February 4, 20251 yr Author On 1/15/2025 at 9:23 AM, ATRguy said: Maybe people who don't know what sim to get for "serious" simming see that and miss out on MSFS because it's being said here that it's not "serious" when indeed it is. So you think a company like Microsoft that has ZERO real world experience in aircraft design and production are somehow “more serious” than a company like Lockheed Martin who actually do produce real world aircraft (and much more)? Get back to me when you can’t land a 747 at St. Barts in MSFS.
February 4, 20251 yr 40 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said: Or perhaps you have NO CLUE what you are talking about? And perhaps what interests you in a flight simulator isn’t what interests others. Are you unaware that people lie … A LOT. Let’s explore that shall we: What version(s) of P3D have you used? What does PDK mean to you? Do you know what CIGI means in P3D? Do you know what features are still missing in MSFS that are in P3D? Do you like melted post apocalyptic world? Is weather depiction important to you? Are flight physics important to you? Do you think it’s good or bad that you can land a 747 at St. Barts? Do you know what Lockheed Martin do in the non-simulated world? … there is a start. You must be right that a real world airline pilot doesn’t have a clue about flying an airplane. But I’ll bite. Started with FS98, 2k, 2002, FSX, P3D 3/4/5 then MSFS. Weather depiction in MSFS is miles ahead of P3D. So are flight physics. I can land a 747 at St Barts in FSX/P3D as well, what’s your point? I don’t get the melted world at all, my MSFS looks fantastic. Miles better than any other sim. Now I get to fly all over the world instead of small parts that are covered by Orbx because the default scenery is unbelievably good. No other sim gives the feeling of flight than MSFS, IMO.
February 4, 20251 yr Author So why is MSFS unable to get FAA certification as a training tool that counts towards hours? P3D is FAA certified (checkout RedBird). Weather depiction is one reason (of several) why MSFS can’t get certified as it doesn’t accurately present visibility which is very important for training simulation. Ground handling is not realistic in MSFS. Inertia still not accurate. Fuel consumption way off relative to wind direction/speeds. “Feelings” … huh?
February 4, 20251 yr 3 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: So why is MSFS unable to get FAA certification as a training tool that counts towards hours? P3D is FAA certified (checkout RedBird). So let's be clear: P3D by itself is not FAA certified. At all. A very specific version of P3D coupled with a very specific set of sim hardware got certified (i.e somebody paid to get a certification) by a company who wanted to make money by selling that set to some flight school or such. It seems to be that the reason there is no combo MSFS+hardware that is certified by the FAA is because nobody paid for it, and also because it requires an internet connexion to work, and finally because MSFS does not permit external control by a control station or something like that. It doesn't tell ANYTHING about how realistic the simulator is. 3 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: Weather depiction is one reason (of several) why MSFS can’t get certified as it doesn’t accurately present visibility which is very important for training simulation. The weather representation in MSFS is indeed less complete than in P3D, because MSFS cannot draw as many 2D cloud types as P3D (mostly because there are no 2D clouds in MSFS), and has no specific control to define precisely the visibility distance, if I remember correctly (need to check that again...) 3 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: Ground handling is not realistic in MSFS. Inertia still not accurate. Fuel consumption way off relative to wind direction/speeds. Ground handling and inertia varies a lot depending on which planes you use. And I would really not use P3D as an example here, since the ground handling, at least until v4, was mostly a joke. And flight models were great... when handled externally from the sim 😄 Fuel consumption is purely a matter defined by the addon, not by the sim, as far as I know.
February 4, 20251 yr 5 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: Or perhaps you have NO CLUE what you are talking about? And perhaps what interests you in a flight simulator isn’t what interests others. Are you unaware that people lie … A LOT. Let’s explore that shall we: What version(s) of P3D have you used? What does PDK mean to you? Do you know what CIGI means in P3D? Do you know what features are still missing in MSFS that are in P3D? Do you like melted post apocalyptic world? Is weather depiction important to you? Are flight physics important to you? Do you think it’s good or bad that you can land a 747 at St. Barts? Do you know what Lockheed Martin do in the non-simulated world? … there is a start. The initial remarks were aiming at the comments that describe MSFS as not being a simulator, but rather a game for arcade lovers, which are indeed lies that are usually tolerated here. We all know what PDK, CIGI and other stuff such as scenario editors etc... are, and nobody denies that all of these things, which are important for commercial users, are missing from MSFS. Now, for the rest of your questions, it's becoming a bit obvious that you have some little issues with MSFS or lack of knowledge in the best case: - Melted apocalyptic world ? Where did you see that ? Oh, maybe you are referring to that optional feature that is the Photogrammetry in MSFS ? Did you know that you can turn that OFF and just get regular (and much richer and more detailled than in P3D) autogen or scenery objects ? Of course you didn't. For you, MSFS is just for people that enjoy flying over "apocalyptic melted world", because yes, ALL of the world look like that in MSFS 😄 - The representation of weather is one of the reasons so many people switched from P3D to MSFS, for your information. Ah yes, P3Dv5 and v6 got volumetric clouds finally, and I think we don't need to explain how they look like, since some P3D users even switch back to 2D. Not an option for me, since I use a VR headset, though... - Flight physics are very important indeed, and while MSFS still has some limitations in this regard, I will simply remind you that P3D has some as well, especially when getting out of the flight domain. There are some very basic things which are yet not included in both sims, like thrust vectoring for example. - The 747 in StBarth? Nice example. I could land heavies in P3Dv4 both in StBarth and in Lukla. So I guess MSFS is as good as P3D ? Also, a certain version of XPlane is also FAA certified, and you can land heavies in StBarth with that sim, so I guess it's more like "if you can't land a 747 in StBarth, then it's not realistic", right ? 😄 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=s-86KnIyDFA&t=698s&ab_channel=JeffFavignano ) - We all know what LM does in real world. How does this translate in the sim exactly ?
February 4, 20251 yr Author 45 minutes ago, Daube said: if you can't land a 747 in StBarth, then it's not realistic", right You linked me to a Xplane11 video of bouncing a 747 off St. Barts hillside? I think what you meant to say is “if you can land a 747 at St. Barts, then it’s not realistic”? And I agree. I’ve landed a 747 in Xplane at St. Barts coming from the other beach side (why even try from the other hill side)? How am I having little knowledge of MSFS because I enable a graphics option? I’m willing to bet the majority of MSFS users enable photogrammetry … myself included. So you think a solid wall that is supposed to be a bridge over water is graphically better?? Or freeway overpass that is a solid wall? How about the short Shadow render radius where you can clearly delineate where shadows start and stop drawing … the more significant the turn the worse the issue. How about photorealistic docks that show up under water bodies … is that another plus? How about ships sitting in the middle of port facing inland? Or those AI aircraft that just spin on the taxiway? Where are all the power lines, NDB, towers, and other objects that do impact one’s approach and often listed in plates? If that isn’t bad enough, MSFS has trees on approach where they don’t exist in the real world … we have obstacles that shouldn’t be there and we have other obstacles that should be there but aren’t. We got trees mashed in and mingle with building structures, cars, middle of the road, etc. Does XPlane, P3D, MSFS all have issues with geometry, scenery, object placement … yep, they sure do. So how is MSFS “progress”? All I get from MSFS is a slightly better lighting implementation and more free stuff out of the box. To make Xplane and P3D look really good, takes time, effort, and more money … something that is not important to me. Your comment about P3D “by itself” is really stretching for straws … yeah no kidding, to be FAA certified simulator you need more than a keyboard and mouse. LM train military pilots (often in Lockheed designed and built aircraft) with P3D … that’s how it relates … geez But why do you have a problem with MSFS being a game? So what? If I want to just bop around, I’ll use MSFS. If I want to do a full on flight and lots of planning with weather projections etc., I do P3D. If I want to fly turbo props and Helicopters I do XPlane12. What I don’t do is corner myself into one simulator pretending it meets all my objectives when I know it doesn’t. If you want to talk about “lies”, then stop lying to yourself that there can only be “one” … unless of course you’re in the Matrix but there again Neo wasn’t “the one”. Edited February 4, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral
February 4, 20251 yr 5 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: So why is MSFS unable to get FAA certification as a training tool that counts towards hours? P3D is FAA certified (checkout RedBird). Weather depiction is one reason (of several) why MSFS can’t get certified as it doesn’t accurately present visibility which is very important for training simulation. Ground handling is not realistic in MSFS. Inertia still not accurate. Fuel consumption way off relative to wind direction/speeds. “Feelings” … huh? Because they haven’t tried? Guess what, your P3D at home isn’t certified either, and Redbird sims are good for one thing, and one thing only, and that’s teaching the very basics of instrument training. It’s not because they fly realistically. They’re absolutely dogword not allowed, as a matter of fact. Nobody flying a Redbird for a 0.8 instrument lesson (that doesn’t count as actual flying, just so we’re clear) cares about fuel consumption. At my old airline, the biggest seaplane airline in North America, we used MSFS as our in house sim, because we fly to lakes and we need that fidelity. So there you go, real pilots using MSFS. Edited February 4, 20251 yr by ATRguy
February 5, 20251 yr 9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: You linked me to a Xplane11 video of bouncing a 747 off St. Barts hillside? I think what you meant to say is “if you can land a 747 at St. Barts, then it’s not realistic”? And I agree. I’ve landed a 747 in Xplane at St. Barts coming from the other beach side (why even try from the other hill side)? How am I having little knowledge of MSFS because I enable a graphics option? I’m willing to bet the majority of MSFS users enable photogrammetry … myself included. So you think a solid wall that is supposed to be a bridge over water is graphically better?? Or freeway overpass that is a solid wall? How about the short Shadow render radius where you can clearly delineate where shadows start and stop drawing … the more significant the turn the worse the issue. How about photorealistic docks that show up under water bodies … is that another plus? How about ships sitting in the middle of port facing inland? Or those AI aircraft that just spin on the taxiway? Oh boy, now you're trying to divert from actual replying... great. Maybe you should read again what I wrote, and make a very huge effort to try to link that to your previous remarks 🙂 You focus on these issues, good for you. Some of us simply disable the photogrammetry and still enjoy a sim that looks really great for the scenery. But feel free to continue to use that option, it seems you like it very much. 9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: Where are all the power lines, NDB, towers, and other objects that do impact one’s approach and often listed in plates? Power lines, solar panel farms, and ski lifts for all over the world were available in an addon that used to be free then turned payware. The free versions were already quite impressive, but yes it's really nice that XPlane has the powerlines by default. How's the situation in P3D by the way ? Concerning other obstacles and navigation related things, indeed the VOR/NBD/etc... antennas are not modelled in 3D. You can still see them on the ground textures though, most of the times. And there are multiple addons, free and payware, that bring in such scenery elements. 9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: If that isn’t bad enough, MSFS has trees on approach where they don’t exist in the real world … we have obstacles that shouldn’t be there and we have other obstacles that should be there but aren’t. We got trees mashed in and mingle with building structures, cars, middle of the road, etc. Yes, the autogen coverage is lacking precision in some cases, just like in XPlane where you needed the SimHeaven stuff to get Europe to look like something nice... In MSFS, you get the whole world. Yes the accuracy is lacking sometimes, but the overall balance is very nice, especially when flying in countries that are close to non-existant in P3D or XPlane (no photoscenery, imprecise generic landclass, no autogen...). 9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: Does XPlane, P3D, MSFS all have issues with geometry, scenery, object placement … yep, they sure do. So how is MSFS “progress”? All I get from MSFS is a slightly better lighting implementation and more free stuff out of the box. To make Xplane and P3D look really good, takes time, effort, and more money … something that is not important to me. There's progress because you get a more consistent representation of the land everywhere in the world, including places that are not and will never be covered by any addons in XPlane or P3D. Yes addons are essentials, and yes, price is a different matter, but there are some places where addons are not available. 9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: Your comment about P3D “by itself” is really stretching for straws … yeah no kidding, to be FAA certified simulator you need more than a keyboard and mouse. Yes, you need a joystick, throttle and pedals too, thanks. And that was not the point. 9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: LM train military pilots (often in Lockheed designed and built aircraft) with P3D … that’s how it relates … geez And what do you get from these training tools in your P3D exactly? How do you explain that TODAY, it is possible to perform a realistic aerial refuelling in MSFS but not in P3D, for example ? (but ok, that's the only example I have in mind right now 😄 ) 9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: But why do you have a problem with MSFS being a game? Again you misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand. I have no problem in MSFS being a game, just like P3D and XPlane are also games. The problem I have is with people saying that MSFS is ONLY a game and not a simulator, and that XPlane and P3D are only simulators and not games. That's the kind of fake informations that we are talking about here as being misleading for newcomers and uninformed people that came to read the forums. 9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: So what? If I want to just bop around, I’ll use MSFS. If I want to do a full on flight and lots of planning with weather projections etc., I do P3D. If I want to fly turbo props and Helicopters I do XPlane12. What I don’t do is corner myself into one simulator pretending it meets all my objectives when I know it doesn’t. Great, you have a similar approach than most of us here. 9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said: If you want to talk about “lies”, then stop lying to yourself that there can only be “one” … unless of course you’re in the Matrix but there again Neo wasn’t “the one”. There you go again. Where did I say there can be only one exactly ?
February 5, 20251 yr Oh man, here we go again.... My sim is better than your sim.... Who cares? Just use the sim you like and don't bother what other people do. You know you still can use more than one sim? Nobody force you to make a choice. Myself, I mostly fly msfs but I keep interrest on others sims as flight simulation is my passion and I couldn't care less if someone else is having fun with P3D or XP. Good for them. It doesn't reduce the enjoyment I have with my sim of choice. Some people use a sim that you think is outdated? That's their problem, not yours! Some people use a sim that you think is just a game for spotty teen? That's their problem, not yours! I'm not married to msfs. So if a P3D x.xx or Xplane 1x.0 would be released and ended being better, I will buy and use it. Edited February 5, 20251 yr by sdirand
February 5, 20251 yr Possibly the most amusing thing about this kind of topic, is that those who don't have MSFS seem to hope that changes will be made to their favourite simulator to make it more like MSFS. Yet they still regard MSFS as a toy that lesser mortals and children play with.
February 5, 20251 yr 1 hour ago, sdirand said: Oh man, here we go again.... My sim is better than your sim.... Who cares? Just use the sim you like and don't bother what other people do. You know you still can use more than one sim? Nobody force you to make a choice. When you stop caring about real world physics and scientific accuracy in a flight simulator then developers can give up trying and release any old ****. Yes you can own and use multiple sims(I use 3 currently) but then it's my sim is better than my sim is better than my sim. Or.. This sim is better than this sim. People need be more objective and stop taking sim criticism PERSONALLY. We've all purchased products at some point that other people give poor reviews for. Did they work for US? That's all that counts! I'm happy to see the arguments rage on. The longer a thread the more likely one of 2 truths will come out. 1) actual important data about the sims involved 2) which of the people involved are not capable of intelligent mature discussion. I tend to avoid number 2s on the forums wherever possible! Russell Gough SE London
February 5, 20251 yr 43 minutes ago, Reader said: Possibly the most amusing thing about this kind of topic, is that those who don't have MSFS seem to hope that changes will be made to their favourite simulator to make it more like MSFS. turn left 180 on that one ..... for now, cheers john martin
February 5, 20251 yr 1 hour ago, sloppysmusic said: When you stop caring about real world physics and scientific accuracy in a flight simulator then developers can give up trying and release any old ****. Yes you can own and use multiple sims(I use 3 currently) but then it's my sim is better than my sim is better than my sim. Or.. This sim is better than this sim. People need be more objective and stop taking sim criticism PERSONALLY. We've all purchased products at some point that other people give poor reviews for. Did they work for US? That's all that counts! I'm happy to see the arguments rage on. The longer a thread the more likely one of 2 truths will come out. 1) actual important data about the sims involved 2) which of the people involved are not capable of intelligent mature discussion. I tend to avoid number 2s on the forums wherever possible! That's a futile and endless battle. No side will ever convince the other side that the choice they made is the best. Probably because we all have different taste and different expectations. MSFS is actually what suits me the best but I accept 100% that for others it is P3D or XP. For the same reason, I expect other people to respect my choice.
February 5, 20251 yr 1 hour ago, sdirand said: I expect other people to respect my choice. Well mostly they do. There's a world of difference between saying: 1) I drink Coke because I prefer the taste to Pepsi and 2) I drink Coke because it tastes better than Pepsi or 3) I drink Coke because it's newer than Pepsi, the dinosaur drink! only 1) is the safe statement! Russell Gough SE London
February 5, 20251 yr You forgot 'I drink Coke because Pepsi is not for real drinkers, it's not even a real soda, it's more suitable for baby bottles" 😄 Edited February 5, 20251 yr by Daube
Create an account or sign in to comment