@ATRguy I own all PMDG aircrafts for MSFS. Except for the 737-600/700/900, the rest are in my hangar. And I have flown 777, and I am saying it's a great addon, but for me systems and dynamics are a priority. And somehow I am not feeling it the same way I felt other aircrafts in XP11/12.

I am quite invested in both MSFS and XP. And nothing stops me from investing some more in P3D, I guess.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

are you not tempted by FS Labs Concorde?

I've looked into it. It seems to be a great addon, just like FS Labs A320 series. I'll start from PMDG though, but Concorde is tempting.

47 minutes ago, ATRguy said:

unless you've already invested a lot of money into P3D, it's not worth starting.

Exactly

50 minutes ago, V_Pilot said:

@ATRguy I own all PMDG aircrafts for MSFS. Except for the 737-600/700/900, the rest are in my hangar. And I have flown 777, and I am saying it's a great addon, but for me systems and dynamics are a priority. And somehow I am not feeling it the same way I felt other aircrafts in XP11/12.

I am quite invested in both MSFS and XP. And nothing stops me from investing some more in P3D, I guess.

I don't know how you would feel that the systems are different or worse than P3D in MSFS.  It's a 777.  It's got better capabilities than P3D.  

Flight dynamics are always contentious, but I've been a pilot for ten years, and nothing gets the "feeling" of flight right like MSFS does.

The best thing about P3Dv5 is that you don't need an internet connection to use it, and you don't have to deal with server issues that 

degrade the scenery. 

3 minutes ago, tamba765 said:

The best thing about P3Dv5 is that you don't need an internet connection to use it, and you don't have to deal with server issues that 

degrade the scenery. 

That has never happened to me once.  I have only ever seen a connection issue a few times, and for less than 30 seconds.  On reasonably good internet in Canada.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It was 32-bit so had a limit of 4Gb VAS. In reality it became unstable around 3.8. Yes, push settings too far and it would crash.

No such problems with v4 to v6.

That was it, yes, thank you. I was thinking about reinstalling P3D on my new system to enjoy A2As B377 COTS but as much as I enjoyed that plane (and others) just cant imagine going back to 32 bit. Its a shame that a few planes never made it to P3Dv4+ or even better to MSFS because they still had a lot of life left to them in my eyes.

opinion

1 NO

2 NO

Why do you want to get into P3D now? its real old its basically an updated FSX.

I wouldn't recommend unless add-on like PMDG  and ORBX where less then 50% lower than the current Prices

Edited November 16, 20241 yr by jason74

26 minutes ago, jason74 said:

Why do you want to get into P3D now? its real old its basically an updated FSX.

FSX was 32-bit running on DX9. There was no multithreading - everything ran on one core so modern CPUs were wasted. Performance was dreadful and was probably why the Aces Team was disbanded a couple of years later.

The world’s coastlines, rivers, lakes, cities and towns were very poorly reproduced. Only Europe and North America had any decent level of detail.

Fast forward 14 years to April 2020 when P3Dv5 was released. 64-bit, DX12, the whole world’s coastlines, rivers, cities enhanced to a whole new level.

Multi-core processing now possible boosting frame rates significantly. Enhanced Atmospherics breathing new life into the sim. Unrecognisable from the earlier FSX.

A bit like saying a Rolls-Royce is just an updated Chevrolet.

We are all free to buy the simulator of our choice. Not everyone has the same priorities. I have never questioned why users of any other sim bought it. It’s none of my business.

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

FSX was 32-bit running on DX9. There was no multithreading - everything ran on one core so modern CPUs were wasted. Performance was dreadful and was probably why the Aces Team was disbanded a couple of years later.

The world’s coastlines, rivers, lakes, cities and towns were very poorly reproduced. Only Europe and North America had any decent level of detail.

Fast forward 14 years to April 2020 when P3Dv5 was released. 64-bit, DX12, the whole world’s coastlines, rivers, cities enhanced to a whole new level.

Multi-core processing now possible boosting frame rates significantly. Enhanced Atmospherics breathing new life into the sim. Unrecognisable from the earlier FSX.

A bit like saying a Rolls-Royce is just an updated Chevrolet.

We are all free to buy the simulator of our choice. Not everyone has the same priorities. I have never questioned why users of any other sim bought it. It’s none of my business.

I was just interested to know why. P3D is still basically FSX, yes its been updated to 64-bit and DX12 but its Architecture is still 80% FSX.

The last time I loaded it only a few moths ago it was still a lot like FSX

Edited November 17, 20241 yr by jason74

According to a recent update from PMDG, they plan to bring their 747 into msfs2024. It won't be ready at launch but should appear reasonably soon in 2025.

 

So I would say that spending such an amount of money in p3d now would not be a very smart move at all. Better spend a smaller amount of money in msfs2024 and the PMDG 777 and future 747 in that sim (plus all the other excellent liners available in there, including the freeware) 😉

8 hours ago, jason74 said:

The last time I loaded it only a few moths ago it was still a lot like FSX

Default airports will. Coastlines etc. have been transformed.

Have you enabled “Enhanced Atmospherics” Most people add addons just as they do for all sims.

P3D is good to go if you use payware airports and you will combine Pilot's mesh with custom made ortho maps.

This is visually max what you can squeeze from P3D, even though you will be only at more or less 80 maybe 90% of MSFS visuals.

EA is good as long you stay below clouds, above you will see strange things.

20 hours ago, spilok said:

If P3d is practically dead, then I love flying this dead sim every single day.  I do use MSFS but only for eye candy - VFR flying.  I absolutely love P3d for my long hauls.  The planes in my stable are too numerous to mention and most of them were FREE.  Using Active Sky, Force Feedback (with Russell Dirks' software), Cloud Art, and so many other great sceneries, I expect to fly P3d for many, many more years.  MSFS is going to be quite different in 2024 and much improved...but all the little games like some of the missions and checking pilot's salaries, and building this imaginary life (as in most adolescent video games) is just not for me!  I just want a good flight model, very good scenery, and the ability to fly wherever I want.  P3d is better than most people might think.  I just returned from Germany not too long ago, and when flying out of Frankfurt, I took a picture of the Cityscape.  When I flew that same runway out of Frankfurt with P3d, I was amazed at how perfectly the buildings and topography were represented.  Don't underestimate the investment in a great sim.

You can’t be serious. Your argument against MSFS 2024 is immediately flawed when you compared the career mode ( which is completely different and stand alone mode) in msfs 2024 to p3d. At least be intellectual honest here. There is nothing that you can’t do in free flight mode in msfs 2024 that you can’t do in p3d.

I can’t fathom how you would compare the scenery in p3d to the streamed data now used in msfs 2024 and on msfs 2020. Its worlds better than p3d.

I understand that for many people P3d is the last piece of software that one feels like they are doing something much more than playing a computer game. Not only that msfs, to the same group of people may feel too gamey but good grief, some of the comparisons are just factually wrong and littered with biases that a conversation can’t even be had anymore.

24 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I can’t fathom how you would compare the scenery in p3d to the streamed data now used in msfs 2024 and on msfs 2020. Its worlds better than p3d.

Doesn't that rather depend on the altitude you're flying and the type of aircraft in use?

Currently I'm flying Concorde from Montreal to Orlando. Subsonic until I reach the coast. But even at FL330 / Mach 0.95 there's not much to look at and that's with clear skies. With cloud cover there isn't anything to look at.

Once I'm supersonic over the sea I fail to understand how any of the three major sims is an improvement over the other two.

OTOH, if you're toddling around at 1500ft in a Cessna MSFS offers a clear advantage but that's not how I fly.