GCBraun

For me, a new P3D version would only make sense if it is based on a new engine, and not only because of the outdated looks. I still have nightmares with all those legacy DLLs that have caused me immense pain over the years. ESP has run its course imho…

6 hours ago, Juliet Oscar Echo said:

I'm quite curious.

Are there any alternatives to B757 or B767 sim out there that are better than this Captainsim?

I've tried QW757, but it just isn't good enough.

Flight Factor on XP.

Nvidia frame generation. It is a game changer.

This post is useless. MSFS is the most stable sim I have ever used.

Even though I have not seen Pelé playing live, as a native Brazilian, his passing is for sure very impacting.

I will aways remember when, as a kid, my father bought me a little flip book that showcased Pelé's amazing bicycle kick in the old and crowded Maracanã stadium.

Nowadays these moves might be common, but I believe it is fair to say that Pelé paved the way for many others that came after him and also helped shape what is nowadays understood as "modern football".

RIP, GOAT.

Don’t think that is possible, unfortunately. 

20 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Actually the result is relatively a disaster for MS. WHAT???? Ok - I'll explain. To simplify the calculation, I will concentrate on the 2 biggest players in the market. X-Plane consists of "3 people in a shed"^TM, whereas Asobo has hundreds of devolopers - let's say 200. That's a factor of 67 to 1. According to this, MSFS should have a market share of 98.5%, X-Plane only 1.5% (users who use both excluded, but it won't make a big difference). And the server costs for streaming the scenery aren't yet included.
Conclusion: huuuge effort for such a relatively poor result.

Don’t forget that we are talking about a Navigraph poll that took 15 minutes to complete.

In other words, mostly “serious” simmers have answered it and, even then, MSFS, supposedly a kids toy for some, was number one by a large margin. That does not mean that XP didn’t do well, by the way. 

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

My rather old 1080Ti is not very good at nighttime and Concorde with all its gauges and lighting is an unknown factor. In any case there's no way in real-world ops passengers would be flying at night-time. Not with the money they paid.

All departures on the 1999 World Tour were in daytime except for one leg out of Guam and an early morning departure from India because the temps later that morning would be too high for a full load departure.

Good to know. In any case, the fact that FSLabs showcased at least two night photos in their little preview should mean that this Concorde won’t have issues flying at night. I always enjoy flying these classic birds in complete darkness. Can’t think of a better use for my OLED screen. 

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Weather is critical to Concorde operations. Departing LAX for Honolulu at 10:00 local would require me to fly it at 18:00 my time. If I depart at 10:00 my time the weather is nighttime. Not realistic.

It’s not me that needs to have a change of heart. Asobo need to open the weather engine to third party developers. 😉

Is night flying not possible on the Concorde? I always fly using realistic time *and* weather. 

Nice that they mentioned the MSFS version as well.

As I believe it is in their best interest to release Concorde asap for the most popular flight simulator platform around, I feel no pressure to re-install P3D just to try this out.

The only possibility of that happening would be if they offered a full credit towards the MSFS version, just like PMDG did with the NGXu.

1 minute ago, blingthinger said:

Mainstream? I'd love to rank it with the likes of Forza and GTA in terms of user usage goals and expectations, but I don't think it's quite there.

When was the last time that a flight simulator was announced on major gaming events or been showcased by popular internet influencers due to its usage of the latest tech such as DLSS3? Which other civilian Flight Simulator is available on consoles, Game Pass or on the cloud?

Yes, it does not compete with Fortnite, but that is not the point anyway. MSFS brought many new simmers to the hobby and that will be a positive for XP as well. 

17 minutes ago, mSparks said:

definately agree with this, dcs in particular is really maturing now.

Im not sure its so much a void, they really  - afaict - didnt innovate and improve, mostly because they were stuck on esp, both FSX and P3D both kept users and developers for faaaar longer than they deserved.

Yes, I actually think the growth based on P3D’s stagnation applies to XP more strongly. That is why I started using XP actually…

MSFS, on the other hand, brought flight-simming back to mainstream and this should be celebrated by all of us, irrespective of their platform of choice. 

Regardless of a more refined or picky analysis, I think the clear picture is that MSFS, XP12 and DCS are the most relevant platforms, the first two growing on the void left by P3D. All three have a robust and thriving 3rd. party support and, while there are things to dislike in each of them, they are undoubtedly evolving and offering something unique for their users.

Hope that v6 can revert the evident decline of Prepar3d.

The 650 must be the most complex, well-thought and immersive add-on I have ever used, or at least on par with DCS jets like the A-10C II or F14.

As a father of three, I might have waited too long picking this up, as I was just afraid of needing 1 hour+ just to get things going. Yes, this aircraft is crazily detailed, but after getting the hang of it, I am able to start the jet relatively quickly without evident catastrophic consequences. 

Highly recommended for sure! You get what you pay for...

I believe that the XP engine is not ready for DLSS/FR, unfortunately. Even though the latest release candidate has improved performance for me, after some extended testing, it seems clear that MSFS is still more performant when all the latest gfx tech is used. Hopefully we see these implemented in the future.

47 minutes ago, bogdansrb said:

Before MSFS, Austin was very confident that we don't need pretty volumetric clouds, nice scenery, nice lighting etc. Now the tone has changed, he brought a new weather system, a new lighting system and he even announced they're working on scenery. 

And that is why competition is great for those of us who enjoy both sims. 😃

So, my experience with RC6 has been great so far. Not sure if this happened with this RC, but I am getting over 150fps in the CL650 cockpit @ 4K. Performance-wise, it is actually seems better than MSFS with Frame Generation on.

After what Asobo did for flight simming, I can only say…vive la France! 🇫🇷🥖

Also rock solid here. Not missing my old friends ntdll.dll, g2d.dll, terrain.dll, api.dll or kernelbase.dll from the P3D times at all. 

26 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

I'm wondering why this thread isn't attracting more attention. 

Seriously, every simmer should do him/herself the favor and install this upgrade package asap. It'll change your simming experience. I guarantee it. 

Especially, since a lot of folks where moaning and groaning about the Longitude - the Longitude has pretty much moved from the bottom of the (default) plane pile to a top spot.

And for all the people thinking: it's just the WT mod with a few pages added. Trust me. It's not. 

It will gain much more traction when it is officially released in January. Looking forward to it.

Ok, the issues seems to be with the AI aircraft sounds from Live Traffic. Setting the master volume to 0 in Live Traffic's setting solves this.

So, after not using XP12 for a while, I have a now a very similar problem to this:

Anyone experiencing this? Happens with the Toliss A340 as well. 

Edit: this seems to be caused by live traffic plugin, or at least it is not present when there is no AI traffic around. Weird.

Will the VFR/sightseeing game argument finally die with this? 

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’m not considering MSFS for anything but low-level sightseeing flights.

But you get the A310 free of charge with MSFS. It is just a matter of testing. Sometimes it is good to challenge our biases. 

I truly don't believe there has ever been a more polished and in-depth airliner offered for free in any simulator until now. 

Quote

MSFS has a different focus and this is not a judgement (Pro or Con) only a statement of fact that P3D does indeed have more depth ... just read the LearningCenter.chm sometime and you'll discover that depth.

I don't dispute that. MSFS focuses on home users, while P3D on defense departments. As a civilian focusing on entertainment, MSFS has offered me much more depth than what I have ever achieved in P3D. If the new potential version with UE5 changes that, I happy to add P3D6 to my sim rotation.

11 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

II’ve never taken to Airbus as I find the instrumentation and system complexity unattractive. I have a GoFlight Boeing MCP which would clearly not work with it. Plus I have a Fulcrum yoke not suitable for Airbus.
 

What about the A310? It has a yoke and its systems are quite unique and challenging when compared to the A320. Really like those early 80s jetliners like the 767, A300/310 or even the MD-11, which came out a bit later.