4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I fly IFR on every flight I do , either in tubeliners, or the Cessna 310, Kodiak, and Arrow 3, . What I love about MSFS, is the realistic scenery, which looks like what I see out the window when I am flying in real life. P3D never looked like that, even with hundreds and hundreds of dollars of add on scenery, weather, tweaking, etc, etc. Just yesterday I flew around Japan, Italy, and Brasil.  Try that in P3D. 

I would love to have that level of scenery in P3D. One day it will come but it will be in a different simulator by LM. It's inevitable.

From FL350 I can see every river, town, city and detailed coastline you can in MSFS. That's because of the big changes made in v5.

Flying my aircraft takes priority over the views out of the window. I'm currently flying the XP Lear 25 from Melbourne to Brisbane. Much of the flight has been cloudy so I can't see the ground. In MSFS the same conditions would mean I still can't see the ground.

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Your're inferring I said something that I didn't. It reminds me of the wife who asked her husband which dress he preferred - the red one or the blue one. He said red. She replied so you don't like me in the blue dress. 😁

My preference for any sim is dictated by the aircraft available for it. P3D has them. MSFS has some but not all.

You were a lawyer in your professional life 😁 ? Anyway I consider that  you mean that MSFS is after all a good IFR plateform and I rest my case then. 

2 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

You were a lawyer in your professional life 😁 ? Anyway I consider that  you mean that MSFS is after all a good IFR plateform and I rest my case then. 

😂 You're reading what you want to read rather than what I actually said.

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

😂 You're reading what you want to read rather than what I actually said.

What I read is that opinions are as good as the substance which backs  them up, specially when they are enunciated in a forum where people tend to see them as erroneous, by experience.

End of the line for me. 

Edited April 30, 20233 yr by Dominique_K

2 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

What I read is that opinions are as good as the substance which backs  them up, specially when they are enunciated in a forum where people tend to see them as erroneous, by experience.

Opinions cannot be right or wrong. They're opinions, not facts. I'm out too.

1 hour ago, MDFlier said:

It really depends on how they coded all of that work. It is possible that by using the previous work, Asobo would have been forced into doing other things in a manner that they wouldn't otherwise do in other areas of the sim. Flight did not have CFD, for example. Asobo would have had to completely redo the Flight flight model in order to make it work with CFD. Seems to me that it would be harder to write a new one if you are constrained by the structure of previous work written by someone who had a similar but different goals for the final product in their head when they were writing it.

I've always found it much easier to write new code while referring to the previous version's code. That way, I can completely avoid any constraints introduced by the previous version, while still having the luxury of being able to use anything done previously that will also work in my code.      

A sure sign that NOBODY at Asobo ever flies IFR. If they did, they surely would feel as frustrated as we are over this. 😠

The other one that really bothers me is when it actually gives me the proper altitudes all the way through the STAR (giving me the false sense of security that it is going to work properly throughout the landing) and then directs me back to cruise altitude within 15 miles of the destination airport. Grrrr...

Thank you for your explanation from what seems to be a developer's standpoint. I've been in IT for forty years but not in the coding side of it. It's quite funny to see a simple question such as this devolve into so many offshoots. It just shows the passion of this community. 😊

Its just too bad RC4 doesn't work with MSFS. I could dust off that old CD and give it a try...I forgot about being scolded by that ATC controller...unfortunately too many times!

Edited April 30, 20233 yr by Jaxsimmer

31 minutes ago, Jaxsimmer said:

Its just too bad RC4 doesn't work with MSFS. I could dust off that old CD and give it a try...I forgot about being scolded by that ATC controller...unfortunately too many times!

I'm not a full time developer, but some of my code is present in commercial retail SW produced by my company (I am sure that you've heard of us) when I held a different position and i am still heavily involved with developers and testers on a daily basis in my current role.

The real tragedy is that the original source code, from what I understand, was destroyed rather than put into the public domain. If I had access to it, I surely would have taken a shot at converting it to C# and getting it to run in MSFS, The ATC we have now is basically identical to what we had before, so the functions within MSFS necessary for it to run must be reasonably similar to the ones RC4 used. It would have been a fun project to take a go at.  If nothing else, a good learning experience.

Edited April 30, 20233 yr by MDFlier

24 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

I'm not a full time developer, but some of my code is present in commercial retail SW produced by my company (I am sure that you've heard of us) when I held a different position and i am still heavily involved with developers and testers on a daily basis in my current role.

The real tragedy is that the original source code, from what I understand, was destroyed rather than put into the public domain. If I had access to it, I surely would have taken a shot at converting it to C# and getting it to run in MSFS, The ATC we have now is basically identical to what we had before, so the functions within MSFS necessary for it to run must be reasonably similar to the ones RC4 used. It would have been a fun project to take a go at.  If nothing else, a good learning experience.

That is a tragedy. I am at a loss as to why someone would do that. Was it intentional, or some type of data loss on the development system?

45 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

The real tragedy is that the original source code, from what I understand, was destroyed rather than put into the public domain. If I had access to it, I surely would have taken a shot at converting it to C# and getting it to run in MSFS,

It was a deliberate decision by John Dekker which I found unbelievable. To spend so much time coding it plus the expert help of a mathematician, two real-world AT Controllers and Pete Dowson and then just delete it beggars belief.

It was written in VB which is fine for an ATC program.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It was a deliberate decision by John Dekker which I found unbelievable. To spend so much time coding it plus the expert help of a mathematician, two real-world AT Controllers and Pete Dowson and then just delete it beggars belief.

It was written in VB which is fine for an ATC program.

That is a shame. I am testing FSHUD beta 1.3 this weekend. Promising program, but I am not sure I can get used to all these Englishmen flying these Southwest 737s. LOL. But that's a topic for another thread.

Edited April 30, 20233 yr by Jaxsimmer

55 minutes ago, Jaxsimmer said:

but I am not sure I can get used to all these Englishmen flying these Southwest 737s. LOL.

Or me listening to Speedbird flights in RC4 with Johnny Foreigner accents. 😁

On 4/30/2023 at 6:14 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

I would love to have that level of scenery in P3D. One day it will come but it will be in a different simulator by LM. It's inevitable.

From FL350 I can see every river, town, city and detailed coastline you can in MSFS. That's because of the big changes made in v5.

Flying my aircraft takes priority over the views out of the window. I'm currently flying the XP Lear 25 from Melbourne to Brisbane. Much of the flight has been cloudy so I can't see the ground. In MSFS the same conditions would mean I still can't see the ground.

Absolutely, one day it will come and surpass what we see currently in MSFS--this is the nature of the pace of change nowadays.  What's missing currently in P3D is the sense, feeling, experience, of seeing what's actually there...at least in very large part, and relatively speaking vis a vis P3D/XP12.  Very hard to quantify the value of that but in my opinion this is why we see as many users of MSFS that we do.  Flying my aircraft always takes priority also, but that does not discount the value of feeling like you're actually seeing what's there, not artists' attempts at duplicating that.  I mean, was this the photo I took out the window when we vacationed in Colombia last summer, or is this from the flight simulator?  Well the OSD gives the answer away but this is what I'm talking about:

Re ATC--prior ATC from FSX does not offer even what MSFS currently offers:  management...in large part...of other air traffic in the area.  Very immersive to have ATC manage departures calling all out correctly by company/livery, the line up and wait, the holds, and final clearance for departure and as well with arrivals.  I don't recall any of that in FSX ATC but it's been so long maybe I'm forgetting.  ATC has improved considerably since launch, but has a ways to go and I believe they'll get there.

  

 

7 minutes ago, Noel said:

What's missing currently in P3D is the sense, feeling, experience, of seeing what's actually there...at least in very large part, and relatively speaking vis a vis P3D/XP12.

I have a vivid imagination. I can even depart from default airports it’s that good. 😉

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have a vivid imagination. I can even depart from default airports it’s that good. 😉

That's right you need imagination in P3D....not so much in MSFS 😉

On 4/30/2023 at 8:14 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

I would love to have that level of scenery in P3D. One day it will come but it will be in a different simulator by LM. It's inevitable.

From FL350 I can see every river, town, city and detailed coastline you can in MSFS. That's because of the big changes made in v5.

Flying my aircraft takes priority over the views out of the window. I'm currently flying the XP Lear 25 from Melbourne to Brisbane. Much of the flight has been cloudy so I can't see the ground. In MSFS the same conditions would mean I still can't see the ground.

I respectfully disagree, P3D is trying to be a real to life flight sim, flying in those official flight sims that they really use for training and you'd be amazed about the lack of scenery, because they aren't there to look pretty they are there to help teach you the instruments and procedures. I don't see any reason for LM to do much more on that side TBH.