3 minutes ago, snwboardn said:

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. 

Using your logic there was…

1) No need to go 64-bit but they did.

2) No need to go to DX12 from DX9 but they did.

3) No real need to update the whole world’s terrain including coastlines etc. but they did.

With v6 incoming I’m excited to see how it’s been further enhanced.

8 minutes ago, snwboardn said:

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. 

I have around 10 hours in a Level D full motion sim. Avsim users would be really  complaining about just how bad it looks, compared to what they are seeing flying in MSFS, It wouldn't take much to adapt MSFS to a Training sim. Let's face it , P3D is FS9 with lipstick on it, nothing more. 

Edited May 1, 20233 yr by Bobsk8

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Using your logic there was…

1) No need to go 64-bit but they did.

2) No need to go to DX12 from DX9 but they did.

3) No real need to update the whole world’s terrain including coastlines etc. but they did.

With v6 incoming I’m excited to see how it’s been further enhanced.

Yeah, I can just imagine how many MSFS users will drop MSFS, and pay $200 to switch to  P3D...  LOL

26 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Yeah, I can just imagine how many MSFS users will drop MSFS, and pay $200 to switch to  P3D...  LOL

Who said they would? Not me. You enjoy your sim and I’ll enjoy mine. No further discussion from me.

On 4/30/2023 at 11:31 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

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

And some of our pronunciation of certain cities... Birmingham and Malaga come to mind.  🤣

7 minutes ago, nobleord said:

And some of our pronunciation of certain cities... Birmingham and Malaga come to mind.  🤣

🤣 The worst I’ve heard is Nicosia in Cyprus. “Ni - co - shia” rather than Nico - see - ah.

Nice to heard from you Bryan. 👍

13 hours ago, Noel said:

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

Except looking at the generic "real" buildings.

1 hour ago, IanHarrison said:

Except looking at the generic "real" buildings.

MSFS is gradually incorporating more and more photogrammetry, and the photogrammetry is getting better over time.

Techniques like photogrammetry that try emulate the buildings and houses in the real world, are the future of flight simulation, IMO.  Autogen is old technology. Any modern flight sim that primary relies on auto-gen going forward, rather than taking advantage of technologies like photogrammetry, will probably be left in the dust.

Edited May 2, 20233 yr by abrams_tank

55 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

MSFS is gradually incorporating more and more photogrammetry, and the photogrammetry is getting better over time.

Techniques like photogrammetry that try emulate the buildings and houses in the real world, are the future of flight simulation, IMO.  Autogen is old technology. Any modern flight sim that primary relies on auto-gen going forward, rather than taking advantage of technologies like photogrammetry, will probably be left in the dust.

I agree - it's definitely the "way to go", and it shows with MFS.

Regarding the OP which I just came across, I think MS FLIGHT is "Taboo" for MS... They even tend to omit it from the history of MS FS versions...

It was surely a great flight simulator, probably my preferred ever version of MS FS because although it didn't have access to the modern tools used in MFS, and was still a 32 bit app if I'm not wrong, it did have a few unique features in terms of weather rendering and effects, and the flight dynamics were upscaled from the Legacy MS FSX flight dynamics.

IMO MS FLIGHT was better than MFS is flight dynamics and overall physics modelling wise.

I'd have to watch some videos about it again, because I don't remember MS Flight having any kind of drastic improvements to the physics model... Maybe even the ground contacts were still not fixed at that time...

In my opinion, and leaving P3D aside, the iteration of FS that probably had the most improvements and new features was probably FlightSimWorld. If you think about it, it's the first one that went 64 bits, the first one that received the TrueSky technology, and the first one (if I'm not mistaken) to implement the new visuals for cockpit interactions. And contrary to MS Flight, it actually had an Earth planet consisting of more than 4 islands.

On 4/30/2023 at 2:14 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

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.

all cats are grey in the dark clouds.

in comparison the cockpit, the aircraft  modelling, fps, instrumentation, textures, they are all inferior to P3D. No matter of in, above or under the clouds.

In my opinion that is a fact. 

fact is, this is my opinion.😀

Edited May 2, 20233 yr by turbomax

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

MSFS is gradually incorporating more and more photogrammetry, and the photogrammetry is getting better over time.

Techniques like photogrammetry that try emulate the buildings and houses in the real world, are the future of flight simulation, IMO.  Autogen is old technology. Any modern flight sim that primary relies on auto-gen going forward, rather than taking advantage of technologies like photogrammetry, will probably be left in the dust.

What are these photogrammetry buildings like at close range? ORBx tried a bit of photogrammetry in P3D with the TrueEarth GB South rendition of the Canary Wharf buildings in London, and they looked horrible (very grainy low resolution textures, which is not good when you pass very close to them on arrival or departure from London City airport). Thank God that I was able to replace them with the much better looking Aerosoft VFR London X version of the Canary Wharf buildings.

15 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

What are these photogrammetry buildings like at close range? ORBx tried a bit of photogrammetry in P3D with the TrueEarth GB South rendition of the Canary Wharf buildings in London, and they looked horrible (very grainy low resolution textures, which is not good when you pass very close to them on arrival or departure from London City airport). Thank God that I was able to replace them with the much better looking Aerosoft VFR London X version of the Canary Wharf buildings.

So not all cities and all countries have good photogrammetry in MSFS.  But I think the photogrammetry around central Seattle, and a little further out of central Seattle in some of the metro areas, is reasonable.  You can see here the quality of the photogrammetry in Seattle:

In any case, this is just photogrammetry from 2021 to 2023.  The quality of the photogrammetry is continually improving in MSFS, and the MSFS team sometimes even redoes the photogrammetry for a given city.

In 5 years, the photogrammetry will get better.  In 10 years, it will get better again.  Technology like photogrammetry and using AI to map the entire world, is the future for flight simulation, IMO.

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

What are these photogrammetry buildings like at close range? 

It depends on what "close range" is for you.

When flying really, like really close from photogrammetry buildings, they can look sometime average, sometimes bad, sometimes catastrophic. Anyways, a real dedicated 3D model will always look better.

However, when flying a little bit further away, like a few hundred feet away, photogrammetry buildings bring a very nice effect on the overall scenery rendering/consistency.

That being said, last week I had a lot of fun flying over the photogrammetry Chicago with the Asto One in VR. And the surrounding view was just terrific 🙂

4 hours ago, Daube said:

I'd have to watch some videos about it again, because I don't remember MS Flight having any kind of drastic improvements to the physics model... Maybe even the ground contacts were still not fixed at that time...

In my opinion, and leaving P3D aside, the iteration of FS that probably had the most improvements and new features was probably FlightSimWorld. If you think about it, it's the first one that went 64 bits, the first one that received the TrueSky technology, and the first one (if I'm not mistaken) to implement the new visuals for cockpit interactions. And contrary to MS Flight, it actually had an Earth planet consisting of more than 4 islands.

MS Flight flight model was fantastic compared to FSX. Many were sad to see it dropped my Microsoft.