It's been half a year since 5.3 came out

[Christopher Low 5,359]

During a flight sim session in P3Dv4...

• How much time do I spend looking at the scenery? 60%
• How much time do I spend monitoring the aircraft systems? 40%
• How much time do I spend away from the sim doing other things? 0%

The first two are very rough estimates. The third one is spot on.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Christopher Low

[Stavros 295]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@IanHarrison, it will be interesting to hear from others on this. If they provide similar numbers to yours and mine it dies suggest looking out if the window is far  from the top priority.

According to Ian Harrison, of the time he spends in the sim and not doing other things, he has a 60-40 split between managing systems and looking at scenery. I wouldn’t quite say that’s similar to your 80/15 split you claim to have in the Concorde 😉

 

It is a bit of a silly question anyway though. If the scenery looks good I will spend more time looking at it. If it looks bad (or looks the same as scenery in other parts of the world) then obviously I’ll spend less time looking at it.

[psolk 3,044]

For me it doesn't matter what the ratio is the key is every time I look out the window no matter where I am in the globe I want to see a realistic depiction of the world 100% of the time even if that's only 75% of the flight or 15% of the flight.   That's what I would love to see P3D progress to.

I don't want to have to purchase global scenery enhancements and photo real add-ons for each region individually to achieve this and be left with massive areas of the globe undeveloped due to lack of add-on developers. 

To try and downplay the relevance of realistic and improved scenery is futile.  It is also clearly trying to downplay the relevance of what MSFS has accomplished by saying "it's not important"  

 

If there was a V6 with streaming data and imagery no one would ever want to go back to what V5 looks like that's for sure.  

So for me this is one of those "searching" topics.  Even if I were to stay on P3D I always want better scenery as has just about every simmer who does anything but pure IFR fly by the panel only flying...  To suggest it's not important is indeed silly imho.  And please don't give me the you can't see the scenery beneath the clouds and it's mostly cloudy where I fly argument, refer back to my first line of this post. 

For me it doesn't matter what the ratio is the key is every time I look out the window no matter where I am in the globe I want to see a realistic depiction of the world 100% of the time even if that's only 75% of the flight or 15% of the flight.  

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by psolk

[Holdit 551]

Pretty much the same for me across all three sims.

• How much time do I spend looking at the scenery? 50%
• How much time do I spend monitoring the aircraft systems? 50%
• How much time do I spend away from the sim doing other things? 0%

The last one is a bit grey because although I'm never away from the sim I sometimes do things that are not looking at the scenery and not monitoring systems either e.g. reading the manual for the aircraft, looking at charts, etc. but these are things a real-world pilot might do too. For me, long-haul is any flight over 45 minutes , whcih doesn't leave time for anything else so I'm either 100% simming or 100% not simming.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,980]

48 minutes ago, StAgre said:

According to Ian Harrison, of the time he spends in the sim and not doing other things, he has a 60-40 split between managing systems and looking at scenery. I wouldn’t quite say that’s similar to your 80/15 split you claim to have in the Concorde 😉

I make it 25/75 according to his latest post. 25% related to the sim; 75% unrelated. His longer flights are probably the reason the 75% is that high.

52 minutes ago, StAgre said:

It is a bit of a silly question anyway though. If the scenery looks good I will spend more time looking at it. If it looks bad (or looks the same as scenery in other parts of the world) then obviously I’ll spend less time looking at it.

I don’t consider it silly. It shows how people use their sim. How much scenery do you think is visible at 6 miles up? There’s a big difference to what you’ll see <2000ft.

As far as Concorde flights are concerned the supersonic aspect is over ocean. That will look exactly the same in any of the three major sims.

 

[neilhewitt 494]

2 hours ago, Afterburner said:

As far as historical weather, I understand your point about the need to store tremendous amounts of data, but that amount will be manageable if you provide historical weather just a few weeks into the past (and not necessarily 2+ years, like Active Sky does), which is better than no historical weather at all. Sometimes, you want to repeat a scenario with a specific weather that gave you challenge, which is what a flight "simulator" should be for.

I forgot to mention - MeteoBlue already has historical weather data. You can buy access to it just like the live forecast data. The true cost for MS would be running an arbitrary number of weather simulations in the cloud for as many users as they had not on live time. That's untenable. What they need to be able to do is generate a 'live-like' weather simulation directly from historical data on your PC; but based on what I know I think that might not be possible due to the computational complexity. METAR-style generation of the kind that REX does based on the weather theme tech may be all that's possible there. 

Which, in point of fact, is what P3D does too with ActiveSky etc. 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,980]

@psolk, I invited people to give me three pieces of info. You declined preferring to go into another long post about MSFS. Please refrain from replying on this topic unless you have something useful to say about P3D.

A complaint was made about your post. Another moderator chose to allow your post to remain visible. That might not always be the case if you persist.

[psolk 3,044]

18 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@psolk, I invited people to give me three pieces of info. You declined preferring to go into another long post about MSFS. Please refrain from replying on this topic unless you have something useful to say about P3D.

A complaint was made about your post. Another moderator chose to allow your post to remain visible. That might not always be the case if you persist.

What I wrote was entirely about what I would like to see in P3D v6.  

I was not responding to your post I was responding to the post after yours, I did not realize all  subsequent posts had to be a direct reply to yours.  

I will repeat my response of what I would like to see in P3D in the framework of your question.  

For me it doesn't matter what the ratio is the key is every time I look out the window no matter where I am in the globe I want to see a realistic depiction of the world 100% of the time even if that's only 75% of the flight or 15% of the flight.    No mention of MSFS at all, just what I would like to see in the next version of P3D.

Also, to put it into context I would find it hard to deliver a ratio and similar to being in the car and similar to what my real flight instructor told me I am constantly scanning and using peripheral vision.  So chances are I am looking at both simultaneously.  

So 100% looking out the window 100% scanning instruments and 100% at the sim for me although especially on long hauls I tend to do other things while Otto is in command and look up at the scenery and flight progress.   

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by psolk

[dave2013 1,130]

20 minutes ago, neilhewitt said:

but based on what I know I think that might not be possible due to the computational complexity.

Is that level of intense computational weather modeling really necessary for a flight simulator?  I mean, to the point where the data and algorithms required are too much for a user's PC to store/handle?

I know we all want accurate and realistic weather, but is it that much better than what Active Sky does?

Dave

Edited September 1, 2022 by dave2013

[Cognita 1,089]

7 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

That is a rather cack-handed way of putting it! P3D with add-ons is excellent, therefore I think you mean "Not even anywhere near P3D with add-ons". At least I hope you do.

Yes, that is a better way of saying it! Thank you.

[jorgensandersen 21]

psolk wrote: "What I wrote was entirely about what I would like to see in P3D v6. "

OK, fine. But now, think. And remember what the purpose of P3D, as it comes from L-M, is. It is a training tool for large commercial corporations and government organizations, amongst those military organizations. If you think for even one second that such organizations would want an open Internet connection into their training systems for whatever reason (streaming scenery amongst them), you have another think or fifteen coming.

And for me personally, photoscenery is "Good Enough™" - it just takes up a lot of space...

Jorgen

[IanHarrison 522]

18 minutes ago, psolk said:

For me it doesn't matter what the ratio is the key is every time I look out the window no matter where I am in the globe I want to see a realistic depiction of the world 100% of the time even if that's only 75% of the flight or 15% of the flight.    No mention of MSFS at all, just what I would like to see in the next version of P3D.

 

That would be nice to have but if you are flying for 6 hours over the Ocean, does one wave look different to another? Over land, a desert is a desert is a desert. Over populated areas I totally agree with you. It would be nice. 

This in essence goes to why you sim. I would suggest that the take-off, landing and related climb/descent procedures are what matter to most. Unless you are flying the Concorde or any other plane where fuel management is critical, then those areas of flight are not critical and you can do something else and let the A/P handle it. Looking out the window for 5/6 hours is not my idea of fun, even if it were to be "real".

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 541]

IFR/VFR

• How much time do I spend looking at the scenery? 35/70
• How much time do I spend monitoring the aircraft systems? 40/20
• How much time do I spend away from the sim doing other things? 25/10

[psolk 3,044]

OK, clearly I am in the minority here wanting better scenery so maybe I am no longer the P3D target user.  I'll chase myself out of this forum now for suggesting things can be improved.  Sad considering I can't even post what I actually feel about the sim I am using right now, I thought that's what this thread was... 

  

11 minutes ago, jorgensandersen said:

psolk wrote: "What I wrote was entirely about what I would like to see in P3D v6. "

OK, fine. But now, think. And remember what the purpose of P3D, as it comes from L-M, is. It is a training tool for large commercial corporations and government organizations, amongst those military organizations. If you think for even one second that such organizations would want an open Internet connection into their training systems for whatever reason (streaming scenery amongst them), you have another think or fifteen coming.

And for me personally, photoscenery is "Good Enough™" - it just takes up a lot of space...

Jorgen

There is no reason to be so snarky about someone "wanting" improved scenery in P3D.  I would love to fly my QW 787 in a world that had default photoscenery provided by LM.  What I mentioned was not having to want to purchase it again regionally if there was a V6.  Photoreal scenery is incredibly detailed especially when coupled with the right autogen.  I would totally be happy with that AND if it did away with the streaming requirement for air gapped networks then all the better.

Geez, I can't believe someone wanting better scenery in the next version (as a current P3D user sitting here right now in the QW787 at DD KEWR mind you) is so offensive in this forum nowadays.  

 

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by psolk

[Stavros 295]

39 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

but is it that much better than what Active Sky does?

Yes, it is.

Generating weather from METAR and Winds Aloft data only gets you so far. If you fly over the ocean or other remote areas of the world, there isn't information about cloud cover, for example. You also don't experience real world weather phenomena that are related to geographic features, such as turbulence caused by mountains. Now, you may not care about these things, but they are real phenomena that pilots experience and Activesky cannot simulate them with the data it has available to it.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I don’t consider it silly. It shows how people use their sim. How much scenery do you think is visible at 6 miles up? There’s a big difference to what you’ll see <2000ft.

A lot, in my experience. I've been lucky enough to see the mountains of Siberia, vast farmland of the Midwestern U.S., and the snow covered Alps from the window of a plane. It's what captivated me about aviation in the first place when I was a child. And it still does every time I fly.

16 minutes ago, IanHarrison said:

Looking out the window for 5/6 hours is not my idea of fun, even if it were to be "real".

Maybe, but it certainly is a lot *more* fun when those 5 hours aren't default landclasses and scenery. I made a little travel screenshot post in the screenshots forum the other day that looked at the scenery I flew over on a 5-hour flight from Beijing to Kashgar. No doubt the flight was made more enjoyable by having good, region-specific scenery. P3D has this in areas where there are scenery addons like Orbx Regions and I think it's easy to see why it makes the experience more enjoyable, even if you are a true no-distractions-I-purely-look-at-instruments pilot.

Even real pilots enjoy looking out the window 😉

Edited September 1, 2022 by StAgre