8 hours ago, d.tsakiris said:

Well, I honestly ask myself how one can use a flight sim without historical weather. I guess people are different, who'd have thought!

Oh there are thousands using flight sims without historical weather, who'd have thought indeed!

The ones who can't use a flight sim without historical weather fall into one or more of these categories:
a) those who can only fly during a certain set of hours (due to free time) but their desired in-sim time range in their timezone falls outside their real-world hours to use the sim (i.e. free time to use the sim after work in the evenings, but you want to fly daytime in your timezone for that day)
b) those who want to re-create a flight situation with specific weather that already happened at a previous date/time
... can't think of any other?

To say all those who flight sim must also fall into above categories would be counter to reality. Given the evidence of so many Serious Simmers ™️ using flight sims without historical weather, I think it's fair to say those in the above categories are a definite minority, but by no means a minority that cannot be catered to with historical weather solutions either native in-sim or via add-ons.
 

Edited July 5, 20232 yr by lwt1971

5 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Oh there are thousands using flight sims without historical weather, who'd have thought indeed!

The ones who can't use a flight sim without historical weather fall into one or more of these categories:
a) those who can only fly during a certain set of hours (due to free time) but their desired in-sim time range in their timezone falls outside their real-world hours to use the sim (i.e. free time to use the sim after work in the evenings, but you want to fly daytime in ...

I am often in option A and still sim with current weather conditions (if you can imagine the audacity), because I'm not recreating a specific flight or wx scenario. Sometimes I simply want to see the terrain or clouds below.

That being said, the ability to make time and weather changes dynamically without needing to exit back into the ui or reload the flight is something I wish P3D implemented that has yet to come to fruition.

15 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Oh there are thousands using flight sims without historical weather, who'd have thought indeed!

The ones who can't use a flight sim without historical weather fall into one or more of these categories:
a) those who can only fly during a certain set of hours (due to free time) but their desired in-sim time range in their timezone falls outside their real-world hours to use the sim (i.e. free time to use the sim after work in the evenings, but you want to fly daytime in your timezone for that day)
b) those who want to re-create a flight situation with specific weather that already happened at a previous date/time
... can't think of any other?


 

Can't think of any other?

c) those that want to train by flying into realistic adverse condition scenarios, best captured by taking a snapshot and replicating conditions that have already occurred in nature

d) those that need to be able to reproduce the same weather environment repeatedly for testing and/or training

e) those that want/need to fly/train in off-season conditions (e.g. winter/cold-weather scenarios during summer, high/hot scenarios etc)

For my purposes, some of those capabilities are highly desired.

6 minutes ago, ZLA Steve said:

That being said, the ability to make time and weather changes dynamically without needing to exit back into the ui or reload the flight is something I wish P3D implemented that has yet to come to fruition.

I make those changes all the time in P3D without having to reload a flight.  Weather changes via ASP3D, time changes either via the UI or via a simple lua script.  (?)

Just now, Bob Scott said:

I make those changes all the time in P3D without having to reload a flight.  Weather changes via ASP3D, time changes either via the UI or via a simple lua script.  (?)

You can't do it natively (or without needing to exit back into the UI) is the issue.

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

Can't think of any other?

c) those that want to train by flying into realistic adverse condition scenarios, best captured by taking a snapshot and replicating conditions that have already occurred in nature

d) those that need to be able to reproduce a weather environment repeatedly for testing and/or training

e) those that want/need to fly/train in off-season conditions (e.g. winter/cold-weather scenarios during summer, high/hot scenarios etc)

Those are all good reasons, and your c) and d) fall under my category b) which I tried to make as generic as possible i.e. for any amount of reasons/purposes the need to re-create weather that already occurred at a previous point in time.

Your e) I consider to fall under my general category a) i.e. the time/dates the sim is being used not matching the real weather for desired in-sim time/dates.
 

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

For my purposes, some of those capabilities are highly desired.

Well noted. For a sizeable majority, those aren't as highly required in a sim, contrary to what some seem to say around here (not saying that you are saying that of course). Otherwise, sims that don't have historical weather wouldn't be nearly as popular with non-casual simmers (just taking the latest Navigraph survey as one example).
 

Edited July 5, 20232 yr by lwt1971

27 minutes ago, turbomax said:

non solo, sed etiam.

 Q.E.D.

Just now, ZLA Steve said:

You can't do it natively (or without needing to exit back into the UI) is the issue.

I guess I don't follow--how would you do it without some kind of UI?

15 minutes ago, ZLA Steve said:

.. if you can imagine the audacity ...

Lol 😂 , the audacity indeed!
 

9 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

I guess I don't follow--how would you do it without some kind of UI?

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
In P3D you need to exit into the UI which means pausing the flight in order to change parameters, and then waiting for them to reload. That's not dynamic as you need to "leave" the current scenario.
in MSFS, you can implement time/weather changes on the fly while the flight proceeds as normal. (e.g. no reload)

2 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

It's a platform--each user can decide what elements need augmentation or replacement.  I didn't characterize that as either a "strong point or even a desirable status quo" but the platform is not generally used by any of its customers in its raw, unimproved base form, and so it shouldn't be evaluated that way.

If you are one of LM's primary customers who needs the platform to do real-world work, the last thing you want is a disruptive change.  What many lament as lack of progress is seen by the main customer base as stability.

You said what recommends P3D is [...] which I took as meaning it's a strong point of the platform.

I do think the fact it's not used by anyone in its raw form is exactly the issue though. There is so much people patch up costing time and money it's clearly not attractive to the average home simmer, unless you're used to it (which I was too) from a decade of that being the status quo in flight simming. Coupled with the fact it's not geared to them either so major changes are most likely merely wishful thinking, I don't find the reception it got questionable at all and I also think time and deeper looks at the sim aren't going to change that. It's fine for training stall recovery at the USAF ad nauseum to get the idea before going into the real thing, but for anything else it's outdated and not user friendly, in my own opinion. Obviously, YMMV, but it's clear the interest within the community is feeble and I don't think that's surprising.

6 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

I do think the fact it's not used by anyone in its raw form is exactly the issue though. There is so much people patch up costing time and money it's clearly not attractive to the average home simmer, unless you're used to it (which I was too) from a decade of that being the status quo in flight simming. Coupled with the fact it's not geared to them either so major changes are most likely merely wishful thinking, I don't find the reception it got questionable at all and I also think time and deeper looks at the sim aren't going to change that. It's fine for training stall recovery at the USAF ad nauseum to get the idea before going into the real thing, but for anything else it's outdated and not user friendly, in my own opinion. Obviously, YMMV, but it's clear the interest within the community is feeble and I don't think that's surprising.

When I buy an iPad, it's not very useful to me in its raw form until I load a bunch of apps on it to do the things that are important to me.  The apps I choose will differ from the ones my wife or my best friend might choose.  I look at P3D the same way--it's a basic platform that comes with some basic functionality, but I tailor the add-ons I put on it to make it do the things that are important to me--that's no different than how I tailor the add-ons that go on a tablet or smartphone after I get it out of the box.

Don't sell P3D short--the Air Force is using it for a whole lot more than just some rudimentary preflight introduction to flying--it's being used as a training tool throughout the SUPT programs for contact and advanced instrument flying training.  When you're drilling yourself on instrument procedures, you don't care about AI squirrels, grass and building textures, or the comparative puffiness of the clouds.  Lack of those kinds of things doesn't make it outdated w/r/t its function as a training tool.

As to the interest in this community--sure, it's clear that its popularity has been taking a hit, but I do still know a nontrivial number of folks that haven't replaced it with a prettier but less functional alternative just yet.  The good news is that P3D's deep-pocketed primary user base pays the bulk of the bills, so for those of us still interested in availing ourselves of its capabilities, absence of glitter notwithstanding, any waning consumer market popularity isn't likely going to have the same effect that it does for other software products when growth plateaus and they lose their popularity in the gaming space, as they all eventually do.

1 minute ago, Bob Scott said:

any waning consumer market popularity isn't likely going to have the same effect that it does for other software products when growth plateaus and they lose their popularity in the gaming space, as they all eventually do.

Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, the scores of devs announcing they're not planning to support V6 would say otherwise. 

3 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Oh there are thousands using flight sims without historical weather, who'd have thought indeed!

I assume that's because there is not the choice available...

I love dialing up a day of known difficult weather to fly a senario representing a repeatable challange.

Such are great for testing your flying skills, plus there are areas where particular weather may only occur once or twice a year (if that).

I've many great saved (and therefore repeatable) weather senarios for flying and testing various aircraft where usage is like a opening a door to another world you didn't know existed.

Personally after saving and repeating many historical weather events and all that comes with such use, how can you get by without historical weather?

It must be so limiting.

"Who'd have thought indeed!"

Cheers

38 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

1) the Air Force is using it for a whole lot more than just some rudimentary preflight introduction to flying--it's being used as a training tool throughout the SUPT programs for contact and advanced instrument flying training. 

2) When you're drilling yourself on instrument procedures, you don't care about AI squirrels, grass and building textures, or the comparative puffiness of the clouds.

1) just because the Air Force is using old fashioned graphics means they set the standard for best trainers currently available? because scenery, mesh, GPS and graphics are ugly this is proof the flight model must be superior and professional grade?

Link Trainer at Freeman Field, Seymour, Indiana. Freeman Field was a US Army Air Force field in World War II.

TSgt James R. Schneid is shown at the controls of this early flight simulator.

 

2) I do care about AI squirrels, grass and building textures while I take off, taxi and land. most of my IFR flights start and end on the ground. I want to believe I am actually flying, not just staring at instrument needles & pins. otherwise why would anyone use VR instead of Link trainers?

Edited July 5, 20232 yr by turbomax