Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Redge

MSFS Forum surpasses Prepar3D post count…

Recommended Posts

The reason why MSFS is so successful, and probably the most successful flight simulator ever made, is because of a few things right out of the gate:

1. Out of the box it ran well even on mid- and low-tier hardware
2. Out of the box it looked very good, even at medium settings
3. Out of the box the default planes looked excellent

In other words, simmers didn't immediately feel like they had to buy $3000 worth of scenery addons just to make the sim look decent. 

And, of course, the biggest reason for MSFS's success: the freeware mod community that immediately jumped into action

The constant free stuff that MSFS provides in form of world updates don't hurt either. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Dillon said:

That being said I'm rooting for Lockheed and Laminar.  If they can get a deal going with Google Earth they'd be back in the game.

I think Austin has said Laminar has zero interest in trying to equal MSFS's photogrammatry; that he considers it an eye-candy distraction that is of no interest to real simmers.

  • Like 1

James David Walley

Ryzen 7 7700X, 32 GB, RTX 3080

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Can you tell me something about the MSFS failure simulation and how vastly superior it is?

There's absolutely nothing better when it comes to simulating CTD failures! 😈

  • Like 4

James David Walley

Ryzen 7 7700X, 32 GB, RTX 3080

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JDWalley said:

There's absolutely nothing better when it comes to simulating CTD failures! 😈

I never could bear to use XP long enough to find out, but I had WAY more CTD crashes in FSX/P3D days than MSFS.  not even close.  and that's even before I would consider OOM's and DX12 VRAM depletion as part of that number.

 

Now, certainly there appear to be folks having those issues in msfs, and I'm not trying to minimize that, but I can only speak from my experience, and other than one or 2 CTD's from third party sceneries, my msfs has been very rock solid stable

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

When I said about 1,5 years ago in here that MSFS is the better Plattform and will overtake and leave P3D dead in the water - I got some serious backlash. 
 

Well. Yeah. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Lets face it, the problem there is with MSFS is that due to an incomplete and undocumented SDK, no complex « study level » aircraft will be possible before a long time. 🤭

  • Like 3

Dominique

Simming since 1981 -  4770k@3.7 GHz with 16 GB of RAM and a 1080 with 8 GB VRAM running a 27" @ 2560*1440 - Windows 10 - Warthog HOTAS - MFG pedals - MSFS Standard version with Steam

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, David Mills said:

I resent the implication that some of us are guilty of sim tribalism. It isn't our fault that our chosen sim is vastly superior to all others in every conceivable way.

"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people that they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience – this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." –Aldous Huxley

  • Like 3

Dominique

Simming since 1981 -  4770k@3.7 GHz with 16 GB of RAM and a 1080 with 8 GB VRAM running a 27" @ 2560*1440 - Windows 10 - Warthog HOTAS - MFG pedals - MSFS Standard version with Steam

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, ShawnG said:

I never could bear to use XP long enough to find out, but I had WAY more CTD crashes in FSX/P3D days than MSFS.  not even close.  and that's even before I would consider OOM's and DX12 VRAM depletion as part of that number.

 

Now, certainly there appear to be folks having those issues in msfs, and I'm not trying to minimize that, but I can only speak from my experience, and other than one or 2 CTD's from third party sceneries, my msfs has been very rock solid stable

I can't remember if I ever had any CTDs in X-Plane (although I won't rule out the possibility), but I did have a completely hilarious bug with the FF 767 where I would taxi to the gate, set the parking brake, turn on the APU, shut down the engines, maybe do some other shutdown stuff...and then the plane would suddenly "explode," launch itself about a hundred feet into the air, flip around a couple of times, and land on its back, occasionally "twitching" every so often.

(Another fun experience with that particular add-on, which was in part my fault:  completing an overnight flight from KBOS to EGLL, I'm on final approach, and only about five hundred feet off the ground, when suddenly the AP tries swinging the plane off to the right of the runway and spooling up the engines.  I immediately disconnect both and try hand-flying it to a landing - probably should have gone around, but it happened so fast I was like "what the Word Not Allowed?"  I get it down but at far too high a speed, whereupon the 767 overruns the runway, crashes through the outer fence, crosses a road, and runs through some rural backyards before coasting to a stop a few feet from someone's "plausibly realistic" bungalow, at which point the program solemnly informs me that "you blew a tire."  YA THINK???  Seriously, it wasn't a high-water-mark of my piloting skills, but that message made the whole thing worthwhile.)

Edited by JDWalley
  • Like 2

James David Walley

Ryzen 7 7700X, 32 GB, RTX 3080

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, JDWalley said:

I think Austin has said Laminar has zero interest in trying to equal MSFS's photogrammatry; that he considers it an eye-candy distraction that is of no interest to real simmers.

I truly appreciate Austin and his passion for flight simulation that has truly contributed to this hobby. But I don't understand how he draws this line between what is relevant to flight sinulators and what is just unnecessary eye candy.

They've completely overhauled the lighting engine in X-Plane 12 which I think is great and just what the sim needs. I just fail to understand how the lighting is any way less eye candy distraction than the terrain scenery. It feels to me he may be a bit disingenious here.

Edited by Kopteeni
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

The reason why MSFS is so successful, and probably the most successful flight simulator ever made, is because of a few things right out of the gate:

...

The reason why McDonalds is so successful, is because of its good food. No specialty restaurant comes close to this - and that's the reason why they don't sell as much as McD 🤣.

Edited by flying_carpet
  • Like 1

Watch my YT-channel: https://www.youtube.com/@flyingcarpet1340/

Customer of X-Plane, Aerofly, Flightgear, MSFS.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Kopteeni said:

I truly appreciate Austin and his passion for flight simulation that has truly contributed to this hobby. But I don't understand how he draws this line between what is relevant to flight sinulators and what is just unnecessary eye candy.

They've completely overhauled the lighting engine in X-Plane 12 which I think is great and just what the sim needs. I just fail to understand how the lighting is any way less eye candy distraction than the terrain scenery. It feels to me he may be a bit disingenious here.

Frankly, Austin seems to be addicted to the notion that "the things I myself want are the only things anyone else should want -- and, if they want something else, it's proof they don't deserve what I'm offering."  It's probably a pretty comfortable attitude to have...as long as you already have enough in the bank to last you the rest of your days.

  • Like 3

James David Walley

Ryzen 7 7700X, 32 GB, RTX 3080

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JDWalley said:

Frankly, Austin seems to be addicted to the notion that "the things I myself want are the only things anyone else should want -- and, if they want something else, it's proof they don't deserve what I'm offering."  It's probably a pretty comfortable attitude to have...as long as you already have enough in the bank to last you the rest of your days.

Yep... it can work very well for you if your interests perfectly align with his. And if they don't... better find something else to put your money in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

The reason why McDonalds is so successful, is because of its good food. No specialty restaurant comes close to this - and that's the reason why they don't sell as much as McD 🤣.

Frankly, the reason McDonald's is so successful is that, at the time it launched, it offered a better-quality product than 90% of the drive-up burger joints that were its competition.  Sure, it doesn't compare with premium steakhouses, but, to continue the analogy, that's like saying that neither X-Plane nor MSFS can compare with the true "high-end" experience of a warehouse crammed with official full-motion simulators of the various Boeing and Airbus planes.

  • Like 1

James David Walley

Ryzen 7 7700X, 32 GB, RTX 3080

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Kopteeni said:

I truly appreciate Austin and his passion for flight simulation that has truly contributed to this hobby. But I don't understand how he draws this line between what is relevant to flight sinulators and what is just unnecessary eye candy.

They've completely overhauled the lighting engine in X-Plane 12 which I think is great and just what the sim needs. I just fail to understand how the lighting is any way less eye candy distraction than the terrain scenery. It feels to me he may be a bit disingenious here.

Because Austin can’t match satellite and photogrammetry, with a company like Blackshark AI converting 2D satellite objects into 3D objects, for the entire world. He would probably need to partner with a company like Google for that and Google would charge him an arm and a leg.

So if it’s not possible, the next option is to downplay it.

The irony is, this satellite & photogrammetry we have now is just version 1 of this technology, and it’s already very good.  This technology will get better and more advanced over time. Satellite & photogrammetry, with conversion of 2D to 3D objects is the future, not old style autogen.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

i5-12400, RTX 3060 Ti, 32 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Because Austin can’t match satellite and photogrammetry, with a company like Blackshark AI converting 2D satellite objects into 3D objects, for the entire world. He would probably need to partner with a company like Google for that and Google would charge him an arm and a leg.

So if it’s not possible, the next option is to downplay it.

The irony is, this satellite & photogrammetry we have now is just version 1 of this technology, and it’s already very good.  This technology will get better and more advanced over time. Satellite & photogrammetry, with conversion of 2D to 3D objects is the future, not old style autogen.

I can only hope for X-Plane's future's sake that by the time this tech is available for anyone to adopt (without breaking the bank) that he hasn't created such a mental barrier about it all that he would flat out refuse to implement it for X-Plane 🤔

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...