d.tsakiris

Does one of your Orbx add-ons rely on their Objectflow (or whatever it's called)? Maybe it's not compatible...

That's great, thanks!

Are we sure that isn't just Multisim with a new account...?

Matthias, your work looks awesome. I live near Munich, maybe I can bring over a 4 TB harddisk? 😂

I think oftentimes the problem is that personal preferences are stated as facts. I think it is fair to say MSFS has advantages over P3D, but the other way round is also true. The question "which sim do I like more" comes down to personal preference (as it is true for a lot of things). That said, I can understand why some feel like Pavlin. There are posts that - intentionally or not - feel condescending...

P3D is also under active and constant development. They just don't communicate it. The updates are also less frequent (which doesn't mean less advancement), but that also has advantages. Not for everyone...

I also believe this, and I believe this is the best-cast scenario. LM won't want to, and aren't allowed to, make a product that appeals more to the masses than MSFS does. So let them build on the strengths that P3D has and improve the overall package.

Multicrew Experience. Been using it for a decade, maybe even longer, and NEVER fly without. Great support, and still being very actively developed. Ties into default ATC, PF3, RC4, VOXATC, and maybe even more ATC add-ons.

I don't think that feature is PCL. It defines when the RL is automatically turned on and off, depending on the sunrise and sunset.

FWIW: I also see a significantly higher CPU usage with Aerosoft Buses and PMDG Boeing as soon as their engines are running.

Maybe, but how many existing P3D add-ons are there already? FS9 add-ons aren't compatible any more, but, from my experience, 95+ % of add-ons for FSX and older P3D versions are or can be made compatible. No need to install them, just add them with a reference to their location. Who's silly now? I use a broad range of add-ons, some years old, some only months. The attitude is towards you, not the developers. By the way, is that you, Multisim?

Which attitude are you referring to? ...or you can have another look and see the advantages of how it was done, which were mentioned here already. If by "not the right one" you mean disagreeing with you, then yes, that is the case. Nothing wrong with that. You disagree with me, too.

You can't know that, so you are again stating your opinion as a fact, but aside from that: Yes, there seem to be much more add-ons being released for MSFS at the moment. But don't forget those add-ons are already available for P3D. I don't have that impression. P3D definitely has a future, it is a professional product that is still in active development. The "bright" part is in the eye of the beholder. Me, and others here, are looking forward to the next version, that will most probably bring small, but significant improvements, while keeping backward compatibility. Exactly what we want.

That is your opinion, not a fact, even though you are trying to sell it (and a lot of other opinions) as such. From your posts it really sounds like MSFS is more suited to your needs. Others here, including me, have different wishes for P3Ds future. Small steps, reliable performance, preserving what we have. Edit: I do think "we" are in the minority with that, and that, at least for the moment, MSFS is where most of the add-on action is. But, as already stated here, "we" have hundreds and hundreds of great add-ons to choose from.

I seriously doubt that's "a fact"...

Why wouldn't it be released?

I agree with everything this man said ☝️

Like I said, I think a big portion of that "base" was already rewritten. I'm not going to go through all of LM's release notes here, but suffice it to say the lists were pretty long each time. Even MSFS isn't 100 % new, as far as I know... With V5, LM updated the mesh. For some older add-ons, that would certainly be a problem. But not for all add-ons, and the affected ones can be corrected, by the developer or even by the customer.

Which registry hacks are you referring to? I don't think I use a single hack. But actually, "ungodly" amounts of legacy code are the exact definition of "solid ground". That said: I think most of this legacy code has been reworked by now, mostly keeping backward compatibility.

So, I looked again and found the .ini file for GSX. It was sort of hidden in the scenery subfolder, along with two effect files. I copied them to their correct locations, and then (after unpausing the sim) the jetways appeared. Thanks again, drobinho!

I disagree. Backward compatibility is one of the main advantages of P3D. For me, and I suspect strongly also for LM's “important customers“. That said: I do think a significant step forward can be made (concerning mainly graphics) without breaking that compatibility. I hope that is what LM are aiming for here.

I really don't think you have to feel sorry for him...

Thanks, I will check that!

There is the Aerosoft Schempp-Hirth Discus ("DISCUS K GLIDER X FSX P3D"). While officially only P3D V4 compatible, I do have it installed into V5 HF2.

I have the same problem. I also emailed the developer, but never got an answer. If I remember correctly, I checked the SODE .ini file for obvious errors, but couldn't find any. Maybe I overlooked something.