Cognita

Quite impressive the extend to which Black Square has gone in the simulation. For me, this is the meaning of study level! If it proves to be as fully developed as the videos show I think it surpasses A2A in terms of system modelling and depth; we will then need to see the quality of the flight model. All that aside, I am really impressed by the quality of aircraft that are appearing in MSFS now and we can only expect this to advance further. How far we have come.

For me, once released, the Duke will permanently replace the 414, which I will uninstall. I really enjoyed the 414 and have flown it extensively but the absence of a wear-and-tear and failure model means I will part with it and focus on the Duke for high-performance.

I think the architecture ensures we will all be main core limited and I also anticipate this will be the same in 2024 because there has been no talk of a different architecture, just different features and changes to where content is stored and likely how it is accessed. It is better to put money into the best motherboard and processer one can afford, even if that means a slightly less prestigious graphics card. I have been eyeing the 4070TI super, which has 16 GB VRAM, but am generally trying to hold off until 2024 releases and I can see if there are any changes that would sway my decision. The difficult decision for me will be whether to migrate from Intel, which I have used almost exclusively my whole life, to AMD.

Looks nice. I wish they would sell their sceneries on the Marketplace.

Honestly, for the first time in my 30 years of simulation I find it difficult to choose what aircraft to fly and to focus on. So many quality aircraft with well modeled systems.

I am certain I will purchase 2024 as soon as it is available and make the switch, leaving behind 2020 and gradually rebuilding on the new platform. I will likely purchase my new rig right before it releases.

Yes. The developer has stated it is the most cost-effective way for him to distribute his products and maintain some degree of security

Yes, it seems to be that 2020 has been a test-bed for developers to switch from the old FSX/P3D approaches and methods to a much more modern framework, and they have largely done this now and have some proven products out and have learned a great deal. We will be in very good shape by the time 2024 arrives later this summer or autumn, with a wide selection of aircraft, both GA and airliners, and supporting applications. In fact, I am not sure we have ever had such a catalogue of high-fidelity aircraft. As it is I and starting to find it difficult to decide what to fly -- particularly because, as with Noel, I find I can only fly a few aircraft at a time competently. It is nice to see that as we reach 2024 many of the old-school developers have found a footing in 2020, I suspect in proportion to the degree they accepted and worked to embrace a new reality. Those who seemed more apprehensive -- FSLabs, and what was that other developer that a few months back voiced that they still thought P3D was the future..., Eaglesoft! -- may have a more uphill climb now. What I am happiest about, however, is the new talent that has arisen, Blacksquare for GA and Fenix for the Airbus among others. The rise in talent and dedication to the platform has been a real bonus and in a few more years we may find we have high-fidelity offerings of almost every aircraft.

Well, I might complain but I will certainty never buy anything else from them again.

Good catch. I must say that striving for a simulation with the level of depth that the Duke is -- judging from the previews -- and not simulating oil seems like a missed opportunity.

Yea, this is bit of a strange mentality that seems dominant here on AVSIM. It is not the reality and I suspect there is a healthy profit to be made in providing more entry-level aircraft. In my case, back in the FSX days, I distinctly remember deciding not to purchase PMDG because the reviews talked about the many steps needed to get the aircraft started, etc., and I wanted to learn other things and not be burdened by having to go through checklists and learn how do do everything properly. I was learning more basic things about aircraft, flying and aviation and was not at all interested in that kind of complexity. But little by little as I learned I came to appreciate the fidelity and the striving for realism, but it took time and I am glad there were less complex aircraft that I could gradually learn and step up from. Today, in the GA world, where I do most of my flying these days, I will not even purchase an aircraft that does not have modelled systems and a wear-and-tear failure system -- the 414 and HJet, for example, sit idle in my hanger because they don't grab my attention any longer, my time is in the Comanche, DA42, M500 and TBM850 now. All this to say I completely appreciate the market for low to medium fidelity aircraft.

Yes, so true. I am not so excited about the 777 mainly because I have become a GA enthusiast in MSFS, quite different to my P3D days. I am much more excited about the forthcoming Duke, and the depth that has been given this aircraft. The triple 7 also strikes me as pretty much the same aircraft as it was in P3D with few additional features and given that I will only do a few long-haul flights in a year that purchase can hold a while. But I will say that of all the airliners PMDG has been the most reliable and frame-rate friendly for me.

I am holding out that they have a Spring sale, which I believe they have previously done, hopefully in the next few weeks.

This year I began doing the same thing -- using the wish list feature and then just waiting for eventual sales. When I reviewed my spending for last year, I spent way too much on MSFS addons, and to be honest some of which I almost never use. So putting it on a wish list and then waiting a while also helps me weed out impulse buys that I will likely use so seldom that I regret purchasing. So far this year I have purchased only the upgrade to the TDS as I use that all the time in my GA flying and the COWS DA42. To the original post, there is a vast increase in development activity around MSFS. The last years of P3D were pretty slow development wise, not just the number of addons but the innovation in them. Despite Lockheed introducing support for many new features, from dynamic lighting to sloped runways, developers did not really jump on these things and development began to stagnate. I understand this may be that it was just too difficult to develop these features and developers in the end decided to not bother, as it probably would not affect sales very much. Look at the freeware community -- ever day there are dozens of offerings posted to .to, whereas if you go back and look at the Avsim library there was very little contributed by freeware developers in the P3D days. MSFS revitalized a community around the gene and that I think has been a really significant contribution. We are approaching a point where virtually every significant airport will have an third-party offering. Never in my 30 years of simulation have we had nearly every major airport in Canada, and at a decent level of quality. For me personally it will not be long until there is really no more scenery I will want.

Yea, I think it is pretty likely these will basically permanently hanger my 414 and 310. It is amazing how quickly the depth and quality of aircraft are advancing in MSFS.

Yes, I also believe they said that Metroblue will continue to be the weather provider and here I think they are just being direct that there will not be a weather API that provides third-parties with access to the raw underlying data as Asobo does not own that data and does not have the rights to open it up. Metroblue will also have its reasons to keep this data confidential. To be honest, overall I am generally happy with live weather. It is not perfect and I can appreciate that someone who is knowledgeable and interested in weather will see heaps of issues, for someone like me it is adequate. I am also sure that a real-life 737 captain sees all kinds of missing aspects and issues with the PMDG and has to look past these to enjoy the simulator for what it is.

I understood what he said was in relation to an API that would allow third-parties to access the data to which Microsoft has access, under license, to generate weather. Microsoft does not own that raw data, they are licensed to use it for a specific purpose but can not make it available to other parties. That makes developing an API for weather rather impractical, so don't expect to have an Active Sky type program with access to the raw data. It is still quite possible to have a working weather radar, but as Ryan mentioned above whether that is possible is a choice of the aircraft developer.

Yes, essentially, if I remember correctly. Active sky provided the data related to water droplets visible to them. Before Active Sky implemented this there was no weather radar in the PMDGs.

Hi Torsen, I will say that the M500 is one of my favorite aircraft in the sim and in constant rotation. It is superbly modeled and coded and I think has one of the most realistic PT6 implementations in any simulator. Sorry, If I inadvertently gave the impression of it not being updated, I was referring only to an update on the keypad and backup instruments, which I am looking forward to muchly! It is true that the chances of the displays completely failing in flight is remote, so in normal operations this is a non-consideration. While I mostly fly normal operations I enjoy practicing failures and this is exactly the kind of failure I would like to simulate, a failure of the main screens or partial failure that requires cross-referencing to backup instruments.

Unfortunately, no. And there are also no proper backup instruments on the aircraft. I have heard that both these are to be completed, but it has been a long time since I have seen any updates. FSR500_Manual.pdf (fsreborn.com)

Nice to see them still working on this aircraft, I think now about year since it was deemed complete -- a sign of a committed developer. I really enjoyed this plane and flew it all over North America but I admit I have not taken it out of the hanger since before I got the TBM and the M500 but one day I will circle back to it. I do wish they would add even a basic simulation of engine failures and health, that would draw me back quickly.

I see there area already a few liveries up on TO now, they are being marked V2.

Like Bob, I have had 2 or 3 crashes after over 1,000 flights and I think nearing 1,500 hours of flight time, so I don't think there are major problems for the majority of users. If you want to jump back in the basic version is only $60.00 which even for just six months is well worth it. You can get familiar with the new interface and the strengths and weaknesses of the platform, but it is a giant step forward from anything we had before, and the community is bigger than anytime in our history, as far as I can remember. And we have been assured that virtually all of our add-ons will work in 2024 so unless you are on a budget and the $60.00 is a meaningful expense, I would just go ahead and get started.

DFW is not an easy airport to do well, it is huge, has a variety of buildings and highway layouts, so whoever takes it on I hope has resources and can give it considerable time.

I suspect too it is related to copyright/trademark practice, so that they can demonstrate use of the MSFS acronym and hence protect it.