58 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

you can’t take that away from ms2020 the scenery is awesome

MSFS looks very cartoonish to me on the ground, I much prefer P3D.

9 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

With all due respect, it puzzles me why many people seem to get their knickers in a twist whenever someone is critical of P3D (or any other simulator for that matter). Are we so thin skinned these days that we are unable to deal with stuff like this? I do not really care if an MSFS user challenges anyone's decision to stick with P3D. I have made my own reasons abundantly clear several times, so whatever anyone else says is irrelevant.

Chris.

I appreciate the logical and unemotional response. I sincerely don’t want to upset anyone, but believe I have made some valid points regarding the future of V6. I would like to set the record straight, if you don’t mind. 
 

1. I did not criticize P3D V5 in its current form; its a fine simulator that I used for many years.  Instead, I challenged the viability of future versions without third-party support. I did directly challenge a user who made multiple fabrications to promote ‘his stimulator.’ I would do the same if a MSFS user claimed P3D is full of bugs, or incapable of simulating a realistic flight.  Both are complete fabrications and should be challenged. 

2.  I don’t consider myself an MSFS user; truth is, I rarely have free time to fly these days.  I’ve only made 8 flights since Jan ‘22; 6 in MSFS and 2 in P3D.  My AVSIM posts reflect that level of activity, or in this case, inactivity…they’re way down. So to classify me as an MSFS user who just comes here to stir up trouble is a gross misrepresentation. 

What I did do was make two statements of facts:

1. Multiple high profile developers have already left the maker, leaving only a spattering of developers remaining. You even have developers on AVSIM telling us the market is dead: 

  This is no longer a disputable topic 

2.  Every single public domain data indicates P3D market has shrunk to FSX and Xplane 10 levels.  Even multiple virtual airlines who post this data validate the Navigraph data.  For example, deltaVa: https://www.deltava.org/simversionstats.do

3. With the current market, P3D V6 is unlikely to be a commercial success; there’s simply no entertainment market left  

The question concerning HiFI was legitimate, and something all P3D users should be concerned with. Without additional revenue streams, or market, how much longer can they afford to pay for the data and bandwidth necessary to operate their software?  HiFI is a business, not a charity  and this is a business 101 issue. 

None of this has anything to do with enjoying V5 in its current form, just like FSX users enjoy thief preferred sim if it’s current form  Im simply reflecting on the viability of the platform after version 5…

Please let know if I got anything wrong or if my thoughts are way off.  Thanks again, Chris.  
 

 

Edited December 27, 20223 yr by kingm56

32 minutes ago, kingm56 said:

Please let know if I got anything wrong or if my thoughts are way off.  Thanks again, Chris.  

Where to start ?

LM do not rely on the types of us for commercial success, they maintain P3D for their commercial customers who need flight training on military aircraft. They would continue to develop it even if there were zero non commercial users.
Developers have not abandoned P3D - some have chosen to focus on MSFS (until it inevitably fails) and others are still producing updates for P3D such as iFly, TFDi, PMDG, FSLabs, etce etc. Name me a top flight developer that has abandoned P3D please?
MSFS looks like a cartoon on the ground, and has no study level long haulers. So until that changes I'm sticking with P3D.
 

Edited December 27, 20223 yr by simfan1983

On the question what does P3D offer that MSFS doesn't, I would flip it around and answer what MSFS must offer to me in order to completely ditch P3D. Here are some things:

• Weather. As mentioned by others, MSFS still has not opened itself up to 3rd party developers, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen in the foreseeable future. The lack of historic weather is one caveat, but the other is that the clouds and their colors during dawn/dusk look cartoonish and unnatural, and there is no way to correct that with an external tool (like in P3D, where you can install alternative sky colors or cloud textures). Small aspects like correct visibility, pressure, temperatures, etc. are better managed by programs like Active Sky. On a fair note, it should be mentioned that P3D itself has no live weather on board. If one suggests that MSFS opens up to other developers, some users wonder why there is a need for historic weather (AS has offered it for more than 15 years) or are totally reluctant to the idea of having external add-ons, arguing that MSFS has everything out of the box (forgetting that no one forces to buy them - what is so bad about having some competition manage the weather?)
   
• While there are AI traffic add-ons available for both sims, the interaction with the default ATC is bad in MSFS, and the voices make me cringe. Even FS 2004 was better on that front!  I am talking about things like erratic behavior during taxi and take offs without clearance. Not that everything works perfectly in FSX/P3D, but at least the assigned altitudes and vectors are plausible. In P3D, I can still use low-resolution AI traffic by "MyTraffic" from a few years ago, which may not look so good, but it allows me to have a lot of planes on the airport without a huge FPS loss, and it offers a lot of GA traffic. Also, I don't need real-world "live"-traffic, but one that operates on reasobable schedules.
   
• Although there are tools available that replace the default MSFS trees by ones that better fit a desired season (such as REX Accuseason), it still feels like it's always summer because the ground photos are taken from Bing maps. You can add snow via the weather menu, but then it's either one extreme or the other.
   
• Car (and boat) traffic in P3D can be set to be more dense and lively than in MSFS, and the vehicles don't suddenly make U-turns or change their direction. In the latest version (P3D v5.3 HF2), the impact on performance is small, and it feels more realistic to approach a big city and see lots of cars driving around. In MSFS, I find car traffic sparse even with the highest setting.

If most of these issues will ever be rectified, then I will be all into MSFS. Right now, the latter sim is perfect for VFR sightseeing flights in good weather (especially during summer) due to the incredible graphics and lighting, but for flying IFR, P3D gives me a more complete environment (plus more airplane add-ons). I would say that if you are a newbie, MSFS is definitely a better and less expensive choice, for P3D needs a lot of tools to offer enough advantages. I and some others have bought countless add-ons for P3D, which makes that simulator look not so bad against MSFS graphics wise, so I guess we are used to the existing environment. And as far as being able to see your house at the correct spot: Again, it may matter if you fly low and slow, but even then it's not simple to immediately recognize your place, let alone from a high altitude. If you use a good landclass in combination with correctly placed roads/rivers/hills (which P3D has), you can still get a believable sense of where you are - the main focus is on managing the cockpit instruments, anyway.

OK, yet another thread derailed from its topic with the sim-vs-sim debate.  Locked.