Jump to content

GCBraun

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,676

  • Donations

    $0.00 

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GCBraun

  1. Posted · Edited by GCBraun

    2 hours ago, wiler said:

    I agree... If sim is smooth and no stuttering could you really tell if running 30FPS vs 60FPS vs 100FPS w FPS counter off. yea maybe but the difference to me is not worth an additional $1500 investment on top of what I already spent. 

    Yes, yes and yes. I can live with 60fps, but 30fps is inconceivable for me.

    The smoothness of 100+fps is very immersive and the good thing is that this is easily achievable on the platforms that I use (especially on MSFS due to FR, but also possible on XP12 and DCS).

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 2

  3. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

    I'm not spending another dime on any of these rubbish addon ATC programs - all of whom have one issue or the other: terrible voices, terrible 90s interface, bugs, support lacking, etc.

    I've settled on using the default ATC + Stick and Rudder's ATC chatter. Departures and approaches are flown according to the charts.

    Done and done.

    That is also my approach. Some solutions like Pilot2ATC work well, but the time needed to configure it and the atrocious interface are too much of a hassle to make me use it. 

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 3

  5. Posted

    1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

    "Future" is not synonymous with "completely different".  The historical progression of P3D has been one of incremental improvement with attention to backwards-compatibility and reliability.  The commercial customers that are LMs primary target group don't want "disruptive."  They have work to do--they need continuity and reliability.  So do we.

    Having adopted P3D in 2012/2013, I still remember how hardcore FSX users would promptly dismiss it. Therefore, I have the same right as anyone else here to express my opinions about how the sim should (or not) evolve.

    One thing is certain: a P3Dv6 that is perhaps a 5.3 with minor improvements won’t bring users or add-on developers back. Just look at this forum…some years ago a topic like this would be booming. 

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

    Anyway, we're here in the P3D forum to discuss P3D, where landclass scenery, an optional update regimen at a measured pace, historical and accurately-repeatable weather configuration, and network-independent reliability still work for us. 

    I thought the goal of the topic was to discuss a *future* P3D version. 

  7. Posted · Edited by GCBraun

    22 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

    Who wants offline usage?  Anyone not served by dependable wideband internet, for starters.  People that don't want sim sessions ruined by bandwidth warnings (even those with good wideband), and it doesn't take a lot of reading to observe that particular problem does exist. 

     

    If this issue would be as severe as you would say, the market situation would be completely different than what it is. The online functionalities introduced two and a half years ago were absolutely disruptive and the very reason why flight simulation came back to mainstream.

    Just like 2D cockpits, landclass scenery, service packs and snail-pace updates every two years are a thing of the past and a robust server capability is the only practical way to offer a modern SaaS flight-sim.  

  8. Posted

    5 minutes ago, odourboy said:

    At 4K (where it matters 😆 ) looks like nearly a tie. Slip in some faster memory for the 13900K and it's a win for Intel.spacer.png

    On a GPU-bound scenario, sure. The X3D still may have an edge in populated hubs, though. 

    Based on different reviews, I will probably wait until the 7800X3D is released to see how things play out. Frame Generation has given such a boost to my fps on big airports, that I might postpone an upgrade indefinitely. 

    • Like 3

  9. Posted

    9 minutes ago, d.tsakiris said:

    I don't think LM and their primary customers care much about the add-on developers we're talking about - they have their own. I'd say they want the stability of a mature software that changes in increments, and only if they want it to.

    Sure. That is not what the majority of simmers want, though. My posts are about P3D’s relevancy on the domestic flight simulation market.

  10. Posted

    32 minutes ago, FrankSalo said:

    Microsoft only gave LM the Pro ESP license. They later gave Dovetail Games the home/FSX license to make FSX Steam Edition,  Flight School and Flight Sim World. They then took back the License from Dovetail and later revealed the new MSFS. So Microsoft will not give that right out to anyone anytime soon. Also with P3D, LM also gets to sell hardware and training bundles to commercial and government clients rather than just P3D itself to the enthusiast crowd. 

    I know that, but there is an obvious loophole that allowed myself and almost everyone here to use P3D for 10 years without any intention of getting real world training. They could keep doing this and just offer an evolutionary update, but I'm afraid this won't bring many people back.

    That is what I am suggesting that they should break with the ESP-shackles and offer something truly new that could rival with the competition. What we have today can't and the numbers don't lie.

  11. Posted

    Offline usage is currently possible in all major sims, but who wants that? I would assume that P3D fans would not enjoy flying without proper weather generation and/or add-ons that require connectivity for license checks. I would take mandatory online usage over FS98 DLL dependencies any day...don't even remember the last time I could not fly due to connectivity issues. 

    As for P3D, number 3 listed below would be, in my opinion, the only way that LM could get their HOME/FOR ENTERTAINMENT usage back. This is the relevant market for 99.5% of flight sim users and winning that crowd is essential to lure add-on developers. MSFS did not have any major third-party support in the initial months, but that did not stop the massive market transition to occur.

    13 hours ago, DChockey08 said:

    3. Huge changes that break addon compatibility but also make the sim so good that the user base grows again (even the entertainment side) and the addons who has left P3D now develop in parallel with MSFS. 

     

  15. Posted

    1 minute ago, turbomax said:
    6 hours ago, GCBraun said:

    why did you buy it if you don't like it? you had your free triail period. this ins an extreme very rare case. can you not ever say something positive?

    simply make sure to land before 5:30 p.m. and it will look like this:

     

    Who said I don't like it? I am just pointing out that there is room for improvement.

    • Like 3

  16. Posted · Edited by GCBraun

    1 hour ago, GoranM said:

    Every single social media forum I see, has people recommending to buy X-Plane direct from Laminar.  That way it supports Laminar directly.  Then it would make sense that Steam numbers aren't that high.  But let's flip it.  Let's say X-Plane 12 isn't selling as much as X-Plane 11 (which it already has for the time period, but let's go hypothetical), then what?  What happens?  Laminar is run out of Austin's house.  So no office space to rent.  The hardware used is a bunch of Apple computers.  That's it.  Everyone who works at Laminar do so from home. I don't understand why it's such a big deal that X-Plane isn't as popular as MSFS.  It never has been.  

    There are millions of restaurants in the world.  Some make less than others.  They're still in business.  

    Take a Ferrari and a Lambourghini.  Who sells more?  (I don't know) But who cares?  They've both been in business for decades.  Chevy and Ford.  Audi and Mercedes.  Honda and Mazda.  Tesla and Rivian.  It doesn't matter.  If they're profitable, they'll continue.  Laminar are profitable.  To the point Austin has hired more staff.  There are no shareholders to answer to. No Board of Directors to answer to.  It's Austin.  That's it.  

    Can we just enjoy X-Plane, and stop worrying about Laminar?  I think I remember Austin saying in a video that X-Plane makes $3 million/year profit.  After all expenses are paid.  Safe to say it's not going anywhere.

    I just think that such a huge disparity in user base will lead to a decrease in the numbers of quality add-ons developed for XP, just like it happened with P3D. Hope to be wrong.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted · Edited by GCBraun

    9 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

    Oh no ... not this BS again ... The current numbers are not that good for Porsche imho compared to Toyota, Chevrolet and Ford: https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2022-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-brand/ . I'm afraid, Porsche will die ... 😆

     

    Are you really comparing MSFS to Ford and XP to Porsche? A typical Porsche costs around 10x more than a Ford, whereas MSFS and XP cost the same. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are both fighting for the same market here. The roadmap for new advanced aircraft that I want to fly in MSFS is huge and I wished the same was true in XP's side.

    • Like 1

  18. Posted · Edited by GCBraun

    18 minutes ago, cagarini said:

    but hardcore simmers take XP12 or P3D, I believe...

    Where did you get that impression? The majority of Navigraph users are MSFS users. As a “hardcore simmer” I use MSFS, XP12 and DCS and each have their advantages/disadvantages. 

  19. Posted · Edited by GCBraun

    Why don't we just use the Steam numbers to compare the popularity of sims? Yes, I believe it is true to say that most people using MSFS do it via Game Pass on PC/Xbox, but it should also be true that a majority of X-Plane 12 users (like myself) have purchased the sim directly from Laminar. 

    The current numbers are not that good for XP12 imho:

    z7yiCcT.jpg

    X-Plane 11 is currently 3x more popular, but it also seem to be loosing users recently:

    01Fvn7h.jpg

    When MSFS was released, the P3D market almost completely evaporated in a few months, even though that meant that many add-ons would not be transferable.

    Why this migration is not happening at a more accelerated pace within the XP ecosystem? I would have expected that XP12 would be more popular by now.

    • Like 1

  20. Posted

    So, I did my first long-haul with the new beta and I think there is overall an improvement on the cloud formations, even though I still see weird pyramids and some pretty bad artifacts.

     

    On climb it looked like this:

    nqium6A.jpg

    xJ9r5Yu.png

     

    While on landing...

    FXqZf5h.jpg

     

    Still a lot of work to do, but it is moving in the right direction, I would say.

    • Like 3

  23. Posted · Edited by GCBraun

    I am not aware of any serious game developer recommending turning HT off. Having multiple threads is a hardware capability, and it is up to modern software to make use of it. Registry hacks, core prioritization or BIOS measures such as turning HT off may work with legacy software like P3D but, thankfully, are a thing of the past now. 

    With that being said, it is clear that CPUs like the 13900K are approaching their envelope limit. Therefore, turning off HT may help reducing heat generation, but should not, provided that a proper cooling solution is in place, have any significant effect in MSFS.

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...