I am really getting tired of all these updates

[Christopher Low 5,354]

That "old, tired product" is giving me plenty of enjoyment at the moment. Whilst I am somewhat unique with respect to how I use the simulator, the regions where I fly my PMDG 737NGX and 777 (mainly United Kingdom and Netherlands) are extremely well detailed, and full of realistic AI planes (both civilian and military) and ships.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,960]

4 hours ago, Noel said:

Just an old tired product, at least thru v4.x.

So you never tried v5? All world airports updated plus major improvements to world scenery and ground textures. Africa, Asia and South America and the rest now as detailed as Europe and North America with Ultimate Terrain X installed.

CPU load balancing vastly better than v4. LM for whatever reason chose not to shout these improvements from the rooftop. Performance has never been better.

[The Moose 1,177]

On 5/18/2022 at 9:29 PM, MrBitstFlyer said:

I wonder how many CDs it would come on with a boxed version? 😁

Approx. 3 million CD Roms for the 2 Petabytes of cloud stored data.   Might take a while to install...

[Bob Scott 7,721]

OK, folks, I just hid a bunch of posts venturing into the verboten realm of P3D licensing discussions.

And, as luck would have it, this is an MSFS thread in the MSFS forum.  Let's get this back on topic, please.

[MDFlier 2,031]

On 5/18/2022 at 12:01 PM, SubtotalGuide said:

Everyone buying the latest and greatest addon like the PMDG 737 is part of the problem. As long as we keep on giving Microsoft money, directly or indirectly, there will be no incentive for them to polish this sim. All they need is hype for the initial purchase, updates be damned.

I feel dumber after reading this.

[cobalt 798]

7 hours ago, The Moose said:

Approx. 3 million CD Roms for the 2 Petabytes of cloud stored data.   Might take a while to install...

And a computer with a really, really, big storage capacity!

[cobalt 798]

On 5/22/2022 at 4:40 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

So you never tried v5? All world airports updated plus major improvements to world scenery and ground textures. Africa, Asia and South America and the rest now as detailed as Europe and North America with Ultimate Terrain X installed.

CPU load balancing vastly better than v4. LM for whatever reason chose not to shout these improvements from the rooftop. Performance has never been better.

FSX was great, especially with Ultimate Terrain, and I have no reason to doubt the same is true of the current P3D. But artificial computer-drawn scenery simply cannot come close -- not remotely close -- to matching satellite-based imagery for depicting the real world. This really hits home when I look at my enhanced FSX. What looked so wonderful pre-MSFS, now looks like yesterday's sim. I will never go back.

Edited May 23, 2022 by cobalt

[Ray Proudfoot 8,960]

30 minutes ago, cobalt said:

What looked so wonderful pre-MSFS, now looks like yesterday's sim. I will never go back.

I grant you that at 1500 feet nothing can touch MSFS. I saw that for myself on Saturday at a flight sim meeting on a 49” 4K TV flying around Liverpool and then west to Anglesey. I could even see the footpath I walked along last year.

But flying a 737 at FL350 I see a completely different view and the heavy blue cast when looking at the ground compares very unfavourably to the equivalent in v5 with EA off.

That for me confirms my feelings that MSFS is great for low-level VFR But P3D remains my preferred sim for IFR.

[cobalt 798]

Thanks, Ray. Of course, to get to FL 350 you still start at ground level. But the question is, where do we go from here? What is more likely: that P3D / FSX/ X-Plane will ever match MSFS for VFR flying, or that MSFS will improve for high-altitude flying? I put my money on the latter.

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by cobalt

[blueshark747 1,843]

Huh?

What does MSFS need to improve at FL350?

Are we enjoying the same sim here?

The atmospheric visuals in MSFS are absolutely gorgeous and unmatched even at FL350 especially after SU9.

The cloud, haze, fog, shadow cast on terrain looks even more realistic with 3D depth. 

It makes the prior sim platforms look completely bland and unrealistic in comparison.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

52 minutes ago, cobalt said:

FSX was great, especially with Ultimate Terrain, and I have no reason to doubt the same is true of the current P3D. But artificial computer-drawn scenery simply cannot come close -- not remotely close -- to matching satellite-based imagery for depicting the real world. This really hits home when I look at my enhanced FSX. What looked so wonderful pre-MSFS, now looks like yesterday's sim. I will never go back.

I agree now, that my current MSFS 'world' is as far as I am concerned...truly,  'as real as it gets'...especially flying over my 'business routes'.   Having said that though...nothing yet, (again, my subjective opinion in play...) beats P3D 5.(x)'s water depiction on 'high' or 'ultra' can't remember right now, how the highest is stated...   Put wind to that P3D water surface...and not ONLY does it looks good, but your plane (floats) or boats react to those waves...and (yes...) I have plowed a number of times, in the past,  burying the pontoons that flipped me over when on 'high/ultra' on a day with winds above 15 knots.   MSFS's water interaction is completely non-existent at this posting...  Non existent.  So....there are certainly elements of both P3D and XP11, and even more the anticipated XP12...that (in my view) one should have all three of the Flight Sim Trifecta...as it most certainly is on my system.  I use all three, in cycles...depending a lot on the thrust of the intended flight...  Again,  nothing touches P3D for water operations, ..that makes you feel you are ON the water...and can be KILLED if you bork the landing....wave/wind/ combo's upon attempted touch down.

[Tom Wright 438]

One thing that always frustrated me about P3D (and FSX before that) was that the ground textures would often blur out if you were at high altitude and/or flying too fast. At a guess because the engine couldn't render them in full sharpness quickly enough to keep up with the speed you were covering the ground. It was worse with photo based scenery.

I don't get that any more with MSFS. The ground textures stay sharp even up at 35,000 feet.

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Tom Wright

[cobalt 798]

Not to belabor the point, but here again I will bet that MSFS will fixes the water-realism issue (recall that it wasn't that long ago that wakes and waves appeared in MSFS). Aside from these relatively minor issues, the overriding reality is that MSFS is the future. This is becoming clearer all the time.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

2 minutes ago, Tom Wright said:

One thing that always frustrated me about P3D (and FSX before that) was that the ground textures would often blur out if you were at high altitude and/or flying too fast. At a guess because the engine couldn't render them in full sharpness quickly enough to keep up with the speed you were covering the ground.

I don't get that any more with MSFS. The ground textures stay sharp even up at 35,000 feet.

 

On my ancient system...a modest system by all standards, now...with P3D 5.x...I get no further 'blur' or even terrain graphics 'tightening up' along my flight path. It is the same performance as MSFS is right now...but that only came with P3D 5 (latest incarnation).

[Tom Wright 438]

Just now, Sesquashtoo said:

On my ancient system...a modest system by all standards, now...with P3D 5.x...I get no further 'blur' or even terrain graphics 'tightening up' along my flight path. It is the same performance as MSFS is right now...but that only came with P3D 5 (latest incarnation).

Oh fair enough. I've not used it since 4.5