36 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

 

If I had a full motion level D simulator at home, I'd probably not be using MSFS. I think most can agree on that. But does that add anything to the discussion about whether someone uses MSFS except for the fact that he apparently has no full motion simulator at home? P3D and XPL are just as far away from a full motion certified sim as is MSFS, for various reasons.

Again , point is, there's too much emphasis on visuals too little on other stuff. The question of visuals seems to pop up ever so often. Perhaps people should widen their horizons and concentrate on other stuff as well - hence my level D sims example. If it was just all about visuals, those level D sims would have not passed the scrutiny of most folks here on avsim...

1 hour ago, Sethos said:

Then you quoted the wrong guy. I made a comparison between old technology and new technology that replaced it. Wasn't talking about graphics but the platform as a whole.

And I suspect you are too invested in defending P3D if you are gonna sit here and tell me the flight dynamics were good. 

I have no issue in either defending or scrutinizing either platform, its not like I have posted 7400 times in less than 4 years singing the praises of either. Each has its merits and shortcomings but it does get annoying -I admit, when people make definitive statements on matters they have little to no understanding or just regurgitate baseless stuff the heard on some youtube video...

9 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Each has its merits and shortcomings but it does get annoying -I admit, when people make definitive statements on matters they have little to no understanding or just regurgitate baseless stuff the heard on some youtube video...

Yeah that rare and elusive P3D platform no one has tried or flown, which wasn't the cornerstone of the flight simulation community for well over a decade. Every opinion about that is baseless and from a YouTube video 👌

4 hours ago, Sethos said:

Yeah that rare and elusive P3D platform no one has tried or flown, which wasn't the cornerstone of the flight simulation community for well over a decade. Every opinion about that is baseless and from a YouTube video 👌

P3D is a commercially licensable training simulator package, something MSFS is not.

P3D and MSFS are two different products targeting two different markets.

As this forum community is mostly entertainment targeted you'll never see the highly customised proprietory development and systems that go into building the sort of simulation packages LM produces (costing many millions of US $$).

But that's perfectly understandable.

Cheers

6 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

Did you ever sit in a full motion level D simulator? you'll be surprised at the level of graphics. It's all a matter of priorities...

The difference is, a Level D sim isn’t really used for “flying”.  It’s used for training.  It’s used for systems and procedures, not for simulating a flight. I’m not looking out the window much in the sim, because that’s not the point.  Sure, we do LOFTS in them, but the point of those is that something usually goes wrong on those training flights, and that’s the value of a sim.  And they still aren’t 100%.  There’s always a “oh the sim does that, don’t worry about it.”  Or a V1 cut is way more outrageous in the sim than real life.  Plus, we do screw around in them as well, if we have time (landing on aircraft carriers, rolling inverted above the field and seeing if we can Split-S to the runway…)
 

I use MSFS for “flying”.   There’s no actual training device that you can look out the window and be like “word not allowed this is exactly like flying”.   MSFS is really, really close to that.  The best there ever has been, for sure.  If I could ever have a good sim at home, it would have MSFS because that’s the best sensation of flight available now, IMO.  

Edited May 4, 20242 yr by ATRguy

5 hours ago, Rogen said:

P3D is a commercially licensable training simulator package, something MSFS is not.

P3D and MSFS are two different products targeting two different markets.

As this forum community is mostly entertainment targeted you'll never see the highly customised proprietory development and systems that go into building the sort of simulation packages LM produces (costing many millions of US $$).

But that's perfectly understandable.

Cheers

And the P3D version we all used still had wonky flight dynamics, looked mediocre, ran terrible and is now on life support as every developer has completely abandoned it.

Good day.

10 hours ago, ATRguy said:

The difference is, a Level D sim isn’t really used for “flying”.  It’s used for training.  It’s used for systems and procedures, not for simulating a flight. I’m not looking out the window much in the sim, because that’s not the point.  Sure, we do LOFTS in them, but the point of those is that something usually goes wrong on those training flights, and that’s the value of a sim.  And they still aren’t 100%.  There’s always a “oh the sim does that, don’t worry about it.”  Or a V1 cut is way more outrageous in the sim than real life.  Plus, we do screw around in them as well, if we have time (landing on aircraft carriers, rolling inverted above the field and seeing if we can Split-S to the runway…)
 

I use MSFS for “flying”.   There’s no actual training device that you can look out the window and be like “word not allowed this is exactly like flying”.   MSFS is really, really close to that.  The best there ever has been, for sure.  If I could ever have a good sim at home, it would have MSFS because that’s the best sensation of flight available now, IMO.  

I actually come from an opposite direction. In reality, you fly by the seat of your pants - no simulator can emulate that so I can't really relate to what you call "sensation of flight". 

What you CAN do, is run it for systems and procedures, just like you said. This is what I prefer doing as in all honesty, coupling the AP at 400 ft and watch it follow the magenta line gets me quite bored fairly quickly.

To do that you'll need accurate dynamics and deep system simulation, the rest (e.g visuals) is something I'm ready to compromise. Same logic applies to professional simulators, which was my point. 

5 hours ago, Sethos said:

And the P3D version we all used still had wonky flight dynamics

Care to expend? what's wonky? the "airspeed unreliable" on an FSL A230? Does the Q400 carry too much drag on descent? the thrust response curve on the LSH MD 82? or again, in the tradition of avsim you just throw around unsubstantiated statements? Flight Dynamics are as good as the developer makes it. If you're looking for accurate models in terms of dynamics, then at this point in time P3D still has more of them to offer. With time this may change.

Edited May 4, 20242 yr by ha5mvo

2 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

I actually come from an opposite direction. In reality, you fly by the seat of your pants - no simulator can emulate that so I can't really relate to what you call "sensation of flight". 

.

To do that you'll need accurate dynamics and deep system simulation, the rest (e.g visuals) is something I'm ready to compromise. Same logic applies to professional simulators, which was my point. 

 Flight Dynamics are as good as the developer makes it. If you're looking for accurate models in terms of dynamics, then at this point in time P3D still has more of them to offer. With time this may change.

You don’t fly an airliner by the seat of your pants; you fly it by numbers, procedures, and checklists.  If something goes wrong, checklist.  Normal day, checklist.  I fly an airliner in probably the most isolated “seat of your pants” part of the world, and we still do it that way.  
 

The best part of MSFS is you don’t need to compromise anymore.  The visuals are stunning and with the right aircraft, you get all the systems depth you get on any other sim.  
 

Hard disagree there.  Besides water handling, which no sim has ever done well, MSFS “feels” way better than P3D for flight dynamics.  You’re right, they’re only as good as the developer makes them, and companies have done a fantastic job of making MSFS “feel” great. 

It’s a shame they’re taking so long to get the Q out, because it is great in P3D, but it’ll be way, way better in MSFS. 

Let’s keep discussing the majestic and avoid letting this topic plunge into another my sim vs yours. 

6 hours ago, ATRguy said:

 

I feel the same as with FSlabs if they can get around the limitations of MFS physics and flight dynamics like A2A has done they will have my money on day 1.

Right now I'm really enjoying Q4XP but a worthy interpretation of Magestic in mfs would be wonderful, I don't have it in p3d because I've been years out of the sim world and I don't have enough capital to invest in another sim but I've always been tempted by p3d just because of majestic. 

5 hours ago, micstatic said:

Let’s keep discussing the majestic and avoid letting this topic plunge into another my sim vs yours. 

Good luck with that.  😉

I hope they bring it in. I am not quite a fan of the ATR 😁 I prefer the Dash 8 🙂

2 hours ago, Vali said:

I hope they bring it in. I am not quite a fan of the ATR 😁 I prefer the Dash 8 🙂

Well yeah it’s the fat, slow cousin haha. 

On 5/2/2024 at 4:40 AM, ha5mvo said:

Can you imagine a commercial airline using pmdg for its training purposes? Won’t happen in a million years.

This person did:  

 

On 5/3/2024 at 10:34 PM, Sethos said:

And the P3D version we all used still had wonky flight dynamics, looked mediocre, ran terrible and is now on life support as every developer has completely abandoned it.

Good day.

Agree with this. I loved the airplane, but about 4 years ago, the DRM cooked itself on my Windows install and I was never able to get the aircraft to load after that. MJC weren't of much help, they couldn't figure it out either, tried reinstalling it and even chasing down any registry keys several times. 

But yes, the external FM never really worked properly, the cockpit was nice but the model was meh, and the performance was always quite poor. It just didn't really stack up against later aircraft and it never really got new functionality.

I, for one, would welcome a disruptor here to announce a Dash 8 package or even just the Q400, because at the moment it sounds like we won't see MJC in MSFS until 2026+.

On 5/4/2024 at 12:41 PM, ha5mvo said:

Care to expend? what's wonky? the "airspeed unreliable" on an FSL A230? Does the Q400 carry too much drag on descent? the thrust response curve on the LSH MD 82? or again, in the tradition of avsim you just throw around unsubstantiated statements? Flight Dynamics are as good as the developer makes it. If you're looking for accurate models in terms of dynamics, then at this point in time P3D still has more of them to offer. With time this may change.

All of the examples you list here use custom, external simulations (= separate .exe files) for flight models, engine simulation, etc. precisely because P3D sorely lacks in departments like flight model, ground friction or engine simulation. None of the things you (rightfully) praise here have anything to do with P3D's inherent simulation - they are all custom, outside of the sim. If you used P3D's code entirely for these things, you'd get pretty shoddy results. Being certified for whatever training doesn't help P3D in this regard, and shows that a sim being certified for something doesn't mean as much as simmers like to think.