3 hours ago, AGuther said:

Are you really sure about the Level-D sims and ProSim? Where is this info from?

No, not sure why people think that.

ProSim is not level-D.

ProSim is categorized as "FTD"' - Flight Training Device. Great for learning procedures, systems management. But not suitable for "hands on"- maneuvers such as Advanced UPRT.

A true level-D sim is categorized as "FFS" - Full Flight Simulator. In these simulators you can earn an A320 type rating starting from scratch (ZFT - zero flighttime training). And obviously these are crazy expensive to operate and maintain.

Edited April 10, 20224 yr by SAS443

15 minutes ago, tangerine said:

MS going on both platforms (PC and Console) was an amazing choice marketing wise (money), but the worst one for those who want hardcore stuff.

How about XP11 on mobile phones, not affecting the hardcore stuff?

8 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

How about XP11 on mobile phones, not affecting the hardcore stuff?

Yes of course. They are the same as PC and Xbox (didn't even say consoles). 

Anyways, I hope to be wrong. Hopefully they will keep improving the simulator.

13 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

How about XP11 on mobile phones, not affecting the hardcore stuff?

Exactly, another tiresome talking point is the "oh but MSFS is for XBox" cannard... just because a sim is made available for multiple platforms and configurations, that does not therefore automatically mean it caters *only* to the absolute minimum amongst said configs.  And besides, XBox is a pretty powerful platform in its own right (vs a lot of PCs out there already servicing supposedly "harcore" simmers), and has lots of users who are very serious about simming. And supporting various controller setups from keyboard+mouse to xbox controller to more complex setups means exactly just that: MSFS supports multiple hardware and controller platforms, and in no way prevents those who want to set it up and experience it in a "hardcore" way.

24 minutes ago, tangerine said:

Maybe you will understand what I am talking about without been disrespectful.

MS going on both platforms (PC and Console) was an amazing choice marketing wise (money), but the worst one for those who want hardcore stuff

Rest assured I respect your right to express your opinion on these boards.

However, a “developer” who has misgivings about a product being opened up to a larger audience and therefore a larger potential sales base seems ludicrous to me.

Please explain what limitations and shortcomings the game being available on Xbox has placed on ‘hardcore’ users?

I purchased the FSL A320 when it was first released - I thought, very realistic and flew it for several years.  But my PC crashed and  had to to be fixed by techies. Then tried to reinstall the A320 many times - no joy - will not work. Followed instructions to a T.  No real help from FSLabs support to get it back. I find FSL payware has so many roadblocks to rei-nstall their sims. (I also cannot get their Concorde to work again).  I finally deleted all FSLabs from my PC - lot of wasted $$$.

I'll take a freeware sim anytime

I've moved this back to Hangar chat, as it is not a strictly MSFS topic.

The original post made some assumptions that need challenged, for example characterizing P3D as an "ageing out of date platform."  I think the many professional P3D users, including the US Air Force, which use P3D for real-world training, would beg to differ.  The lack of photogenic graphics doesn't make the platform out-of-date where it counts for real-world training.  There are FAA-certified Prepar3D-based ATDs...can't say the same for MSFS.

The FSL Scarebus is expensive, but you get a great deal of systems depth and a lot of ancillary integration that makes full-flight scenarios quite enjoyable--e.g. integration with GSX ground handling, simulation of dispatch interactions etc.  It runs on a platform that allows fairly accurate weather simulation, with accurate visibility and ceiling depictions and ability to set historic weather for any date, season, or time-of-day.  If those things are important to you, then the freeware MSFS add-on will leave you wanting.  If the photogenic visuals are all-important, or if forecastable, accurate weather and deep systems fidelity are not priorities for you, then MSFS plus the FBW may be what you're looking for.

And nothing is written that says you can't have both...

And nothing is written that says you can't have both...

Well said Bob. I have FSL, Toliss and FBW and enjoy all three !,

 

Thanks guys! Came back from work and many posts to read through, fascinating to hear your opinions! 

@SAS443 Please accept my corrections, it is not used for FFS. Judging from the failures list in itself we will be in for a treat, even if UPRT is not a part of it. 

@Bob Scott Agreed and your view is appreciated, having spent countless amounts on V4 it has served me well, however when I look at the state of things in general with an unbiased mind MSFS certainly has the potential to compete. Look at it this way, will MSFS catch up to meet the fidelity of P3D in terms of systems/aircraft, yes. (PMDG/FENIX and many trusted companies pledging their support) Will P3D catch up to MSFS in terms of visuals, no.

To everyone else, yes I will definitely give the FBW a shot! Thanks again.  

 

3 hours ago, Rusty said:

Will P3D catch up to MSFS in terms of visuals, no.

Once you get used to MSFS visuals, it is extremely hard to even start other simulators lol. 

I find the notion that MSFS doesn't support complex aircraft addons or doesn't provide high fidelity simulation or isn't hardcore, ... quite tiring to be honest. From knowing the community I think it's safe to say it all comes down to addons in the end. Not one person who sticks to P3D for the fidelity that MSFS allegedly can't provide does so for the sake of the base sim. If we didn't have complex aircraft addons not many, if any, would be on P3D flying default aircraft and go on about how it's about the high fidelity stuff. The addons make P3D the hardcore machine for those seeking ultra realism (and I'm one of them).

There are already high fidelity aircraft working just fine in MSFS, namely the DC-6. Others are on the way and yes, the proof will be in the pudding. But I seriously doubt PMDG or Fenix for that matter would release something way short of what people are used to from PMDG and have been hearing about Fenix. Fast forward some time more and there will be many high fidelity aircraft out for MSFS and I can almost guarantee that no one at that point will be going on about MSFS not supporting proper, high fidelity simulation.

Personally, I'm on P3D at this time. When the PMDG 737 drops however, I'm gone and will only keep P3D around to fly the FSL Scarebus once a month to keep current with my VA until Fenix release the A320. There's only one thing I can't do in MSFS at that point that I do in P3D, and that is GSX. Other than that, I can fly my real world routes with real world equipment and weather by the numbers in MSFS just as I do in P3D.

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

I find the notion that MSFS doesn't support complex aircraft addons or doesn't provide high fidelity simulation or isn't hardcore, ... quite tiring to be honest. From knowing the community I think it's safe to say it all comes down to addons in the end. Not one person who sticks to P3D for the fidelity that MSFS allegedly can't provide does so for the sake of the base sim
.....
There's only one thing I can't do in MSFS at that point that I do in P3D, and that is GSX. Other than that, I can fly my real world routes with real world equipment and weather by the numbers in MSFS just as I do in P3D.

Very well said!! And to think MSFS is where it is just under two years after release, so much more to look forward to.

Edited April 10, 20224 yr by lwt1971

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

I find the notion that MSFS doesn't support complex aircraft addons or doesn't provide high fidelity simulation or isn't hardcore, ... quite tiring to be honest

Yep true story, it is very tiring indeed, that’s why I didn’t bother arguing. I would rather enjoy MSFS and ignore all these nonsense repeated claims.

3 hours ago, threegreen said:

I find the notion that MSFS doesn't support complex aircraft addons or doesn't provide high fidelity simulation or isn't hardcore, ... quite tiring to be honest. From knowing the community I think it's safe to say it all comes down to addons in the end. Not one person who sticks to P3D for the fidelity that MSFS allegedly can't provide does so for the sake of the base sim. If we didn't have complex aircraft addons not many, if any, would be on P3D flying default aircraft and go on about how it's about the high fidelity stuff. The addons make P3D the hardcore machine for those seeking ultra realism (and I'm one of them).

There are already high fidelity aircraft working just fine in MSFS, namely the DC-6. Others are on the way and yes, the proof will be in the pudding. But I seriously doubt PMDG or Fenix for that matter would release something way short of what people are used to from PMDG and have been hearing about Fenix. Fast forward some time more and there will be many high fidelity aircraft out for MSFS and I can almost guarantee that no one at that point will be going on about MSFS not supporting proper, high fidelity simulation.

Personally, I'm on P3D at this time. When the PMDG 737 drops however, I'm gone and will only keep P3D around to fly the FSL Scarebus once a month to keep current with my VA until Fenix release the A320. There's only one thing I can't do in MSFS at that point that I do in P3D, and that is GSX. Other than that, I can fly my real world routes with real world equipment and weather by the numbers in MSFS just as I do in P3D.

I do have to take issue with the "weather by the numbers" comment.  "Weather by the random numbers" might sum it up better.  Rarely does the so-called real-time weather in MSFS match what I see out my window--and sometimes the disconnects are pretty dramatic.  20 months after release we still have no control over visibility in the sim--one of the most basic weather parameters affecting flight--and even if we could set it, the visibility often does not actually match what is reported (e.g. 1/2 mile vis reported and I'm eyeballing the runway 3 miles out on final).  There is no ability to capture winds aloft data--current or forecast--from the weather engine for flight planning or FMS input.  I can't fly a daytime flight in Africa/Asia (e.g. high/hot profile out of Addis Ababa) with system weather unless it's the middle of the night here, etc etc 

I do agree that it comes down to add-ons in the end.  And to that end, what decent weather add-ons will ever be possible with Asobo continuing to stubbornly refuse consideration of third-party access/improvements to the weather engine?

"It's coming" is the hoarse-throated battle cry of the MSFS community, but Asobo has pretty much told us "it's never coming" when it comes to bringing the smartest guys in the room in to fix the weather limitations in MSFS.  I still see weather as the Achilles heel of MSFS.  I wish there was a better path forward.  And who knows, maybe if we could get the weather under control, the buildings would stop melting like wax figurines in the hot sun...

So @Rusty I think another proposition should be added to your observations--"will MSFS weather ever reach the fidelity of P3D or X-Plane plus ActiveSky?  No."

4 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

And to that end, what decent weather add-ons will ever be possible with Asobo continuing to stubbornly refuse consideration of third-party access/improvements to the weather engine?

"It's coming" is the hoarse-throated battle cry of the MSFS community, but Asobo has pretty much told us "it's never coming" when it comes to bringing the smartest guys in the room in to fix the weather limitations in MSFS.  I still see weather as the Achilles heel of MSFS. 

 

8 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

Yep true story, it is very tiring indeed, that’s why I didn’t bother arguing. I would rather enjoy MSFS and ignore all these nonsense repeated claims.

Yep.  Enjoy all of those complex aircraft which are so dependent on accurate weather parameters being fed into their flight management systems to perform realistically.  Don't accurately model one - don't accurately model the other.   But hey,  I can see my molten apartment building in the sim ................