On 8/7/2025 at 8:29 PM, Patco Lch said:

Hi, ComSimPilot. What has your experience with Ezdok been? I bought it a few weeks ago when the windows update messed up the panning with Chase Plane and was really impressed once I learned my way around. But after a while  things go south . The hat switch stops working along with other issues. After this happening more then once I just went back to CP.  I actually prefer Ezdok but it just seems too temperamental. 

Hello Patcho! My experience with Ezdok is very good. I has nice shaking effects and I believe its better in terms of performance and latency than Chase Plane, or at least it seems tome. I also have CP and when installed experienced exactly what you describe, so that's why I installed Ezdok. I recommend it. 

On 8/6/2025 at 3:13 PM, dbw1 said:

And the B377.

Hope this helps ease your pain.. 

On 8/10/2025 at 2:53 AM, ComSimPilot said:

Hello Patcho! My experience with Ezdok is very good. I has nice shaking effects and I believe its better in terms of performance and latency than Chase Plane, or at least it seems tome. I also have CP and when installed experienced exactly what you describe, so that's why I installed Ezdok. I recommend it. 

I've been using OpusFSI for years and it might be worth your time to checkout. Yup, yet another add-on... I know... but it's a hobby, so why not?

OpusFSI Live Weather instant weather updates, Live Camera view control, management and docking, Live View multi-screen networked displays

OpusFSI_v5_User_Guide.pdf

P.S. I used an early version of EZdok (EZCA?) but the early manual drove me nuts. This was before Chase Plane was released.

Edited August 14, 2025Aug 14 by Matt Sdeel

I reinstalled EZdoc and so far it is working quite well. Nice to be able to pan with two different hat switches and the physics section adds a lot to my simming on the ground and in flight. I hope it continues to function ok.

I have MSFS 2020 and find is very clunky to use. As a FAA Certificated Pilot with multi ratings and types along with being a Retired FAA Inspector, with over 55 years of flying experience, I have been and continue to use P3DV5 as my Sim and way more professional and real world experience than MSFS 2020. I have added Active Sky, Navigraph Charts for Flight planning, Orbx Scenery and Navagraph  FMS Data for of a real life experience. 

It's sad to see that PMDG and other great developers have stopped supporting and selling their products to Lockheed Matin PrePar Sim owners. Guess you have to follow the money trail. 

I find that trying to fly MSFS 2020 & 2024 is more like just flying over Goole Earth, as they advertise, it's a game. 

Asticou2

What colored it for me was the emphasis by the community, the devs etc was ground/outside views, the scenery.
Endless pictures of engines, ground, passenger cabin etc. Few of the cockpit unless a bug occurred. 

No one was touting the flight aspects.

I'm thrilled by sounds, burbles in the airflow and especially dealing with issues. Many of my own making. And so I learn things as well.

 

On 8/6/2025 at 11:11 AM, johncott said:

I do not have MSFS2024 but have MSFS2020. Could never really get into it.  My first flight I tried with 2020 was from Jasper, AB (CYJA) to Hinton-Entrance, AB (CEE4). I followed the Athabasca River all the way. First problem, the river kept popping out of ground. Second problem, even though it was July, the Hinton-Entrance airport was covered in snow. My second flight, a week later decided to check out the Casey Emergency Airstrip in Quebec.  Didn't expect this abandon strip to be in MSFS 2020 but wanted to see how it was rendered from the scenery engine MSFS2020 uses. I decided I would take-off from the nearest airstrip, Weymontachie, Quebec (CSU5).  Could not take off because my plane was sitting on the roof of a large building that covers the whole airfield.  Did try taking off from the next nearest airport, Parent (CYPP) and is all fairness, the Casey Emergency Airstrip was well rendered by the MSFS 2020 scenery engine, and I could land there.  I do a lot of flying in the Canadian north and have check various parts in MSFS 2020 included northern parts of the western provinces and the three territories and the scenery varies from good to poor in a lot of areas because of poor satellite imagery.  The main issue is with too many trees and all the same height, in real life the trees and not that tall in the Canadian north, but MSFS 2020 seems to have issues with tree height and way too many of them. The second issue in the Canadian North is MSFS 2020 has issues with water bodies and in some locations the MSFS scenery engine cannot distinguish whether there is water, snow or trees.  I've seen the same waterbody have trees, snow and water.  Do not know it 2024 is any better in the Canadian North. My other reasons for sticking with P3DV5 is the seasons and the default ATC works fairly well.  In the winter I look out my window and there's snow on the ground, I take off from my local airport, there's snow on the ground. the other sims don't have that as a default feature. I will stick with P3DV5 for the foreseeable future. 

John C.

 

You never really have MSFS , they just let you use it, and you pay for the Internet it requires

On 8/6/2025 at 10:18 AM, ComSimPilot said:

The visual
I won't lie, coming from MSFS24, textures and modelling looked more cartoonish in P3D, lower polygon models and photorealistic textures embedded with some minimal reflections. On the other hand, flying even at low altitude gave a more real experience in the sense of sharpening, because all objects on the ground are sharp and more defined in my opinion. Sky and atmosphere also looked in many ways more realistic. 

Aircraft - MSFS24
Ground - MSFS24  with P3D wins in many areas
Atmosphere - P3D

...

What is your opinion? 

I agree with your main motivation to get back into P3D because of the planes or other kind of addons that do not exist in the new sim(s). This is the most valid reason in the world, really. Although I would just mitigate a bit in saying that it's probably better to keep both sims (three if we count XP), instead of switching completely to one of the other. Because as you wrote, there are things that a sim can bring and that another cannot.

Now I'm very surprised at your comment regarding the atmosphere. May it be MSFS or MSFS2024, the atmospheric effects are way better than anything I have ever seen in any P3Dv5 or v6 anywhere. There are many screenshots about P3Dv5, here or on other forums, and they all look absolutely terrible regarding the skies. And I'm not speaking of the cloud shapes here (which in P3Dv5 are the only thing that could motivate somebody to come back to 2D clouds, really...), but the colors, rain effects, pollution, haze, mist etc...

That being said, MSFS2020 had its flaws in depicting the atmosphere, but that wast mostly related to daylight intensity, and more precisely the amount of daylight you get based on what time it is. It was too dark. City lights were already turning off while it was still looking like night time. Fortunately, that issue can be fixed with a freeware mod so it's ok. MSFS2024 improved that point a lot, as well.

Finally, your comment regarding low level flying is interesting. I do a lot of low level flights, for GA, bush, helicopters and gliders, and for me, the whole experience is much more convincing in the recent sim. Of course for such a use-case, I'm not considering the P3Dv5/6 default scenery at all, but rather something like OrbX TrueEarth, else the comparison wouldn't be fair. The sharpening you mention might depend on a lot of factors, including the amount of details on the screen, but also the selected antialiasing mode and sharpening intensity.

I have found memories of our low level flights in multiplayer over the Corsica landscapes with my brother in P3Dv3 and v4 using payware photoscenery (FranceVFR) and freeware autogen on top of it (Vogel). We used many aircraft, from fighter jets to helicopters, with WWII warbird in between. We enjoyed it quite a lot (meaning hundreds of hours). Our expectations were very high in this regard when MSFS came out, and they were met.

On 8/6/2025 at 5:11 PM, johncott said:

I do not have MSFS2024 but have MSFS2020. Could never really get into it.  My first flight I tried with 2020 was from Jasper, AB (CYJA) to Hinton-Entrance, AB (CEE4). I followed the Athabasca River all the way. First problem, the river kept popping out of ground. Second problem, even though it was July, the Hinton-Entrance airport was covered in snow. My second flight, a week later decided to check out the Casey Emergency Airstrip in Quebec.  Didn't expect this abandon strip to be in MSFS 2020 but wanted to see how it was rendered from the scenery engine MSFS2020 uses. I decided I would take-off from the nearest airstrip, Weymontachie, Quebec (CSU5).  Could not take off because my plane was sitting on the roof of a large building that covers the whole airfield.  Did try taking off from the next nearest airport, Parent (CYPP) and is all fairness, the Casey Emergency Airstrip was well rendered by the MSFS 2020 scenery engine, and I could land there.  I do a lot of flying in the Canadian north and have check various parts in MSFS 2020 included northern parts of the western provinces and the three territories and the scenery varies from good to poor in a lot of areas because of poor satellite imagery.  The main issue is with too many trees and all the same height, in real life the trees and not that tall in the Canadian north, but MSFS 2020 seems to have issues with tree height and way too many of them. The second issue in the Canadian North is MSFS 2020 has issues with water bodies and in some locations the MSFS scenery engine cannot distinguish whether there is water, snow or trees.  I've seen the same waterbody have trees, snow and water.  Do not know it 2024 is any better in the Canadian North. My other reasons for sticking with P3DV5 is the seasons and the default ATC works fairly well.  In the winter I look out my window and there's snow on the ground, I take off from my local airport, there's snow on the ground. the other sims don't have that as a default feature. I will stick with P3DV5 for the foreseeable future. 

John C.

 

MSFS has issues for sure, but at least it offers a decent rendering of most of the region of the world by default. What do you get in P3D, excepted generic textures and imprecise landclass everywhere ? The other issues you mention are just the same as what you get in P3D: water bodies popping out of the ground is quite a classic, and same goes for the autogen trees in generic areas. Concerning the the default airports, they do look poor, but they still look better than the generic ones you get in P3D. On this precise topic, MSFS2024 does much better, since it's engine adds automatically some details (3d rocks/stones, bushes etc...) based on what the ground texture shows in there.

But let's be clear, MSFS also uses generic textures to cover the ground everywhere the aerial ground image has clouds depicted on them. There's just a system that "overwrites" the clouds by generic textures, and these textures are extremely poor, poorer than in FSX/P3D for sure. We all agree it's bad. And unfortunately, there are vast areas which are covered in these generic textures. For example, it you attempt a flight from Beaver Creek to WhiteHorse, a good part of your flight is going to happen over 100% generic textures, in MSFS2020. In MSFS2024 it's more or less the same, excepted the generic textures look better.

Your message makes it sound like P3Dv5/6 does a good job at depicting Canada. A lot of my flight time happens right in that area, although mostly in the western mountain range. Pemberton, Bella-Coola and all vast the area around. Back in P3Dv4, getting out of the areas covered by OrbX regions was a bit no-no, and later on, even landclass regions were not satisfactory to explore anymore, once I got used to addons like TrueEarth. So how is it in P3Dv5 now ? For example, how does the area around Pemberton, Lillooet and Kamloops look like in bush flights ?

Finally regarding snow coverage, while it's very imprecise in MSFS, at least it's based on real world data and features some gradual coverage, not just periodic like in FSX and P3D, which are just covered in snow (in an ON/OFF way) from this date to that date. If they could just read the Meteoblue snow coverage with the correct resolution, that would be great, but they seem not motivated to solve that bug yet...

Note that XPlane12 also offers a similar feature (real world snow coverage based on weather website) via a simple mod. I haven't found the time to try it yet but it's very nice to see that feature finally appearing in XPlane.

Ah, forget about my questions about how P3Dv5/6 looks like around Pemberton/Lillooet/Kamloops. I just saw that FC Scenery covers that area, so it should look just great.

On 12/26/2025 at 7:06 PM, Asticou2 said:

I have MSFS 2020 and find is very clunky to use. 

Can you tell more about this ? What is it that was clunky ? I have had an opposite experience, so I'm surprised by your comment...

On 12/26/2025 at 7:06 PM, Asticou2 said:

I find that trying to fly MSFS 2020 & 2024 is more like just flying over Goole Earth, as they advertise, it's a game. 

Ah, you just lost your credibility right there. 

On 8/6/2025 at 9:18 AM, ComSimPilot said:

 

Hi all,


Just wanted to share an observation. After upgrading my system lately with a capable AMD 9800X3D and 5070Ti, I decided to just use MSFS 2024, X-Plane 12 and DCS from now on and skip P3D. Fortunately the variety of Airliners and GA is good right now.

The driver
Possibly as for many of you here, the investment in P3D add-ons that I have done in the past decade is easily the highest one in any simulator at least for me, so I felt the need to install again P3D on a separate SSD and see how I feel about it. The biggest driver was the FSL Concorde which I never had the time to fly even though I bought it on release, along with some other great planes (A2A, PMDG and the Majestic Q400). 

The visual
I won't lie, coming from MSFS24, textures and modelling looked more cartoonish in P3D, lower polygon models and photorealistic textures embedded with some minimal reflections. On the other hand, flying even at low altitude gave a more real experience in the sense of sharpening, because all objects on the ground are sharp and more defined in my opinion. Sky and atmosphere also looked in many ways more realistic. 

Aircraft - MSFS24
Ground - MSFS24  with P3D wins in many areas
Atmosphere - P3D

Flying
Flying the FSL A320 in P3D, seemed more natural to me. The inputs from the side stick are translated to the aircraft in a more organic feel, airbus FBW feels better to me, even though I have not flown the real thing, from videos on YouTube, P3D hand flying seems more spot on.

Taxing
Taxing feels nicer to me on P3D. Using Ezdok with shaking effects are more persuasive than in MSFS24. 

Performance 
Even though MSFS24 has better performance in terms of absolute FPS, it seems to me that fluidity in movement is better in P3D during critical phases of takeoff and landing especially. 

 

What is your opinion? 

I use p3d because some addons like the DC-8 are probably never coming to msfs 😞 that and the FSL Concorde 

On 12/28/2025 at 11:09 AM, Daube said:

Can you tell more about this ? What is it that was clunky ? I have had an opposite experience, so I'm surprised by your comment...

I am not him, but I also find MSFS more clunky to use. In P3D, it's a few clicks to do the settings and set up a flight. It is partially due to more functionality in MSFS (which I don't want, but that's another story), but I also find I have to click more to configure it and set up each flight, and there are functions, especially for the views, that seem to have their own mind. I am a big fan of P3D's simplicity.

For me it`s P3D has so many tools to set up the sim the way you want, and being able to stick with what you have without being forced to upgrade. MS forces you upgrades on your OS and flight sim even if it brakes something.

With P3D you can stick with P3D v4 or V5 and v6 in state that suit your addons, and even have all three installed if you so wish. I still have the King air that was included in V4 working in V5 and V6.

2 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

For me it`s P3D has so many tools to set up the sim the way you want, and being able to stick with what you have without being forced to upgrade. MS forces you upgrades on your OS and flight sim even if it brakes something.

I fully understand the forced updates can be a big no-no for many people, it makes sense.

2 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

With P3D you can stick with P3D v4 or V5 and v6 in state that suit your addons, and even have all three installed if you so wish. I still have the King air that was included in V4 working in V5 and V6.

Well, isn't it the same with MSFS ? I still have both MSFS2020 and MSFS2024 installed and I can use the one I want. And yes, I can also use my MSFS2020 default planes (or addons) in MSFS2024, so it's quite the same as your P3D versions, isn't it ? 😉

That being said, for one "generation" of MSFS, I cannot revert to an older version of it, while in P3D you can. So for example, in MSFS2024, I am forced to use the version 1.39.0, I cannot revert to 1.38.0, that's true. On the other hand, I won't have to wait 6 months or more between updates (for the best or the worst...).