1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

No one has to just use one sim, what would be the fun in that?

It's a good point but I think we're deep into keyboard warriorhood here....

57 minutes ago, uwespeed said:

Cool down ... it was only to show that avsim isn't the centre of flightsimming.

Well then you quoting me makes zero sense.

29 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I keep seeing implications like this. 

what, exactly, makes MSFS an unserious flight sim relative to XP or P3D or DCSW…?

Probably because people like it 😉 

3 hours ago, tamba765 said:

HELP ME, I'm Drowning!!!

     I've been reading posts in this forum, not just in this thread, for several months now. Frankly I'm not sure which way to turn.

Why don't you go XP12?  I mean just because on Steamdb at this moment XP12 users make up only 7.6% of MSFS users is no reason to not put XP12 at the top of your short list.  You will have a stable platform with predicable incremental updates that is less dependent on internet bandwidth.  I think if I was coming from P3D I would strongly consider this option.  I see XP12 as offering nothing meaningful for my FS use and remain enthralled w/ 2024 so that is largely why I won't switch to XP12.  It's a big project to get facile with a new sim I spend way too much time already in MSFS.  

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

FSX run like scalded cats

In 2025 FSX will still give an OOM once the virtual memory is saturated between two memory hungry aiport addons in one runtime instance, no matter what the latest hardware driving it is.

The FSX software is just hard ceiling limited to that 2006 tech. Doesn't matter the FPS gains through the decades you'll still face the OOMs no matter if it's Windows XP, 7, 10 or 11.

Edited August 4, 2025Aug 4 by blueshark747

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

It's a good point but I think we're deep into keyboard warriorhood here....

The whole thread is.

Everyone should fly a sim they like, and stop desparaging other sims they don't.

At least the OP has some ideas now of what to expect in different sims.

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Why don't you go XP12?  I mean just because on Steamdb at this moment XP12 users make up only 7.6% of MSFS users is no reason to not put XP12 at the top of your short list.  You will have a stable platform with predicable incremental updates that is less dependent on internet bandwidth.  I think if I was coming from P3D I would strongly consider this option.  I see XP12 as offering nothing meaningful for my FS use and remain enthralled w/ 2024 so that is largely why I won't switch to XP12.  It's a big project to get facile with a new sim I spend way too much time already in MSFS.  

You had me at 7.6% and Nothing Meaningful!!

heckuva salesman 🤪

1 hour ago, blueshark747 said:

In 2025 FSX will still give an OOM once the virtual memory is saturated between two memory hungry aiport addons in one runtime instance, no matter what the latest hardware driving it is.

The FSX software is just hard ceiling limited to that 2006 tech. Doesn't matter the FPS gains through the decades you'll still face the OOMs no matter if it's Windows XP, 7, 10 or 11.

You’re right of course. 
 

my point is that “Beggars Cant Be Choosers” 🤙

10 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

You’re right of course. 
 

my point is that “Beggars Cant Be Choosers” 🤙

I wish those memory limit OOM issues in FSX were resolved!

@micstatic I'd for sure fire up my ole FSX build in an instant to reunite with our beloved Majestic Q400 and actually fly her from one high quality airport addon to another without needing to save quit resume midflight🤣😂

Edited August 5, 2025Aug 5 by blueshark747

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

It's a good point but I think we're deep into keyboard warriorhood here....

My wife just looked over at me and asked me “what are you laughing at”. I answered “well dear it is a forum called AVSim and to put it mildly - you can’t make this stuff up”.

To the OP, I sincerely hope you look at all the options to maximum your flight sim experience and make it enjoyable.

Edit: quoted wrong person sorry.

Edited August 5, 2025Aug 5 by JBDB-MD80

12 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

The greatest thing about MSFS is that the vast majority of the default airports look pretty good. Spending $15-25 for one  payware airport, that you might fly to and land at  once a year, in my opinion, is just throwing money away. In almost 4 years, I think I have purchased at the most 4 airports, and I don't even fly to those very often. 

I do not agree that the default airports look all that good. They are not even close to the level at which I need airports to be. Only the hand crafted airports are at a decent level of quality. However, none of them are as good as some of the payware works of art that I have installed.

On 8/3/2025 at 7:20 AM, chickster25 said:

The point is that there is new sceneries arriving in the marketplace all the time but who is going to buy it when MS can turn off the platform at any time. 
 

it’s an inherent problem with cloud based services, not just MSFS but I don’t have money to waste on products I will lose. It’s a shame for those who don’t have money to spare 

You should worry about the developer platform turning off before the Microsoft platform.

41 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I do not agree that the default airports look all that good. They are not even close to the level at which I need airports to be. Only the hand crafted airports are at a decent level of quality. However, none of them are as good as some of the payware works of art that I have installed.

Buying a high quality airport is a slippery slope, you think you'll just buy your 'home' airport, then you find even the detailed airports in MSFS a bit disappointing.

3 hours ago, flyingscampi said:

Buying a high quality airport is a slippery slope, you think you'll just buy your 'home' airport, then you find even the detailed airports in MSFS a bit disappointing.

That is actually a very good point, although (thankfully) it does not stop me from enjoying visits to all of the ~100 airport addons that I have installed. I think that the most important thing to note is that "lesser" detailed airports in situations like this need to be "clean and tidy" (for want of a better term). In other words, they must be free of any significant issues (visual or otherwise), and also look good enough (good quality textures/lots of good quality clutter/interesting areas etc) for me to feel comfortable when I am there.

This is similar to the reason why I am quite happy to stick with 1080p resolution on a relatively modest sized monitor. Once you upgrade to higher resolutions and larger screen space, it would be difficult to go back.

Edited August 5, 2025Aug 5 by Christopher Low