7 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Back on topic, I wonder what FSL will charge for their MSFS Concorde. Lots of criticism for $80+ price points from some developers, yet Concorde is a niche sim aircraft.

When I look at the main-line pricing of other high fidelity addons, and combine with the depth of simulation that FSL is known for, plus the extra functionality built in, I don't think the $80 is a problem.

48 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Yeah no. P3D runs like hot garbage with most complex addons, everybody who's ever touched P3D knows that.

Except I've been "touching" P3D since v4.

In fact, the performance increase from v4 to v5.0 was so incredible that I basically dropped X-Plane 11 for A2A, Majestic, PMDG and MilViz.

My main issues with P3D (particularly v5) has been instability / CTD. 

Does MSFS LOOK better? Of course it does.

Is MSFS a better desktop simulator? Yep, no argument.

Does P3D "run like hot garbage" - not at all. That statement points to PEBKAC, IME.

 

 

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by UrgentSiesta
"it"

9 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Except I've been "touching" P3D since v4.

In fact, the performance increase from v4 to v5.0 was so incredible that I basically dropped X-Plane 11 for A2A, Majestic, PMDG and MilViz.

My main issues with P3D (particularly v5) has been instability / CTD. 

Does MSFS LOOK better? Of course it does.

Is MSFS a better desktop simulator? Yep, no argument.

Does P3D "run like hot garbage" - not at all. That statement points to PEBKAC, IME.

 

 

Yeah, I've been running P3D since it first became available. A lot of people have been running it on these forums and have been knee deep in "Oh let's lock it at low frames to get a smooth experience", "Oh dang, stutters again", "How do I get more than 20 FPS in this heavy scenario" and hours masking off cores to get a better experience. I can accept a lot but having to sit here and have a genuine argument that P3D ran anywhere near good is laughable. The engine was a dinosaur even towards the end of FSX and still is today.

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I tried going back to P3D, when my new PC with MSFS needed a repair by the manufacturer. After two days of that, I just  stopped simming, until I got my PC back. 

I feel the same way when I try to fly a Hi Fi mil jet in MSFS...

but instead of just giving up, I go to the sim(s) that have the good ones.

8 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Yeah, I've been running P3D since it first became available. A lot of people have been running it on these forums and have been knee deep in "Oh let's lock it at low frames to get a smooth experience", "Oh dang, stutters again", "How do I get more than 20 FPS in this heavy scenario" and hours masking off cores to get a better experience. I can accept a lot but having to sit here and have a genuine argument that P3D ran anywhere near good is laughable. The engine was a dinosaur even towards the end of FSX and still is today.

Like I said, must be PEBKAC.

2 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Like I said, must be PEBKAC.

or someone has been huffing too much awful X-Plane performance and have become blind to how a game should actually run, not at 20FPS.

Never in my life would I imagine I had to argue with someone over P3D actually having great performance, what kind of clown world did I just enter 😅

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by Sethos

4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

You keep repeating this everywhere from what I've seen, but never provide additional details to these nebulous claims... Apart from ground handling which we all know is sub-par in MSFS, how *exactly* and in what *particular* ways does a FSL aircraft in P3D using its FSX-based aerodynamics engine have better flight dynamics than say a Fenix V2 in MSFS? (I'm not including Fenix's current engine simulation/physics in the flight dynamics discussion and in any case that will be addressed once the Fenix V2 Block 2 arrives). And why exactly do you think a future FSL aircraft in MSFS can't provide equal or better flight dynamics than what they did in P3D? From all what I recall during my time with P3D, the flight dynamics experience is trounced by MSFS, especially the on-rails flying I always hated. Who's to say that FSL can't deliver an equal or better flight dynamics experience with their MSFS Concorde compared to the P3D version?, again especially since P3D's flight dynamics engine is essentially FSX.

I realize it's a go-to narrative for some to keep pushing about MSFS, but hearing from actual experts is always good to cut thru the narratives about flight dynamics in MSFS: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/?do=findComment&comment=4991341 
 

 

You want to test the fenix dynamics?

Try an engine out procedure, try the unreliable airspeed checks try testing fuel consumption…. Try anything that’s not solely involving the coupling of lnav/vnav and watching the magenta (or green line).

I mean, you were quick to argue that the fenix initial iteration was spot on the numbers… what happened with that?? Not even fenix maintain that position anymore. They did improve on some things but it’s nowhere near the level of the system simulation provided to them by prosim. Prosim did their thing, fenix is still far behind that level when it comes to a believable flight model.

Might be fine for those who are ok with a simple a to b  flight so they can post their landing rate afterward, however, I wonder if they actually need an advanced simulation to begin with.

I did a test yesterday with the Fenix. I let it smash on the runway by disconnecting the AP at 100ft and let it touch without flaring. Goal was to observe flare law because yes, V2 is easier to land now but you barely need to pull the stick to have a nice landing. 

Well, FSI reported a rate of 368 ft/min landing when I « smashed » the runway which is about the rate I often got when landing the V1 🙃 It is quite less than the rate of descent of a 3 degrees glideslope though. I was expecting much more with the derotation law.

I will try that test again.

Pierre

58 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

You want to test the fenix dynamics?

Try an engine out procedure, try the unreliable airspeed checks try testing fuel consumption…. Try anything that’s not solely involving the coupling of lnav/vnav and watching the magenta (or green line).

I mean, you were quick to argue that the fenix initial iteration was spot on the numbers… what happened with that?? Not even fenix maintain that position anymore. They did improve on some things but it’s nowhere near the level of the system simulation provided to them by prosim. Prosim did their thing, fenix is still far behind that level when it comes to a believable flight model.

Might be fine for those who are ok with a simple a to b  flight so they can post their landing rate afterward, however, I wonder if they actually need an advanced simulation to begin with.

Oh look it's you again 🙄 ... firstly I never argued that Fenix's initial iteration was "spot on", but what I did post at that time were what many other experts were saying (including the likes of V1 Simulations who's an IRL A320 captain) that was it was a pretty darn good implementation of an A320, and now better with V2 B1, and will get even better with V2 B2. I'm not an IRL pilot of an A320 so I put stock in what other IRL pilots of said aircraft say, especially given that they're also experienced flight simmers. You seem to be always curiously triggered when the Fenix is spoken well of lol and then you interject with how the FSL is so much better.. try and understand that most of us are happy with the Fenix and *also* looking forward to what FSL offers for MSFS.

In any case my questions in this thread were not specific to the Fenix vs FSL debate, but more to the points raised about P3D's aerodynamics engine supposedly allowing for a level of simulation that MSFS couldn't, which is interesting since P3D's aerodynamics is basically FSX's. So I was curious about what these supposed advantages of P3D's were, and why FSL couldn't implement aircraft in MSFS equal or better to their P3D equivalents, flight dynamics wise (put another way, just because one feels that the FSL on P3D does scenario X better than the Fenix on MSFS, that does not therefore then mean X is not possible on the MSFS platform, especially given that P3D ~= FSX at the core). 
 

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by lwt1971

Why has discussion on Concorde changed to the Fenix? Time to lock this topic unless you get back on topic.

4 hours ago, Sethos said:

Yeah, I've been running P3D since it first became available. A lot of people have been running it on these forums and have been knee deep in "Oh let's lock it at low frames to get a smooth experience", "Oh dang, stutters again", "How do I get more than 20 FPS in this heavy scenario" and hours masking off cores to get a better experience. I can accept a lot but having to sit here and have a genuine argument that P3D ran anywhere near good is laughable. The engine was a dinosaur even towards the end of FSX and still is today.

That's because you don't have a problem being honest with yourself.

Either way I just hope the MSFS version of the Concorde doesn't come with any outdated FSX/P3D recycled textures!

The whole "performance over visuals" coping mechanism may work for outdated P3D, this is the MSFS version we are talking about and yes visuals DO matter in MSFS!

 

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by blueshark747

6 hours ago, Sethos said:

or someone has been huffing too much awful X-Plane performance and have become blind to how a game should actually run, not at 20FPS.

Never in my life would I imagine I had to argue with someone over P3D actually having great performance, what kind of clown world did I just enter 😅

It appears to be clown world of your own making. 
 

Nothing to do with MSFS or XP. If you can’t get good performance out of P3D, the problem is YOU.

hopefully, FSL will figure out the perf issues in the present release, given all their expertise in that platform. 
 

because it seems extremely likely that MSFS is no panacea for unoptimized code. 

Edited August 21, 20232 yr by UrgentSiesta

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Nothing to do with MSFS or XP. If you can’t get good performance out of P3D, the problem is YOU.

You heard it here first folks, P3D was always an amazing performer, the problem was just you 🤣

16 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

 what I did post at that time were what many other experts were saying (including the likes of V1 Simulations who's an IRL A320 captain) that was it was a pretty darn good 

See, That's the problem with your arguments. What's "real darn good"?

Is the climb rate "real darn good"? is the drag "real darn good"? is the engine performance "real darn good"? is the pitch/power curve "real darn good"?....  You can do the usual cut&paste of gigabytes of text but as long as it's not facts or figures but the usual hearsay and gossip then it is what it is.

The issue indeed is not the Fenix - I just used it as an example of what the MSFS physics engine will allow and more importantly won't allow... The fenix simply being the flagship of MSFS addons thus far.

I can give you another example, from the opposite end this time, namely the A2A Comanche. It's a brilliant implementation - you know why? first and foremost because of it's flight dynamics! Do you know how A2A managed to accomplish that? By dumping that "brilliant" physics engine provided by MSFS and devising a new one in stead! A 3 year feat in that.

In an airplane like the concord, with it's unique yet crucial flight dynamics, FSLabs are facing a daunting task. I don't know for how long have they been busy already with the MSFS version and in what stage of development it is already but given their record for uncompromising fidelity it might be a long  process considering the tools MSFS is providing them in that respect.

Who knows, perhaps by the time it's release-ready we'll be having a brand new sim in FS2024 with a brand new physics engine to replace that "real darn good" one we currently have!

9 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

See, That's the problem with your arguments. What's "real darn good"?

Is the climb rate "real darn good"? is the drag "real darn good"? is the engine performance "real darn good"? is the pitch/power curve "real darn good"?....  You can do the usual cut&paste of gigabytes of text but as long as it's not facts or figures but the usual hearsay and gossip then it is what it is.

The issue indeed is not the Fenix - I just used it as an example of what the MSFS physics engine will allow and more importantly won't allow... The fenix simply being the flagship of MSFS addons thus far.

I can give you another example, from the opposite end this time, namely the A2A Comanche. It's a brilliant implementation - you know why? first and foremost because of it's flight dynamics! Do you know how A2A managed to accomplish that? By dumping that "brilliant" physics engine provided by MSFS and devising a new one in stead! A 3 year feat in that.

In an airplane like the concord, with it's unique yet crucial flight dynamics, FSLabs are facing a daunting task. I don't know for how long have they been busy already with the MSFS version and in what stage of development it is already but given their record for uncompromising fidelity it might be a long  process considering the tools MSFS is providing them in that respect.

Who knows, perhaps by the time it's release-ready we'll be having a brand new sim in FS2024 with a brand new physics engine to replace that "real darn good" one we currently have!

Why don't you ever  talk about the simulator that you think is perfect, rather than dissing everything else.?