How much would you compromise to fly your favourite acft?

[sdirand]

 

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Without wishing to turn this into another sim debate I’m curious what you preferred in MSFS when flying an IFR plan and six miles up.

Having flown Concorde from Birmingham to Gran Canaria in 32-bit P3Dv3 over the weekend returning to v5.3 this morning was a revelation.

I would say you have a specific use of P3D, flying almost exclusively Concorde at 60.000Ft. and P3D seems to fit your use. You also in the past claimed very valid reasons why you prefer P3D (like the historic weather) and those are really valid points.

Some people also have valid reason to stay with P3D as they have a huge library of paid add-ons and don't want to throw them away. Even if IMHO, sometimes, you have to get rid of the past for all and start over. I did it, it was painful at first but I didn't do it in one go and I spend a little bit every month and start to have a nice collection of add-ons for msfs. But each to his own.

But honnestly, fly for exemple the Queenstown RNP approach in the PMDG 737 both in P3D and msfs and you will see the difference.

The procedure is the same, the aircraft is the same and if you fly in complete IMC, you won't see any difference. But by clear weather, even if you concentrate on your instruments, have a look outside the flightdeck and the scenery is way better. Yes, even when you fly at 33000ft, you see adifference outside and no matter where you fly and how high you fly, at one time, you will come closer to the ground and land. The airport in Queenstown is also nicer and even if you stay focused on your instruments, the msfs PMDG 737 flightdeck is way nicer than the flightdeck of the old PMDG NGXu.

There is a 10 years difference between the graphics of msfs and P3D and it is really difficult to make abstraction of that, (I know I can't). Even if I'm flying IFR and even I'm at 30000ft. Flight simming is a package for me and nice graphics is a part of the immersion.

Trust me I really tried to keep P3D and despite how bad I miss the PMDG 747 & 777, I really can't enjoy a P3D flight anymore. That's funny because I could probably start the compete opposite thread above in this forum: "How much would you compromise NOT to fly your favoutite aircraft" lol

P3D6 will come soon enough. Maybe if will be a complete surprise, making instantly msfs old and outdated, who knows? Then, I will probably face the same dilemma once again. Do I start over and dump my already large colelction of msfs add-ons? We will see.. Each new upgrade is pushing the limits and bring us closer to reality. By that time, let's all enjoy the sim we selected and the most important if that this choice fits us the best.

 

[Ray Proudfoot]

35 minutes ago, Daube said:

Ray, your opinion about the irrelevancy of ground scenery is more or less valid for Concorde flights 99% above the ocean, ok. But in IFR "normal" airliners, you've got plenty of time to contemplate the ground scenery and the weather, at least during cruise and approaches. For both these aspects, and despite the lack of historical weather, MSFS will make the global experience more pleasant than in P3D. Especially when flying out of the areas covered by the few sceneries in the library.

It undoubtedly would. I've just completed KSFO-CYVR in the PMDG737 and could easily identify Mt St Helens as I flew west of Portland. LNM is ideal for that. Other mountains were easily visible too. Portland and Seattle were briefly visible through the cloud.

I started that flight at 11:30am my time using historical wx from yesterday at 19:00Z. To get accurate weather for today's  flight in MSFS I would need to depart at 20:00 this evening. Not very convenient.

31 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

I've always passionately disliked landclass textures, so I have over 4TB of photoscenery downloaded for P3D. Nonetheless, I'm geographically limited by the photoscenery coverage that I've downloaded, unlike with MSFS.
Anyway, there's far more than just scenery that keeps me on MSFS.
No sim is perfect, therefore the one that ticks the most boxes for you personally, is the one to use more frequently.

Understandable. I don't like satellite imagery much but accept it's necessary to make airport surroundings better. I do like Orbx GB South and North but the size of the files for such a small part of the world make them impractical.

[Ray Proudfoot]

1 hour ago, sdirand said:

I would say you have a specific use of P3D, flying almost exclusively Concorde at 60.000Ft. and P3D seems to fit your use. You also in the past claimed very valid reasons why you prefer P3D (like the historic weather) and those are really valid points.

My Concorde flights are not that often. I have a limited number of airports in v3 and as explained in my first post the scenery is pretty grim. I have had to save and reload flights to regain VAS as I couldn’t be sure there would be enough on landing.

2 hours ago, sdirand said:

Some people also have valid reason to stay with P3D as they have a huge library of paid add-ons and don't want to throw them away. Even if IMHO, sometimes, you have to get rid of the past for all and start over. I did it, it was painful at first but I didn't do it in one go and I spend a little bit every month and start to have a nice collection of add-ons for msfs. But each to his own.

I bought Gran Canaria this morning as it’s on sale. I don’t want to think how much I’ve spent on scenery. Probably the same as a 4090 cost! 🤣 And I guess the default airports in MSFS aren’t equal to 3rd party P3D ones hence why you have to start again.

2 hours ago, sdirand said:

But honnestly, fly for exemple the Queenstown RNP approach in the PMDG 737 both in P3D and msfs and you will see the difference.

I’m sure the difference is obvious. And if I had scenery as my number one priority I’d probably have bought MSFS by now. But I’ve customised my setup so much - scenery and hardware - it would take a lot of effort to replicate it in another sim. I couldn’t contemplate that.

I’m not expecting significant improvements in v6. Maybe they can work on Enhanced Atmospherics as I found that disappointing. We’ll know in a few months.

[F737MAX]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’m sure the difference is obvious. And if I had scenery as my number one priority I’d probably have bought MSFS by now. But I’ve customised my setup so much - scenery and hardware - it would take a lot of effort to replicate it in another sim. I couldn’t contemplate that.

The way you could look at it is similar to how you approach your use of P3D v3 for the FSL Concorde and then P3D v5 for everything else.
Rather than see taking on a new sim as losing what you have, perhaps see it more as what you can gain.

One of the biggest appeals of MSFS to the vast majority of its users is just how much additional content comes for 'free'.
(Spoiler to keep post length down):

Spoiler

Payware-quality aircraft: Airliners in the form of the A310 and A32N, vintage aircraft like the DC-3, bizjets like the Cessna Citation, bug smashers such as the Cessna 152, helicopters such as the Guimbal Cabri, not forgetting the gliders.
Payware-quality avionics: GPS units in the form of the Garmin GNS 430W and GNS 530W, as well as G3000 and G5000 suites.
Payware-quality airports: Now over 100 airfields of various sizes from well-known scenery developers.
Payware-quality scenery: 3D models of POIs, cities and updated mesh for entire continent-sized countries or regions that cover multiple countries.
Various discovery flights, landing challenges, bush trips and lessons to explore more of the World.

An update that most game developers would charge as an expansion pack or 'season pass'

The most amount of genuinely enhancing freeware content that I've seen for any title over on flightsim.to

Hardware compatibility is slowly, but surely improving also. My old CP Flight 737 MCP works with the PMDG 737 in MSFS.
FSUIPC (with a choice of other similar products) allows my Logitech Flight Instrument Panels and Flight Switch Panel to work.

I was apprehensive last year to make the move to MSFS as I knew what I had with my P3D airliner flying in certain parts of the World and very much liked my setup.
Now, I'm performing helicopter flights like a mountain rescue near NZQN or an oil rig shuttle off the coast of Brazil almost as much as an airliner flight between RJFU and VQPR.

[Ray Proudfoot]

33 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

The way you could look at it is similar to how you approach your use of P3D v3 for the FSL Concorde and then P3D v5 for everything else.
Rather than see taking on a new sim as losing what you have, perhaps see it more as what you can gain.

It’s something I have given a great deal of thought to. But reading the topics as part of my mod duties I see things that would drive me to distraction. Things outside of my control. P3D may not be as visually exciting but it has one great advantage. Stability. That is the most important thing for me. Then aircraft I enjoy flying and thirdly, scenery.

I’m glad you’re enjoying your sim of choice. In a few months I hope to be adding the icing on the cake to mine. It will be interesting to see how long it takes FSL to release Concorde for MSFS.

[Holdit]

I have no problem with using an older sim for a pet aircraft. I still have P3Dv4.5 on my system, mostly for my A2A GAaircraft, the Aerosoft Twin Otter and the Majestic Q400 and two variants of my favourite of all, the King Air: the Milviz (Collins) and Flight1 (G1000).

Eventually A2A will migrate to MSFS, as will the Q400. What I've read about Aersosoft's MSFS Twotter suggests to me that the P3D version is better, so I may keep P3D on my PC for that aircraft alone. I've no interest in moving to newer versions of P3D though.