for MSFS, but as someone who bought the 200ER mainly to support his company and reward the efforts they promised to undertake in refreshing its VC, I am definitely not feeling the reciprocity. I would hate to use the words "money grab" and PMDG together in the same sentence, but I fear this is looking more like this each passing day.

I know I am a minority here, but geez... Robert is doing absolutely nothing to calm those fears. Like someone else mentioned above: out with the fools who've purchased their products since the Fly! days (like I did), in with the crowd of Xbox users.