6 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

With respect and no offense meant to Ray, but  this made me smile. 🙂

(I THINK I feel the same way Ray does for the Concorde, except for me it's the Learjet 25D which is still only available in P3D)

I was flying FS Labs Concorde from Singapore to Hong Kong the other day. At 60,000ft over the South China Sea I was debating how different the view would be in another sim. Take your pick from XP, MSFS 20 or 24. No land was visible and clouds were 20,000ft below me.

I decided that other than different lighting conditions the view would be identical. So why switch with all the aggravation and frustration not to mention of course that FSL Concorde is unavailable for MSFS and is incompatible with XP.

Some might point to the excellent scenery once you’re low enough but that’s the most demanding time in any aircraft and especially so with Concorde. Stop navigating and start looking out of the window is when things start going wrong.

When I see how much frustration there is in the MSFS forum I sometimes think it should be renamed the Masochist forum. 😁

Back on topic I have no idea what may come with a v7. I can’t see LM continuing with an ESP-based sim. v6 has taken that sim as far as it can and LM are to be commended on what they’ve achieved whilst staying within the limits demanded by Microsoft.

49 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Take your pick from XP, MSFS 20 or 24. No land was visible and clouds were 20,000ft below me.

If you fly real weather with active sky (for example) in msfs you can't see the ground half the time anyway. Typical flight yesterday (designed to be a sight seeing tour). 

Lands end to Shoreham at 3500 ft (msa for trip). Thick blanket of cloud all the way so creeped down to 1500 most of the way. Gave up after shaving a few to closely and went up to 12000 to get it over quicker. 

To me everything feels toy-like in msfs, no inertia. It is faked by making controls sluggish but that's not the same at all. The MOMENT I can't see the ground I wish I was in p3d (or fsx in the Md11). 

If v7 came with even basic world satellite data I'd be deleting the game immediately and go back to simming full time. I don't need every single brick in the world in the right place at 50ft. 

I need to go back to respecting my simulator of choice again. 

2 hours ago, Dazkent said:

That looks really nice! as a P3D V4.5 user I skipped version 5 bit concerned about VRAM though as i only have a 8GB card i run at 1080P is it easy to get addons desgined for V4/5 to work in V6?  i take its fine to have V4 and V6 installed at same time?

I run in 4K HDR OLED 43" using a MSI4080suprim, the addons are linked from V4 and V5 Scenery. If an addon does not display correctly it`s simple to remove it. And recommend using free Addon Organiser software.

53 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Lands end to Shoreham at 3500 ft (msa for trip). Thick blanket of cloud all the way so creeped down to 1500 most of the way. Gave up after shaving a few to closely and went up to 12000 to get it over quicker. 

And therein lies the problem of flying in this country for several months of the year. Back in November we went 11 days without seeing the sun here in Cheshire. But you're still downloading scenery you'll never see,

16 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Back in November we went 11 days without seeing the sun here in Cheshire.

Back in 2002 (I have S.A.D. btw) I recall a 2 week stretch in the Midlands of rain, gloom, cloud, drizzle, gloom that never seemed to end. For absolutely unconnected reasons later that year I married a lady in Missouri and by 2003 had moved with her and the kids to Florida.

20 years of great weather (bar those pesky 'canes') but ZERO topography other than lakes, rivers and canals( I DO like water I had a boat there) also took a toll. Now I'm in middle of move back to Blighty with the beautiful scenery we can't SEE half the time.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I was flying FS Labs Concorde from Singapore to Hong Kong the other day. At 60,000ft over the South China Sea I was debating how different the view would be in another sim. Take your pick from XP, MSFS 20 or 24. No land was visible and clouds were 20,000ft below me.

I decided that other than different lighting conditions the view would be identical. So why switch with all the aggravation and frustration not to mention of course that FSL Concorde is unavailable for MSFS and is incompatible with XP.

That's a very valid point, at least since P3Dv6 since you now get a sky that looks like a sky, and clouds that look like clouds, unlike in P3Dv5.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Some might point to the excellent scenery once you’re low enough but that’s the most demanding time in any aircraft and especially so with Concorde. Stop navigating and start looking out of the window is when things start going wrong.

Of course, but let's keep in mind the comments above only apply to you, that is the one and only person in the whole FS community worldwide to exclusively fly the Concorde and nothing else.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

When I see how much frustration there is in the MSFS forum I sometimes think it should be renamed the Masochist forum. 😁

They tried, but the name was already copyrighted for P3D.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Back on topic I have no idea what may come with a v7. I can’t see LM continuing with an ESP-based sim. v6 has taken that sim as far as it can and LM are to be commended on what they’ve achieved whilst staying within the limits demanded by Microsoft.

Well, I'm thinking that the ESP platform itself can be improved much further than we imagine. After all, they managed to make it 64 bits, add a new lighting system, 3D clouds (as ugly as they are, it's still a good first step), and even underwater scenery. I'm guessing they could even go as far as using something like the Outerra engine for scenery and weather representation, while keeping everything else ESP-related for systems etc.. Making something new doesn't always require starting from a full blank page. Even MSFS was built using some FSX basis according to the devs (but ok, they almost had to redo everything...).

3 minutes ago, Daube said:

Of course, but let's keep in mind the comments above only apply to you, that is the one and only person in the whole FS community worldwide to exclusively fly the Concorde and nothing else.

You’re mistaken. I also fly PMDG737 and 777, Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25, Carenado PC12 and Vertx DA62.

5 minutes ago, Daube said:

That's a very valid point, at least since P3Dv6 since you now get a sky that looks like a sky, and clouds that look like clouds, unlike in P3Dv5.

I fly v5.3HF2. Concorde isn’t compatible with v6.

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You’re mistaken. I also fly PMDG737 and 777, Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25, Carenado PC12 and Vertx DA62.

Then you're missing out the quality of the landscape around your landings and takeoffs. And even during your flights. I've performed several IFR flights around the French/Italian/Swiss Alps and the looking at them during a cruise at 30.000 feet is spectacular. And don't get me started about an approach to any of the airports in that area, day, dusk or night. Clouds are not always masking everything, you know.

I've performed a few flights with the default DA-62 as well as the SWS PC12 in various countries including central Africa and more recently Japan, and no I'm not always above the clouds with these planes. Granted, my last landing in Aomori was full ILS, so I missed the beautiful view on the city, coast and surrounding volcanos during my approach. I could enjoy them during the next takeoff a few days later though (despite the ice slowly accumulating on my side windows 😄 ). All of that stuff, I cannot get in P3D.

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I fly v5.3HF2. Concorde isn’t compatible with v6.

Yeah I was trying to propagate the logic to IFR flyers of the current sim 😄 But sorry you still have to use the v5 though 😕

 

 

@Daube, I’m perfectly happy with my setup.

P3D V6 lighting and clouds are much improved, but there is still too much “brown tint” even with adjustments with the tone mapping values.  P3D V6 also supports SSAO and TAA … SSAO is what makes all objects seem less “flat” as it adds “darkness” to vertex intersections outward facing (don’t confuse with shadow rendering).

What I find odd by “some users” (not all) is they never experimented with the graphics settings in V6 … they paid for something they have no clue how to use or even motivated to figure out how to get the best results.  I can provide plenty of screenshots of P3D V6 looking better than MSFS (especially in the distance rendering where I can see city skylines in P3D and nothing in MSFS).  P3D supports 1024 res tiles, MSFS does not (hence why runways and the like look sharper).

The funniest posts I see from P3D to MSFS users that seem stuck to one platform are screenshots of older versions of P3D in remote locations with lowest possible graphics settings as an “example” of what P3D looks like … now do the same for MSFS and turn down all the graphics settings and you’ll get a ugly mess.  The MSFS BIAS is mind boggling, and why … that’s the part I don’t get?  Do these users setup the MSFS BIAS because they’re too lazy to figure out P3D graphics settings and discover why scenery comes with PBR support … maybe they just can’t figure it out so therefore it’s not “them” but the P3D as the problem?  Who knows?  I see the same “Tweaking” questions in MSFS forums as I do in P3D forums.

Anyway, doesn’t really matter, LM don’t “need” 3rd party content providers, they don’t “need” non-commercial users (they are well funded) … yeah, it would be nice if 3rd party tagged along but they’ll only do that if the ROI is there and historically  those of us more “serious” about our flight simulators are even more a niche.  

Anyway, like I suggested before it will boil down to “out of box” experience and SDK/PDK.  If they do that right, users will follow but have no doubt this market is always “niche”.

If msfs2020/2024 is so superior why dont real flightsim companies use it? Because it is not that realistic. Realistic does not mean eyecandy!

I use p3dv6 for my home sim , msfs2020 for VR vfr things . Please go and fly a real  flightsim and then you will be disappointed by the eyecandy, there is little. That is not what a real sim is about so stop comparing.

MS 2024 was XBOX game pass from day one because that`s what`s funding the development, and that was the remit MS gave to the game studios.  And CES showed the move to handheld and TVs for game pass. 

On 1/10/2025 at 1:30 PM, remcosol said:

If msfs2020/2024 is so superior why dont real flightsim companies use it? Because it is not that realistic. Realistic does not mean eyecandy!

Oh boy...

20 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

MS 2024 was XBOX game pass from day one because that`s what`s funding the development, and that was the remit MS gave to the game studios.  And CES showed the move to handheld and TVs for game pass. 

So what is your point here ?

On 1/10/2025 at 1:30 PM, remcosol said:

Because it is not that realistic

because it is licensed for entertainment use. Not endorsed for training. But if MS /asobo really wanted to, they could go after that market as well. But the packaging would be different with much less dynamic streaming content.

During instrument training I have been exposed to two different outlets which offer EASA approved simulators (FNPT II ) that you can account for towards EASA IR rating. 
and let me tell you, I could have done the exact same excercises in MSFS and still be very confident that I'd pass the school checks, especially since much focus is on PBN/GNSS nowadays.