The Definition of Madness

[abrams_tank 7,459]

6 hours ago, Boeingnut said:

Again, we were discussing P3d and the MSFS apologists arrive

I don't think that type of language is needed.I read the original comment by @Chapstick and unless that comment is edited further, I don't see anything wrong with it.  I'm not going to defend any subsequent comments by Chapstick though, but at least that particular comment was fine and didn't warrant the type of response you gave, including using the words "MSFS apologists."

The reason is, there is nothing wrong with providing accurate information to help people get better, and more accurate information.  Let's flip the script.  If somebody, in an effort to boost MSFS, made an inaccurate statement about P3D or XP, just to make MSFS look better, I wouldn't want that either in the MSFS forum here at Avsim.  I would want accurate information about P3D and XP.  You shouldn't have to call someone an "???? apologist" if they provide accurate information in a civil way.

And for me, this goes not only here at Avsim (on any forum at Avsim), but for any forum or chat that I browse on the internet. I always prefer accurate information, provided it's done in a civil manner (and for that that comment by Chapstick, I don't see it as uncivil - but only for that comment and not for any subsequent comments by Chapstick).

Edited October 20, 2022 by abrams_tank

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

7 hours ago, Chapstick said:

This just isn't true. MSFS allows for much more detailed airports with things like interior modeling without a massive perf hit and waaaayy better night lighting, both in and out the cockpit. 

I’m at a gate. I can’t see the rest of the airport. In any case I was referring to what GSX, and only GSX, provides.

Unless you want to discuss what the next version of P3D might provide please do not bring up MSFS here.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

6 hours ago, Chapstick said:

You guys only get mad when MSFS is pointed out in a positive light here.

The purpose of this topic is to discuss P3D. Any further posts pointing out the benefits of MSFS will be hidden.

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 556]

As I have mentioned on other occasions, if v6 breaks compatibility for me is not worth it and I will continue with v5 despite all its problems.

More than a photorealistic scenery, what I want is a better lighting system and better integration with weather engines.

At the moment, as I bought new hardware, I haven't installed P3D yet and I'm analyzing the pros and cons between one and "the other" (yes, I admit to using "the other one simulator even though it also has its problems...).

[KL Oo 706]

Although I've currently uninstalled P3D and am running the other simulator @Ray Proudfootwon't let us mention, I'd purchase a P3D V6 on day one providing it provided some performance improvement - particularly on main thread limited tasks like AI Traffic.

If I'm honest, I agree that P3D is more 'complete' - and I guess that is to be expected after so many years in development. Spending time in MSFS I now appreciate some of the things I took for granted in P3D (like the AI traffic system, the ability to modify AFCAD/ADE files etc). That said, it didn't seem to matter what hardware I threw at P3D V5, for me it just couldn't quite get to a performance state I was happy with (yes I know, lots of people are - but I wasn't). Probably because I love AI traffic and was always main thread limited. 

So if V6 includes some significant performance uplift, and the third party developers of the software that we all love update their addons (presuming they would need an update) then I'll be one of those like may just switch back...

[787flyer 633]

For v6, I would prefer to see LM working on something that could take advantage of DLSS and the Windows scheduler to optimize performance.

I also agree, while lighting has improved in EA mode it could do with some further improvements. I believe EA is still in its experimental form but I am now a convert.

I would also mention default ATC, but I am not going too! I think with the advent of other ATC add-ons for P3D already available, its likely LM will not spend any more time on this (pure speculation on my part).

 

Having said that, I would say I am quite happy with v5.3. I am not waiting with baited breath for v6. It will come along as and when LM releases it. If I need to survive on v5  and potentially not go to v6, for me this is a viable option.

With multiple years of development and 5 major releases of P3D behind us, for a sim it is mature with a plethora of add-on support for it too and it does what I need it to do.

I am looking forward to the TFDI MD-11 coming to P3D, also iFly's 737 Max and I would certainly consider FSLabs A330 and Concorde when they come along, but that's just icing on the cake for this sim platform.

[MarkW 1,498]

I would really hope that if compatibility with V6 requires only minor programming changes that developers will just get it done and allow current owners to continue using their addons.  Obviously major work is going to be an issue and will probably stop progress dead in its tracks.

[neilhewitt 494]

What I'd want to see in any v6 is, frankly, similar performance on similar hardware to The Other Sim That Shall Not Be Named, at a similar level of complexity in terms of scenery. Not expecting as-good-as visuals, but P3D chokes on far fewer simobjects. And since it's likely that new scenery add-ons will be few and far between, better base scenery is a must. Better weather depiction is also a must, true evolving weather depiction is vital. Flying along in overcast and then suddenly the sky is clear because you've changed METARs doesn't cut it any more, and the best ActiveSky can do in terms of transitions now is frankly not good enough given the competition, the sim needs to provide a way for 3rd parties to control the weather in exquisite detail. Not sure TrueSky can handle that.

At the end of the day, though, the 3rd party developer market has largely collapsed for P3D and I fear nothing is going to fix that short of The Other Sim closing down. Too much money to be made doing add-ons for that platform vs much less money to be made in P3D even if it were at its peak in terms of user numbers and those users were buying stuff like billy-oh. Neither of which is true. 

If, as I fear, existing add-ons become incompatible and never get updated, then we'll reach a point where the base sim is all there is. P3D has never done well on that basis for our user group. It's fine for commercial customers who either don't want those add-ons or can pay people like Milviz to do them privately, which we will never get to see.

What I *really* want is the best features from P3D (display system, windowing, easy automation, customisability, fully open to 3rd parties, cockpit-builder-friendly features) with the best features of The Other Sim (visuals, performance, weather depiction, AI-generated whole-world scenery) combined into one. Plus a vibrant and committed community of 3rd party add-on builders keeping their stuff up to date and refreshed year on year. But I'm not foolish enough to think that that will ever happen. 

I really hope to be surprised, but I won't be surprised if I'm not.

[B777ER 2,492]

I think everyone can agree that from LM’s standpoint and their relationship with non-professional end users (us), this is their most important release ever. What v6 brings or does not bring us will be the tipping point for this platform and the future of it within our community. Note, I am not taking about their commercial or military customers. If v6 is truly a leap ahead over what 5.x offers, I’ll definitely take a look at it myself. The 500lb gorilla in the room with that is what will still work and what won’t. I’m 99% sure FSL will update their stuff but everyone else? Who knows… 

LM is in quite a catch-22 spot. If they go big but break backwards compatibility, not sure how many will bite as we all know many dev’s feel they are sitting with a Royal Flush at the MSFS table and have zero interest in P3D any longer. If they go incremental and keep backwards compatibility, it will make some in here happy with a few changes they will likely make probably to TruSky and AO implementation but will likely be a tipping point for those that were on the fence about moving to MSFS as they do not see any large wholesale changes from LM. 

Either way, should be interesting the next few weeks. I don’t think LM beta will last past late November.

Edited October 20, 2022 by B777ER

[rocketlaunch 617]

LM are a defence contractor and really, do not care about you or I as a flight simulator enthusiast. They fell into a unexpected gap in the Market in a time of flux. They ran with it as well, why not enjoy some extra revenue? However as we well know, the flight simulator home market is not their target market. Any improvements will be made with their commercial clients in mind. 

In many respects the horse has already bolted, even if they bring an all singing all dancing simulator to market they will be competing with a multi trillion gaming company. 

Sad but true.  

Edited October 20, 2022 by rocketlaunch
grammer

[BerndB 349]

1 hour ago, rocketlaunch said:

LM are a defence contractor and really, do not care about you or I as a flight simulator enthusiast. They fell into a unexpected gap in the Market in a time of flux. They ran with it as well, why not enjoy some extra revenue? However as we well know, the flight simulator home market is not their target market. Any improvements will be made with their commercial clients in mind. 

In many respects the horse has already bolted, even if they bring an all singing all dancing simulator to market they will be competing with a multi trillion gaming company. 

Sad but true.  

Hm...well....i do not agree completely. LM is nost just a contractor. Its the producer of the f 16 and F 22 and the LM shipyards are the ine where the famous aircraft carriers of the Nimitz and Ford class are build. Having in mind a carrier is at a cost of arround 5 billion dollars, from a commercial perspective LM can greatfully compete with MS. But MS is also not a gaming company. Their main revenue portion comes from commercial software an service solutions and its even not multitrillion  MS yearly Revenues are at arround 50 billion dollar.

Edited October 20, 2022 by BerndB

[rocketlaunch 617]

23 minutes ago, BerndB said:

LM is nost just a contractor. Its the producer of the f 16 and F 22 and the LM shipyards are the ine where the famous aircraft carriers of the Nimitz and Ford class are build.

Who does it build for? Governments? Therefore a contractor.

25 minutes ago, BerndB said:

But MS is also not a gaming company

In Microsoft's fiscal year 2022 it's gaming revenue reached 16.23 billion U.S. dollars. I would say that qualified as a gaming company.

28 minutes ago, BerndB said:

and its even not multitrillion

As of October 2022 Microsoft has a market cap of $1.788 Trillion

Care to split more hairs? 

[Boeingnut 72]

18 hours ago, B777ER said:

Either way, should be interesting the next few weeks. I don’t think LM beta will last past late November.

Only late November? Why such a quick beta period?

Edited October 21, 2022 by Ray Proudfoot
Quoted post reduced

[BerndB 349]

17 hours ago, rocketlaunch said:

Care to split more hairs? 

seems you already split more hairs i have to offer in that matter. As long it´s just clear, that it´s senseless to mind about LM would need to be scared by MS figures.Just figures do not count in the matter if a product will be good or bad. I personally prefer the dedication by LM, focusing on the "commercial" (military) clients, because it increase the chance to contiune getting a real Simulator instead of just an Aicraftgame by a "Gamingcompany" if you like to stand for it.😉 

Edited October 21, 2022 by BerndB

[chapstick 2,762]

12 hours ago, BerndB said:

seems you already split more hairs i have to offer in that matter. As long it´s just clear, that it´s senseless to mind about LM would need to be scared by MS figures.Just figures do not count in the matter if a product will be good or bad. I personally prefer the dedication by LM, focusing on the "commercial" (military) clients, because it increase the chance to contiune getting a real Simulator instead of just an Aicraftgame by a "Gamingcompany" if you like to stand for it.😉 

Both sims are capable of hosting high fidelity aircraft add-ons. They are both flight simulators.