2 hours ago, GCBraun said:

That said, there’s still a lot of room for improvement in 2024, particularly when it comes to clouds, mesh, and textures. I’d also like to see the sim become more open and easier to develop for in certain areas. But since I believe Asobo/MS do (partially) listen to feedback, it makes sense to be on the version where most of the development effort is now going.

That’s where third party companies excel. Like ActiveSky and Rex. But they were not helped at all because of the arrangement with MeteoBlue. Things did eventually improve. Do their clouds improve on the default ones?

2 hours ago, GCBraun said:

As for Lockheed Martin, most of their resources are focused on building war machines or maintaining the environments relevant to that market. End-users like us have never been their priority.

Not our priority but they do consider us trying (and mainly succeeding) to maintain backward compatibility. I’m still using FSDT airports in v5 that work in FSX. Few use their default aircraft. We use their scenery and of course the SDK is very comprehensive.

I have no doubt MSFS is the best for sightseeing but for procedural flying at 6-11 miles up the differences between all sims are less defined.

It wasn't enough to have "wars" between P3D, msfs and XP users, now we have "wars" between msfs and msfs24 users.. Oh well!

Internet is old enough for you to know that there are no winners in those kind of wars. You won't convaince the other side that your choice is the best!

Add to this, that the choice made by a another user that you don't know and that you will probably never meet, add or sub nothing to the enjoyment you have with the sim you chose.

Yes, believe it or not, some users still have some fun with fs2004 or fsx and good for them, it is their business after all, not yours, not mine!

Edited May 17, 20251 yr by sdirand

22 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That’s where third party companies excel. Like ActiveSky and Rex. But they were not helped at all because of the arrangement with MeteoBlue. Things did eventually improve. Do their clouds improve on the default ones?

ActiveSky, REX, and ChasePlane are all available for MSFS, a clear sign that smart developers are finding creative ways to work around the tighter control over core functionalities. Of these, the only one I plan to purchase is ChasePlane at some point in the future, mainly for its fly-by camera.

22 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Not our priority but they do consider us trying (and mainly succeeding) to maintain backward compatibility. I’m still using FSDT airports in v5 that work in FSX. Few use their default aircraft. We use their scenery and of course the SDK is very comprehensive.

I have no doubt MSFS is the best for sightseeing but for procedural flying at 6-11 miles up the differences between all sims are less defined.

MSFS enables stunning recreations of complex machines like the A350 shown below. Among the aircraft I’ve owned, not a single one falls short compared to its counterpart from the ESP/FSX era. In fact, most are significantly better.

22 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have no doubt MSFS is the best for sightseeing but for procedural flying at 6-11 miles up the differences between all sims are less defined.

Let's just agree to disagree.

2 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

ActiveSky, REX, and ChasePlane are all available for MSFS, a clear sign that smart developers are finding creative ways to work around the tighter control over core functionalities.

I was extremely concerned that ActiveSky would fold because trying to understand the SDK was so difficult for them. If they had that would have ended weather info for P3D which would have been catastrophic for me. They encountered serious resistance to requests for help. Eventually an agreement was reached.

I’m a Boeing fan primarily because I still use the GoFlight MCP. Other than being an older design than the A350 the sophistication is still there with PMDG.

7 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

Let's just agree to disagree.

Happy to. There are no right and wrong opinions, just different ones. 😉

MSFS2020 is just not "Farewell" not for me but MSFS2024 is not ready to compare with MSFS2020, far away in my opinion..

cheers 😉

Edited May 17, 20251 yr by pmplayer

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’m a Boeing fan primarily because I still use the GoFlight MCP. 

Yes, I completely understand. I prefer to keep my sim accessories as flexible as possible so I’m not locked into a single aircraft type. That’s why I chose Stream Decks over dedicated Boeing or Airbus MCPs.

As you can see below, I’ve put together a controller setup that works well across general aviation, Boeing, Airbus, and even fighter jets.

5 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

Yes, I completely understand. I prefer to keep my sim accessories as flexible as possible so I’m not locked into a single aircraft type. That’s why I chose Stream Decks over dedicated Boeing or Airbus MCPs.

As you can see below, I’ve put together a controller setup that works well across general aviation, Boeing, Airbus, and even fighter jets.

Wow!! Nice setup. Thanks for sharing this!!! What is the most number of hours you spent flying your sim?

1 hour ago, sdirand said:

It wasn't enough to have "wars" between P3D, msfs and XP users, now we have "wars" between msfs and msfs24 users.. Oh well!

Strange thing is that there isn't any 'war' between XP12 and XP11 users, and as I asked some fellow 'XP-oldtimer-users': there never was one between XP[+1] vs. XP. What does that tell us about the respective sims and/or their users?

36 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

Wow!! Nice setup. Thanks for sharing this!!! What is the most number of hours you spent flying your sim?

Thanks! My sessions usually last around two hours. I enjoy flying larger jets on longer routes as well, so I shamelessly use time acceleration during cruise to skip the more repetitive parts and avoid staring at instruments for hours on end.

14 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Strange thing is that there isn't any 'war' between XP12 and XP11 users, and as I asked some fellow 'XP-oldtimer-users': there never was one between XP[+1] vs. XP. What does that tell us about the respective sims and/or their users?

Maybe it says more about attitudes on AVSIM.  It seems to me that there's always been a major "bandwagon mentality" on this site. 

Edited May 17, 20251 yr by Holdit

58 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

As you can see below, I’ve put together a controller setup that works well across general aviation, Boeing, Airbus, and even fighter jets.

That’s an impressive setup. 👏 If you’re retired it’s a great way of passing time. If you’re not, roll on retirement. 😁

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That’s an impressive setup. 👏 If you’re retired it’s a great way of passing time. If you’re not, roll on retirement. 😁

23 years to go! But I am hopeful that AI will replace me earlier! 😀

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Strange thing is that there isn't any 'war' between XP12 and XP11 users, and as I asked some fellow 'XP-oldtimer-users': there never was one between XP[+1] vs. XP. What does that tell us about the respective sims and/or their users?

It tell us that XP has a very small user base.

15 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have the FSL 64-bit Concorde in P3Dv5. I’m primarily a procedural flyer. What is important to me is operating the aircraft as it was flown in real life on a stable platform that is reliable with a mature SDK. Visuals don’t matter that much to me providing they meet an acceptable standard which v5 meets.

No one will produce a better Concorde than FSL and the version that eventually arrives for MSFS won’t be any different than the one in P3D.

Ray,

The issue is not the Concorde as such. I just used it as an example.

I don't disagree in principle with what you say, but that wasn't my point. I see your posts in the FSL Concorde section - how long do you think before they adress whatever bugs are still there or allow you to get by without the VFE? That stuff is at the very bottom of the priority list, and who can blame them...?

Whether you or I like it or not (and if you go through my posts here I'm sure you'll find a ton of stuff that I don't) the development efforts will shift to the most popular platform regardless as to whether its popularity is justified or not. That's why I can predict that the "next generation" of Concord or whatever other high fidelity addon would be for the MS version of the sim. 

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Ahí es donde sobresalen las empresas de terceros, como ActiveSky y Rex. Sin embargo, el acuerdo con MeteoBlue no les ayudó en absoluto. La situación finalmente mejoró. ¿Sus nubes son mejores que las predeterminadas?

No es nuestra prioridad, pero sí consideran que intentamos (y en general lo conseguimos) mantener la retrocompatibilidad. Sigo usando los aeropuertos de FSDT en la versión 5 que funcionan en FSX. Pocos usan sus aviones predeterminados. Nosotros usamos sus escenarios y, por supuesto, el SDK es muy completo.

No tengo dudas de que MSFS es el mejor para hacer turismo, pero para vuelos procedimentales a 6-11 millas de altura las diferencias entre todos los simuladores están menos definidas.

Meteorology is still not a priority for Asobo despite the fact that they promised to take it seriously already 2021  in one of those usual Asobo sell-one-goods videos. The cloud representation has improved a bit but the live weather is still very bad, especially the turbulence and icing.

The sad thing is that they also don't want to open the Api for third parties where active Sky and others could make this simulator shine.

In my country there is a saying that they are like the dog in the garden that the dog doesn't eat but doesn't let eat either.

Edited May 17, 20251 yr by Aglos77