What I need from MSFS and why I use P3D. What about you?

[Ray Proudfoot 9,060]

Chock, why historical Wx is important to me is for the forthcoming FSL Concorde. I want to fly many different routes such as LAX - Honolulu - Tahiti - Sydney in four legs none of which should take longer than 2.5hrs.

Departing at civilised times on the other side of the world requires historical weather as I don’t fancy starting my flights at 9pm.

Departing those airports at my local time would mean flying with nighttime weather in MSFS assuming there was a FSL Concorde for that sim which I think will never happen.

And of course for Concorde accurate upper temps are critical. If they’re not close to actuals its performance is seriously impaired. AS is fine for those. What’s MSFS like at FL500-600?

[Chock 17,769]

26 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Chock, why historical Wx is important to me is for the forthcoming FSL Concorde. I want to fly many different routes such as LAX - Honolulu - Tahiti - Sydney in four legs none of which should take longer than 2.5hrs.

Departing at civilised times on the other side of the world requires historical weather as I don’t fancy starting my flights at 9pm.

Departing those airports at my local time would mean flying with nighttime weather in MSFS assuming there was a FSL Concorde for that sim which I think will never happen.

And of course for Concorde accurate upper temps are critical. If they’re not close to actuals its performance is seriously impaired. AS is fine for those. What’s MSFS like at FL500-600?

Might be a moot point to be honest because unfortunately, the chances of a super-realistic 'study sim' (TM) BAC Concorde ever garnering enough potential buyers in MSFS to make the cost of developing one at a price commensurate with that amount of work, feasible, are pretty slim to say the least. So I'd be inclined to suspect it'll probably never show up in MSFS in super-realistic form. Sadly, there's probably just not enough people out there willing to pay that kind of money for an old airliner which doesn't operate for real any longer and hasn't done so for almost twenty years.

I could conceive that if the Boom Overture actually makes it into commercial use, that might possibly get a study sim version in MSFS since that would probably be a bit easier to do based on the technology it uses and the potential for more buyers of one of those in sim form, given that it would be the fastest current operational airliner in the world and a big PR subject because of that. That's when they'd really need to worry about the atmospherics at 60,000 feet being super realistic, so they've got a bit of time.

[C2615 324]

Mandatory and in-game update is the most NO-GO flag for me.

[mvr67 2]

Why should’nt we use the sims we have the planes for.

I use all 3 (xp11, msfs & pr3d)  and probably will keep using , depends on the plane  I want to fly with that day 🙂

For  the aerosoft crj I boot up MSFS ,  737 pr3d, a321 XP11, and also i don’t want to pay for yet another pmdg 737 😀

 

 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,060]

2 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

It's "old tech" with front facing clouds, but they still depict clouds the best with very low performance impact.  P3D volumetric clouds option (aka TrueSky) I feel could be implemented better and I hope they get the love they deserve, but they have issues right now.

Clouds are great candidates for DX12 hardware accelerated ray tracing...

Providing they look half decent and have a low impact on performance that will do me nicely. If buying a better graphics card was relatively easy I would have replaced my 1080Ti by now.

As for ray tracing I remember being torn back in Oct 2018 when I bought my current system as to whether I should spend another 500GBP on the 2080Ti over the 1080Ti. I decided not to as ray tracing wasn’t in P3D v4 so there seemed no point. Of course now the 2000 series are pretty old and the 4000 can’t be too far away.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,060]

7 hours ago, Chock said:

Might be a moot point to be honest because unfortunately, the chances of a super-realistic 'study sim' (TM) BAC Concorde ever garnering enough potential buyers in MSFS to make the cost of developing one at a price commensurate with that amount of work, feasible, are pretty slim to say the least. So I'd be inclined to suspect it'll probably never show up in MSFS in super-realistic form. Sadly, there's probably just not enough people out there willing to pay that kind of money for an old airliner which doesn't operate for real any longer and hasn't done so for almost twenty years.

There’s only one company who can do that and they’re still working on the P3Dv5 version. Release date unknown. If they ever announce a MSFS version that could seriously impact on P3D sales even though it would not appear for many years.

It’s such a beautiful aircraft I think a lot of people will buy the P3D version. That’s the most mature sim for reference level aircraft and will remain so for some time. There are valid reasons why people won’t buy MSFS and will always prefer P3D.

Watch how the DC Designs Concorde goes in MSFS. That’s a simpler version that might attract those daunted by the P3D version.

I don’t see the Boom aircraft appearing for many years. In any case it’s slower than Concorde and doesn’t have the aura. Even hardened American journalists went “wow” when it was shown to them prior to landing clearance being approved back in 76 at JFK.

[psolk 3,115]

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

There’s only one company who can do that and they’re still working on the P3Dv5 version. Release date unknown. If they ever announce a MSFS version that could seriously impact on P3D sales even though it would not appear for many years.

It’s such a beautiful aircraft I think a lot of people will buy the P3D version. That’s the most mature sim for reference level aircraft and will remain so for some time. There are valid reasons why people won’t buy MSFS and will always prefer P3D.

Watch how the DC Designs Concorde goes in MSFS. That’s a simpler version that might attract those daunted by the P3D version.

I don’t see the Boom aircraft appearing for many years. In any case it’s slower than Concorde and doesn’t have the aura. Even hardened American journalists went “wow” when it was shown to them prior to landing clearance being approved back in 76 at JFK.

Honestly Ray if it wasn't for you keeping hope alive for the FSL Concorde I would not have so much have thought about that product in years...  I think your emotional love of that plane is skewing the reality that it is is niche product within a niche market.  Nothing in P3D is selling a lot of copies.  Sadly I don't see the Concorde changing that.  Especially not with an MSFS Concorde releasing first.  The amount of people who will find the lack of INS in MSFS enough reason to come back and pay probably 5x more for the same aircraft in P3D are probably in the handfuls...  Historical weather issues and all I don't see droves of people flocking back to P3D for the FSL Concorde.... Yes, there are valid reasons for people sticking with P3D but that doesn't change the fact there has been mass exodus on the user and development side...  

Time will tell (who knows how much b/c FSL has such horrid communication) but my prediction is the FSL Concorde is attractive to a MUCH smaller audience than you seem to think...  The number of users who will find the DC Design Concorde not hardcore enough and want to pay exponentially more for the same aircraft at a later date (as MSFS continues to  mature) will become less and less the more time FSL let pass.  

I can't really say I feel for them, years overdue with no communication.  FSL was the definition of resting on their laurels in terms of communicating with the community.  Now you have Fenix whose release appears to be even more in depth than FSL getting the bus out first in MSFS and DC beating them to the punch with the Concorde...    Complacency kills and in this case it may be FSL left out in the cold unless they make a significant pivot.  

 

For me I use P3D until I have my add-on aircraft and airports migrated.  My Ultra Long hauls are still in aircraft not available in MSFS with HW support that is also not available yet in MSFS.  BUT once I can run my QW787 or PMDG 777 in MSFS with the add-on airports I desire I would "prefer:" to have all my add-ons in MSFS as long as MSFS performance does not degrade when they are introduced.  But for  now that's not an option so off to do KEWR-PHNL in the QW787 in P3D today 🙂 When I get done I will transfer to MSFS to explore the Islands.  My long hauls in the 777/787 are still in P3D.  

Edited February 14, 2022 by psolk

[psolk 3,115]

5 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Sure there are ... has always been niche hence why the price of such products are so high.  $200, $300, $400, $500 for a very realistic Concorde in P3D would not be a problem ... how many hours would one be "dug in" working out all the aspects of such a product?  100 hrs, 500 hrs?  How many hours do folks have in FSLab A3xx aircraft?  Lets say average buyer has 500 hrs in Concorde at $500 aircraft add-on ... still a very good value at $1/hr worth of enjoyment ... relatively cheap to other aspects of free time consumption in life activities.

Cheers, Rob.

How many people do you think are paying $500 for a Concorde add-on??  If that's the pricing it takes for it to be viable then @Chock is correct... 

 

Quote

 

10 hours ago, Chock said:

Sadly, there's probably just not enough people out there willing to pay that kind of money for an old airliner which doesn't operate for real any longer and hasn't done so for almost twenty years.

 

 

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 567]

Concorde without INS (but with FMC?) is not a Concorde.

PS: I'm not even talking about NAV/GPS, lol...

Edited February 14, 2022 by Juliet Alpha

[Ray Proudfoot 9,060]

@psolk, this is the second time you've posted more or less the same message. I don't understand why you feel the need to do it. I'm guessing you're not going to buy it so why the interest?

The DC Design's Concorde is a commendable effort and will fill a gap for those curious about flying it and it won't cost them much. Customers lack of knowledge about the systems means a GPS rather than three INSs isn't an issue. Neither is the inability to move fuel around 13 tanks.

Yes, the continuing silence from FSL is extremely annoying. But nothing we say will change the mindset of the main man over there. He has a skin of cast iron. Nothing anyone says will make a difference. I've given up asking questions over there because the last ones were treated with contempuous replies.

They are in a tricky situation as no plans for MSFS have been announced and others are now producing quality Airbus aircraft that many will consider perfectly acceptable at a fraction of the price FSL charge.

As for Concorde for P3D, it will arrive. They have spent too much time working on it. But when is a question only they know and the silence is deafening.

[psolk 3,115]

22 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@psolk, this is the second time you've posted more or less the same message. I don't understand why you feel the need to do it. I'm guessing you're not going to buy it so why the interest?

The DC Design's Concorde is a commendable effort and will fill a gap for those curious about flying it and it won't cost them much. Customers lack of knowledge about the systems means a GPS rather than three INSs isn't an issue. Neither is the inability to move fuel around 13 tanks.

Yes, the continuing silence from FSL is extremely annoying. But nothing we say will change the mindset of the main man over there. He has a skin of cast iron. Nothing anyone says will make a difference. I've given up asking questions over there because the last ones were treated with contempuous replies.

They are in a tricky situation as no plans for MSFS have been announced and others are now producing quality Airbus aircraft that many will consider perfectly acceptable at a fraction of the price FSL charge.

As for Concorde for P3D, it will arrive. They have spent too much time working on it. But when is a question only they know and the silence is deafening.

In total honesty I would have considered the FSL Concorde project long abandoned if not for you.  The only reason I have any interest at this point is b/c you have been talking about it for years and you use it repeatedly as one of your reasons for not moving to MSFS.  Which brings me to my second point.  How many times you have brought up the FSL Concorde as a reason for not moving to MSFS?  Twice I have responded?  I don't see the issue.  People comment on things all the time including yourself on MSFS and the Concorde so in the grand scheme of things me disagreeing twice shouldn't be an issue so long as I am civil and polite. 

My desire to purchase is irrelevant to this conversation or else those who don't intend on purchasing MSFS should not be allowed to comment on it (cough cough) Otherwise that would be a bit of a double standard 😉

I agree with the entire second half of your post which is very contrary to your post above I politely and respectfully disagreed with...   

[Fiorentoni 4,476]

I have already shifted 2 times to MSFS (temporarily) and came back again, because while I adore the visuals and the easy community folder stuff (god installing P3D airports, especially older ones from P3Dv4, is a chore and often ends up with googling how to fix stuff), it just doesn't satisfy my need for immersion and simulation. The lack of study level aircraft is one thing, but what's almost worse is the total lack of reliable weather (historical and live), the comical ground service stuff and the horrible camera stuff. This and the regular "outages" after sim updates or server updates or whatever (that server-reliance is a huge weakness of MSFS).
While I will probably use the Fenix A320 and PMDG's 737 (since I get it for free, I hope) in MSFS once they release, I will still mostly use P3D, not only because I love the 747 and 777, but because it satisfies me a lot better than MSFS due to the abovementioned stuff. Now if there was GSX in MSFS and Chaseplane, I would probably call it a day with P3D.
However, I do fear that this "state" will never be reached in MSFS, because they earn so much money with the casual customers, that they will either a) only slowly tackle those things I need or b) will rather do some more arcade stuff breaking and re-breaking the sim at least for the study level airplanes. I mean if I was Asobo/Microsoft b) is exactly what I would do, because that's what 90% of the customers want and that's where the money comes from.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,060]

46 minutes ago, psolk said:

How many times you have brought up the FSL Concorde as a reason for not moving to MSFS?  Twice I have responded?  I don't see the issue.  People comment on things all the time including yourself on MSFS and the Concorde so in the grand scheme of things me disagreeing twice shouldn't be an issue so long as I am civil and polite. 

Paul, having re-read your first post it contained no questions to me. Just your thoughts about how you think the project might go and opinions on me and how I feel about Concorde. Fine.

Your second post has a question (above) which I’ll answer. Me not wanting to buy MSFS in its current state is nothing to do with the situation regarding Concorde for P3D. It’s quite possible to have both. You don’t have to give up P3D before buying MSFS.

If you want to ask me questions about Concorde that’s fine. If you want to predict sales of it for P3D that too is fine. I don’t need to answer that since I have no knowledge of their operations.

I don’t see any point in discussing it at present because virtually nothing is known other than it is 64-bit for P3D v5.

[psolk 3,115]

56 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Paul, having re-read your first post it contained no questions to me. Just your thoughts about how you think the project might go and opinions on me and how I feel about Concorde. Fine.

Your second post has a question (above) which I’ll answer. Me not wanting to buy MSFS in its current state is nothing to do with the situation regarding Concorde for P3D. It’s quite possible to have both. You don’t have to give up P3D before buying MSFS.

If you want to ask me questions about Concorde that’s fine. If you want to predict sales of it for P3D that too is fine. I don’t need to answer that since I have no knowledge of their operations.

I don’t see any point in discussing it at present because virtually nothing is known other than it is 64-bit for P3D v5.

What I will say is there are 183kt tailwinds in P3D right now @FL350 EastBound NAT's!  

Currently doing 675 kts across the ground in the QW787 heading to LLBG with all my opencockpit modules GoFlight Hardware, 3 external screens for anicallaries...   Incredible starry night, you can feel the cold in the cockpit! 

Until I have ALL that in MSFS with P3D stability I will indeed continue to use both.  As of today the list of what MSFS needs and why I use P3D is predominantly a few add-ons.

Other than that MSFS is an incredible sim experience.

(Now we are back on topic) 🙂  

 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,060]

15 minutes ago, psolk said:

What I will say is there are 183kt tailwinds in P3D right now @FL350 EastBound NAT's!  

Currently doing 675 kts across the ground in the QW787 heading to LLBG

You've picked up the jet stream of course. Heading west it would be avoided like the plague.

Incidentally, there's no need to quote my whole post when replying. 😉 Just the bits you're responding to.

And you've proves both sims can be enjoyed. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.