3 minutes ago, DChockey08 said:

I don't really think anyone is saying that. People are just saying your priorities are different to others. 

You then have missed a couple of posts in this very thread and on the P3D forum 😏

That may come as a surprise to you but my priorities for high-end simming have not changed from the time I was flying P3D to now when I fly MSFS. And this is why there was a massive outflow of P3D old time simmers to MSFS. 

 

For me there's nothing that even comes close to the feelings that I'm getting using this sim daily.

23 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I rest my case. FSL may have their work cutout to convince all but the very dedicated their model is worth it.

They have an even bigger issue if Fenix gets an even more advanced model released prior AND has actual communication with the community AND is a fraction of the price of FSL...   There is a line forming out the door despite there already being a free version.  HPG, Fenix, some new players indeed...  And it wont be for you as it lacks the systems depth of the FSL Concorde but my prediction is the DC Design Concorde will do immensely well in MSFS.   

John Chambers did a fabulous piece on how hard it is in tech (any form) to maintain clear leadership for longer than 10 years...  I think some of the incumbents are in for quite a challenge from some new comers to the market and alas, they've had a 10+ year run so the timing is right.   PMDG, QW and FSL could very well be left holding the bag at the curb if some new players get highly desired products out first... 

 

6 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

outflow of P3D old time simmers to MSFS. 

Where does that number comer from? They may have tried it then went back to P3D/XP, like me.

17 minutes ago, psolk said:

PMDG, QW and FSL could very well be left holding the bag at the curb if some new players get highly desired products out first...

As I commented elsewhere, whoever is first to release a popular modern airliner in MSFS that the masses recognise (the CRJ doesn't have widespread appeal, nor awareness in the public consciousness) will get a word not allowed tonne of money.

The second dev will do well, but the first is key. Once the casual simmers and gamers buy one airliner, they're very likely to be done and dusted. Additional airliners won't be bought by these two large groups to add to their virtual hangars, so the rewards won't be in the same league as whoever is the first to market.

 

The Fenix A320 looks stunning. I'd love for it to work as well as it promises and in a much less troublesome MSFS. The Fenix Airbus really does make the current 'study-level' airliner developers' efforts appear dated.

27 minutes ago, psolk said:

And it wont be for you as it lacks the systems depth of the FSL Concorde but my prediction is the DC Design Concorde will do immensely well in MSFS.   

I have no doubt it will because there will be a lot of people attracted to such a beautiful aircraft but don’t know the parameters for how it’s flown.

They may well leave reheats on after takeoff because it makes it go faster but are then left scratching their heads when the fuel runs out half-way to their destination. Or do any number of wrong things that means they cannot reach Mach 2 by FL500.

But even for those who know the “rules” it’s attractive because of the price. The big downside is the lack of INS because MSFS cannot accept lat / lon coordinates. It will have to use a GPS system probably. Not a huge problem if you’re not an enthusiast.

 

10 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have no doubt it will because there will be a lot of people attracted to such a beautiful aircraft but don’t know the parameters for how it’s flown.

They may well leave reheats on after takeoff because it makes it go faster but are then left scratching their heads when the fuel runs out half-way to their destination. Or do any number of wrong things that means they cannot reach Mach 2 by FL500.

But even for those who know the “rules” it’s attractive because of the price. The big downside is the lack of INS because MSFS cannot accept lat / lon coordinates. It will have to use a GPS system probably. Not a huge problem if you’re not an enthusiast.

 

I tried not using GPS on a flight from KSAN to PHNL in the DC6 to try my hand at actual navigation.  I actually did pretty well and crashed into the mountains on Maui in a low ceiling and rain storm LOL!!!  Hey, I found the right chain of Islands if not the right Island.   I then put my hand back in my pocket and reverted to GPS and realized I'm spoiled LOL!!! I may have forgotten about managing fuel manually on another attempt and flamed out into the sea LOL   Stinking procedures Ray, stinking procedures I tell ya... 

Also gave me a far greater appreciation of what Amelia had attempted so many years ago.  Even on the sim it was intimidating LOL 

 

@psolk, we’re spoilt these days with GPS et al as you say. Pilots back then were very brave.

15 hours ago, Adrian123 said:

Where does that number comer from? They may have tried it then went back to P3D/XP, like me.

The number, or at least the estimate of numbers, comes from the fact that several commercial developers have either curtailed, or completely stopped production altogether, for commercial stuff for P3D in order to concentrate on MSFS development. Difficult to put an exact number on this of course, but you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing, so it is undeniably true.

Of course - drive space permitting - there is nothing stopping anyone from having more than one flight simulator on their computer, so for some people this may be a usage versus what they are prepared to stump up cash for difference, which is a position many of us who've invested a ton of cash into FSX and P3D already are able to benefit from at no additional cost, but either way it's still driving the matter for commercial developers, since they are the ones who see where the cash is going now and in the future.

Back on the original topic question of whether MSFS is up to par, for me personally the answer is nope, it's actually above par, in a number of ways which matter:

Graphically it is undeniably superior; most obviously in the way it looks on screen, but more importantly for me, in the way it performs on even a fairly modest computer. The benefits of having a sim where I frankly don't even care what the FPS counter is reading, instead of constantly having this be a concern as it is with other flight sims, is one thing which certainly puts MSFS well above par. In wider terms, this is something I welcome because it has the potential to democratise flight simming, with it no longer requiring people to spend a fortune of a computer in order to have some flight fun. This helps the hard core people too of course because there is then a much bigger customer base, which takes us back to what I was saying before about developers going where the money is.

In terms of 'what you get in the box', MSFS again is very much above par when comparing it to P3D. Whilst it is true that MSFS is still in the process of having its weather worked on, this is also true for P3D with its 3D cloud rendering, and it's worth remembering too, that P3D doesn't even come with any half decent weather simulation out of the box; you have to throw both Active Sky and Active Sky Cloud Art at the thing to get it to do that, which adds considerably to the cost of what is already a pretty expensive product. Similarly, when it comes to other add-ons for airports, ground terrain, ATC, AI etc, etc, the reason such 'is it on par?' question can even be realistically posed, is because most of us have got 15 years-worth of FSX and P3D add-ons and tweaks shoehorned into the thing to get it where it is and it still doesn't look as good as MSFS does by default. I wouldn't even like to estimate what I've spent on P3D over the years, because I've no doubt I'd be horrified if I saw the total figure.

Contrasting this, I've not added much payware scenery to MSFS and I'm very happy with the way it looks and even more happy about the fact that I don't have to tweak the thing all the time. Even if I wasn't happy with any of the scenery, the fact that I can literally make stuff for it with the built-in capability of MSFS, and the fact that tons of people are doing this and putting it out there for free, is again something which puts it way above par.

I have however, bought a fair few of add-on aeroplanes for MSFS and stopped buying stuff for other sims a long time ago, so I am at least one of the reasons why those developers are moving to MSFS. I like having a sim which I can pretty much just switch on and run without having to tart about with all the time; one which gets regularly updated and fixed, and I'm happy enough to wait for the likes of Fenix and PMDG to get their 737s and A320s into the thing whilst using what is available, since what is available already isn't half bad anyway.

So, is MSFS up to par? If you ask me, the par was set pretty low in a number of ways with the ESP platform unless you got your hand in your pocket and dug pretty deep, and still is to a large extent even in 64 bit flavour, as evidenced by what we can see is possible with a more modern effort which leverages today's computing power and connectivity. That said, P3D can still edge it with a few of those expensive add-ons which are available for it to soup-up its comms and high-fidelity airliners, but the clock is ticking on that one to the point that this is only of benefit to people who, like me, bought all that stuff for it years ago and can still use it if they want to. A new user starting from scratch would be insane to start down that P3D road at this point.

So we could wail and moan in a sunk cost stylee about things, but that money is long gone and I had some fun with it, so I won't begrudge having spent it, but for me it is definitely time to cut the rope on P3D and see what heights MSFS might then be able to soar to, and it seems there are a lot of other people who feel the same way. So it's less about being on par, and more about setting an entirely new and improved par.

Edited February 11, 20224 yr by Chock

Yes.




I'd rather be part of something evolving to be better than the past, than cling to what is rapidly becoming an abandoned project left behind because of its archaic software architecture and limits on capabilities.

Up to par is entirely relative, I do not belive in sunken cost phalacy... I'm all in for MSFS because its undeniably the future of microsoft's flight simulators, it will meet my expectations in all regards in time, and for now, its doing a far better job than P3D or FSX did for me.

Nobody made study level versions of the aircraft I fly anyway 😄 so I'm not bothered by a lack of airliners, but can appreciate how it might affect those that like to afk for 8 hours.

37 minutes ago, AvAngel said:

P3D or FSX did for me

Xp and P3D are constantly evolving/updating!

They're polishing an existing codebase... its still in both cases rather old tech.

8 hours ago, Chock said:

 A new user starting from scratch would be insane to start down that P3D road at this point.

A key point. 

Base sims I agree you'd be crazy to get P3D unless you really have a problem with something in MSFS. With all the add-ons we have for P3D though, it becomes more difficult a question. 

Par with what hehe?  It's impossible to NOT make comparisons to prior sims when you think about the new one.

I was a heavy P3Dv4 and XP11 user about two years ago.  A few things happened since then (not just MSFS, which is the only sim other than DCS that I use).  We had another baby, which really cut down my simming time, and I chose to basically uninstall P3D when MSFS came out.  XP11 is installed but in a vanilla state because I was beta testing still.  I've since dropped that due to availability.  I'm mostly a GA user so I'm all in for MSFS.  There have really been some incredible addons released lately (Kodiak, WT G1000 NXi, TDS GTN Xi etc).  I'm settling right back where I was at in P3D with high fidelity addons that do what the real plane or avionics does.  You can easily do a reliable vatsim/online flight at this point with decent avionics.  Even with the Aerosoft CRJ which I also have - but got it on sale as it's not really my type of aircraft.

It's only getting better, especially for you airliner guys with PMDG and Fenix getting real close now!

I've been giving all Flight Sims a break but when the PMDG Max and/or 777 hits the MSFS I will get back into it. for now I am enjoying Train Sims and Truck Sims