Jump to content

Excellent news about A320Neo and Concorde for P3D first - THANK YOU!


Rob Ainscough

Recommended Posts

Jose Rodrigues
15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Who are you talking to? Tag the person - it does help!

All of us?

Do what you want, use what you like!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Aaron Brand
On 5/16/2022 at 7:22 PM, Braun Tacon said:

For anyone who is using logic instead of emotion maybe…

Or for anyone who would rather be in the sim doing something, rather than waiting around watching a loading screen...

 

Link to comment
Rob Ainscough
15 hours ago, John Mc Avinue said:

You do need Activesky for weather radar functionality as it provides the api/data required.

And how do you think HiFi gets that data?  ;)  LM opened that door many revisions ago.

15 hours ago, John Mc Avinue said:

then that invalidates your argument about not needing to buy addons for P3d.

That was never my argument ... I said anyone with the time and knowledge of the SDK/PDK can build whatever they want.  The issue with weather radar implementation in MSFS SDK is that it there is nothing to call/use to get accurate weather data that can be presented in a radar scan. 

I don't see any problem with aircraft vendors relying on another vendor who uses the same P3D SDK/PDK to get the weather data ... that's a efficient process (why code your own if someone already has it).

Why does everyone seem to revolve back to buying add-ons vs. out of the box?  Heck yes, I want P3D with a bunch of add-ons because 200+ add-on developers are going to get me what I want sooner than the 6-12 guys working fulltime on MSFS.  IMHO, Asobo's focus should be fixing problems, bringing the SDK forward faster, get DX12 implementation optimized and working well (I guess WASM is the big road block here) rather focusing on yet more free aircraft (that are simple at best) or more free airports or more free enhanced coverage areas ... leave those to the developers that already have the talent and skills.

As a software engineer I'd think you'd understand that cooperation between other developers is a huge benefit for all and encourage and support more add-ons the merrier?  

16 hours ago, John Mc Avinue said:

Does P3d use ray tracing in Dx12?

Yes it does, TruSky implementation (a perfect candidate for Ray Tracing) ... I'm not sure if it's used in P3D dynamic reflections implementation. 

16 hours ago, John Mc Avinue said:

The main changes have been structural in DX12 and x64. Not much else has changed besides bug fixes that I’m aware.

Not this again, I'm sorry, I'm just not up for listing everything that has changed one more time ... the list of "What's new" is presented in every release LearningCenter.chm from v1.0 to v5.x ... I recommend you go thru it and become aware.

16 hours ago, John Mc Avinue said:

I’m surprised you’re not impressed by the innovative approach taken by Asobo to render the planet with satellite imagery, mesh, machine learning and cloud services etc. It’s very ambitious

The scope is impressive, the implement not so much (hence my screenshots at the early part of this thread).  MSFS was built without an SDK initially (I know, I was in the pre-release Beta).  As a software engineer, if my requirements included providing of an SDK I would code with that requirement always present.  I would build the software such as to accommodate such a requirement (an SDK) because it changes the design parameters and what one actually codes for  ... that simply was NOT done by Asobo.  In fact, the SDK was very much an afterthought, hence why 2 years later there is no SDK support for weather data that could be provided to a weather radar implementation at any level of accuracy.

16 hours ago, John Mc Avinue said:

You’re trying to say the P3d view system is better than MSFS because you can edit the config files.

There is a view system and a camera system, they aren't the same.  But P3D supports both better view system and camera system ... that should be obvious to anyone that has used P3D and MSFS.  

As far as views, can you undock a view in MSFS and drag it over to another monitor?  No you can't.

As far as camera system in MSFS, your very limited, you can't do anything like ChasePlane (if you could I'm sure Keven would have done it by now and released for MSFS) ... and what happened to the MSFS replay system?  Have you tried it in developer mode, wow it's bad.

Like I said, the only surprise for me is the level of tolerance for MSFS that never existed in P3D or XP.

Cheers, Rob.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
duartevieira
18 hours ago, John Mc Avinue said:

I’m confident that you’re wrong about the weather radar sdk. You do need Activesky for weather radar functionality as it provides the api/data required. Feel free to point me to the relevant sdk docs from p3d if you want though- I’m a software engineer so get as technical as you need to.

If I’m correct with the above, then that invalidates your argument about not needing to buy addons for P3d. Even if it isn’t, vanilla P3d looks dated and the default airports are hideous. Sure, you can use it but it’s not immerse or realistic looking.

You’re trying to say the P3d view system is better than MSFS because you can edit the config files. That’s just ridiculous. I’ve only started using MSFS in earnest recently and after a bit of playing around and learning how to use it, it does pretty much what I got out of the EZDok add on which I had to pay for.

Does P3d use ray tracing in Dx12? If not it’s a moot point you’re making. MSFS looks gorgeous so DX11 isn’t an issue obviously and performance is great for what you get. DX12 is on the roadmap so users will be able to avail of all the advantages you’ve outlined.

It’s also interesting that you highlight DX11 being 11 years old as if that’s a problem. How old is most of the code in P3d I wonder? The main changes have been structural in DX12 and x64. Not much else has changed besides bug fixes that I’m aware.

I don’t know you Rob but you seem to be pretty technical. I’m surprised you’re not impressed by the innovative approach taken by Asobo to render the planet with satellite imagery, mesh, machine learning and cloud services etc. It’s very ambitious and technically very interesting to most, even those not into flight simulation.

If you don’t know rob you either have not been in the game for too long or you don’t have a clue what he does or he did for the community for years the guides the tweaks etc etc not to mention he’s a beta tester for lm 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Andre Da S Marinho

I have to agree with John. What I see it's people that invested thousands in order to make P3D look acceptable. For myself I have spent an enormous amount of time tweaking, troubleshooting overnight. It's too easy now come and just say that the other one is such and such. Hey troubleshooting P3D can be a nightmare. 10 minutes the first load for building up the  aircraft stuff within the simulator. I remember 24 hours trying to figure out why I was getting error with a 330 and I didn't even fly the aircraft for the first time. 

Experienced simmers. Don't you remember that we used to say that every system is unique, we ask for addons, specs etc.

Don't you remember having to uninstall all the addons and install one by one in other to troubleshoot ? 

Don't you remember how many times haven't  you made a clean install of your entire system as a last try to solve the problem ? 

Stop. The aircraft flies great. 

Sorry but after all those years and all the investment I can understand that is hard to just let it go. 

I know what I'm talking about. so let just be honest.

And hey .. once we have passed half of the time tweaking and troubleshooting the new sim then we can compare them.

Why not just have a nice discussion and just give positive inputs and just help everybody enjoy more and more whatever their sim or sims are.

Tired of those comments treating the FS2020 guys like that..( gamers, kids, xbox, etc.

We have hardcore simmers there. Really and now even more.

One day I hope that FSLabs will be bringing something there. A330 A350 whatever man.

But let's treat the other one's work with respect. FSX was a massive big game rather than a simulator. Now look what the devs have done with it. PMDG, FSLabs, Leonardo etc.

So come on..

I will let you enjoy what just for the shadows would cost a massive fps drop with P3D with all the shades addon. Same computer specs. Nothing has changed and it runs just smooth. 

1303254274_MicrosoftFlightSimulatorScreenshot2022_05.18-09_52_06_76.png

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Dave Taylor

I have MSFS but my favourite, and most used sim is P3Dv5.3.

MSFS is hard work while they ignore all the previous flightsim's with no provision for the 'top hat' switch.

 

Link to comment
Jose Rodrigues

@Andre Da S Marinho

Precisely because I have invested so much over the years (not only P3D but also FSX because some addons were bought and we all had free upgrades at the time...) it pains me to drop everything because of a new.... platform. And I don't understand HOW many people who also (must have) invested as much or more than me (it seems) suddenly drop everything because of another platform. In fact, not only drop everything but start distilling hate against it and some of the products present and most representative and cherished over the years as it is, precisely, FSLabs.

Or is it that in some cases they didn't buy anything? I don't mean only piracy but also that they simply didn't invest (and didn't take advantage of FSX/P3D) and therefore all this dazzle and "new discovery" of things and features that already exist (maybe not so pretty, it's true) in Prepar3D. The reason is that, I repeat, and I speak for myself, I don't really need to change platforms because there is one crucial thing missing: Historical Weather.

And again, for everyone, I apologize for the grammar. I know the translator is not perfect but it's just that I'm also not comfortable with this... third language.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Anthony Geinopolos

Omg a330 very exciting to hear 

Link to comment
John Mc Avinue
18 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

And how do you think HiFi gets that data?  ;)  LM opened that door many revisions ago.

On 5/18/2022 at 1:18 AM, John Mc Avinue said:

then that invalidates your argument about not needing to buy addons for P3d.

That was never my argument ... I said anyone with the time and knowledge of the SDK/PDK can build whatever they want.  The issue with weather radar implementation in MSFS SDK is that it there is nothing to call/use to get accurate weather data that can be presented in a radar scan. 

I don't see any problem with aircraft vendors relying on another vendor who uses the same P3D SDK/PDK to get the weather data ... that's a efficient process (why code your own if someone already has it).

Why does everyone seem to revolve back to buying add-ons vs. out of the box?  Heck yes, I want P3D with a bunch of add-ons because 200+ add-on developers are going to get me what I want sooner than the 6-12 guys working fulltime on MSFS.  IMHO, Asobo's focus should be fixing problems, bringing the SDK forward faster, get DX12 implementation optimized and working well (I guess WASM is the big road block here) rather focusing on yet more free aircraft (that are simple at best) or more free airports or more free enhanced coverage areas ... leave those to the developers that already have the talent and skills.

As a software engineer I'd think you'd understand that cooperation between other developers is a huge benefit for all and encourage and support more add-ons the merrier?  

Active Sky injects the weather and provides the SDK/API to determine exactly what weather is in what location. This definitely was not possible for a long time with the P3D so Hifi did it themselves and FsLabs/PMDG did use it. You haven't provided a reference to the P3D SDK Documentation that does this now but lets take your word for it. They have added it in only recently. Yet here you are being critical about MSFS not having it at launch or within 2 years. You're not being consistent with your logic in my opinion.

I would be surprised if MSFS/Asobo only have 6-12 guys working on a platform of this size and scale. The development of aircraft and platform would not be assigned to the same dev resources as they require different skill sets so working on one, likely won't impact delivery of another.

I would agree with you about priorities on the road map but with the release of Fenix and Leonardo's MD, it is obviously at the point where complex development is possible now. As you know DX12 is already on the roadmap .

18 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

The scope is impressive, the implement not so much (hence my screenshots at the early part of this thread). 

Your screenshots were of a few anomalies found due to the technology they use, taken on your mobile of a desktop PC making them even worse. On a whole, the world in MSFS is absolutely beautiful and accurate and in a different league to P3D in every way. Nitpicking on the minor places where it gets it wrong is just being disingenuous.

18 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

 MSFS was built without an SDK initially (I know, I was in the pre-release Beta).  As a software engineer, if my requirements included providing of an SDK I would code with that requirement always present.  I would build the software such as to accommodate such a requirement (an SDK) because it changes the design parameters and what one actually codes for  ... that simply was NOT done by Asobo.  In fact, the SDK was very much an afterthought, hence why 2 years later there is no SDK support for weather data that could be provided to a weather radar implementation at any level of accuracy.

You have no idea what the developers did or didn't do on the platform to accommodate this kind of SDK Rob.

The effort required may not be that much at all but we won't know.

Software is delivered incrementally and we should hopefully get the SDK for Weather Radar in the next update in SU10.

18 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

There is a view system and a camera system, they aren't the same.  But P3D supports both better view system and camera system ... that should be obvious to anyone that has used P3D and MSFS. 

MSFS Camera system seems perfectly fine to me. I've been watching plenty of streams recently too and they get all the angles and views I was able to get from P3D using ez dok.

18 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Like I said, the only surprise for me is the level of tolerance for MSFS that never existed in P3D or XP.

Nothing is perfect in software. In general, people are willing to wait for things if they see continued progress and delivery of updates that add value which is what we're seeing in MSFS over the last 2 years. It was the exact same with P3D. For example, people accepted that weather radars weren't possible, until they were.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
John Mc Avinue
16 hours ago, duartevieira said:

If you don’t know rob you either have not been in the game for too long or you don’t have a clue what he does or he did for the community for years the guides the tweaks etc etc not to mention he’s a beta tester for lm 

I've been simming for over 20 years. I'm not sure what your point is about Robs contributions to the community? Just because I don't live in flightsim forums doesn't mean I can't disagree with Rob, or I should just accept what he says as being correct.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Rob Ainscough
5 hours ago, John Mc Avinue said:

You haven't provided a reference to the P3D SDK Documentation that does this now but lets take your word for it

Per online P3D SDK.

Snippets from the PDK that I eluded to earlier that you missed:

uc?export=view&id=1_jmR1cnSma5CrDFALy4OC

and

uc?export=view&id=1lof5ZyO5mpz-PXCFXj21R

and

uc?export=view&id=1HRIVjfCulEuuXxaHqucT0

and

uc?export=view&id=1GOwHPOQUQPXibeRScIa2n

and

uc?export=view&id=1ZX8s7QJDd8RQ6cW4rg79U

and inherits from the v430 weather interface:

uc?export=view&id=13UCAhWSfIQ6AjRCIGt4uv

An example on how to query for the service can be found in the DLLStart() function of the Camera PDK Sample.

Are you aware there are multiple weather engines from a variety of 3rd party vendors, HiFi is not the only one.  But that's neither here not there, these services are available to any developer that wants to use them and integrate them into a weather radar for their aircraft.

These services are simply NOT available in MSFS ... you know that "next gen" simulator that can't do what current gen simulators can do.  Heck Jorg N. MSFS PM was quoted as saying "why would anyone want historical weather" ... really???

Cheers, Rob.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Rob Ainscough
5 hours ago, John Mc Avinue said:

Just because I don't live in flightsim forums doesn't mean I can't disagree with Rob, or I should just accept what he says as being correct

Absolutely, but there is nothing stopping you from doing your own research and either validating or invalidating what I've communicated to you or anyone.

Cheers, Rob.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Jose Rodrigues
4 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Heck Jorg N. MSFS PM was quoted as saying "why would anyone want historical weather" ... really???

He really said that?!? RIP....

Link to comment
Steve Prowse

Don’t quote me but I seem to remember that Andrew said the new version of FSL’s fantastic Concorde will require AS to be installed for weather simulation etc.  So if that is the case; why is it required if P3D already has its own weather system in the SDK?

Link to comment
Rob Ainscough
2 minutes ago, Steve Prowse said:

So if that is the case; why is it required?

One reason (not the only) is so they don't have to code their own and can leverage what they currently have in all the other aircraft.  I guess FSL could increase the product cost to compensate for additional internal development time, but given much of the user base already has HiFi ASP3D, not sure that's a good direction to go ... pay one way or the other for it.

With that said, I'd love to see that requirement removed even if it costs more ... nothing against HiFi at all (enjoy what they've produced over the years), but there are other weather engines and I also like to do my own weather stations over a flight plan to get the weather depicted to my interpretation.

Cheers, Rob.  

Link to comment
Dave Taylor
On 5/14/2022 at 11:23 AM, Richard McDonald Woods said:

@Rob. I was surprised that you are so negative about MSFS :o

I know Rob, has been around a long time and his comments are always very useful.

Link to comment
Steve Prowse
8 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

One reason (not the only) is so they don't have to code their own and can leverage what they currently have in all the other aircraft.  I guess FSL could increase the product cost to compensate for additional internal development time, but given much of the user base already has HiFi ASP3D, not sure that's a good direction to go ... pay one way or the other for it.

With that said, I'd love to see that requirement removed evenñ if it costs more ... nothing against HiFi at all (enjoy what they've produced over the years), but there are other weather engines and I also like to do my own weather stations over a flight plan to get the weather depicted to my interpretation.

Cheers, Rob.  

Ah I see thanks Rob, just a thought maybe other developers think the same ‘why reinvent the wheel’ so as to speak since most simmers already use AS  so why bother. I know Concorde Performance System used AS and that greatly increased user friendliness brilliant bit of kit CPS.  Thanks some interesting information here.  MSFS, as you know, uses live weather, but if a simmer needs or likes to use historical weather he/she can always use the customize weather function within MSFS, even you Rob, as you say, seems to enjoy that freedom that customizable weather gives the sim pilot in building their own weather for a particular flight. 

All the best

Steve.

Link to comment
Rob Ainscough
11 hours ago, Steve Prowse said:

but if a simmer needs or likes to use historical weather he/she can always use the customize weather function within MSFS, even you Rob, as you say, seems to enjoy that freedom that customizable weather gives the sim pilot in building their own weather for a particular flight

I couldn't find any way to setup weather stations along my planned route/alternate in MSFS?  

Per MSFS support article here:

"If you download real-world weather data and then customize the conditions in user-defined weather, the effects of the Real-World Weather feature will be redistributed and diluted to a degree. This does not mean that it is best not to modify the weather, just be aware that the results are not predictable."

Cheers, Rob. 

Link to comment
Rudy Fidao
20 hours ago, Steve Prowse said:

 MSFS, as you know, uses live weather, but if a simmer needs or likes to use historical weather he/she can always use the customize weather function within MSFS, even you Rob, as you say, seems to enjoy that freedom that customizable weather gives the sim pilot in building their own weather for a particular flight. 

All the best

Steve.

Customising the weather - great for a "simulator" session with failures and the like - not so good for a whole flight. How much weather would I have to customise to do a SIN-LHR flight with accurate weather?  Not an answer to historical weather :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Martin von Dombrowski
On 5/20/2022 at 12:56 AM, Steve Prowse said:

Don’t quote me but I seem to remember that Andrew said the new version of FSL’s fantastic Concorde will require AS to be installed for weather simulation etc.  So if that is the case; why is it required if P3D already has its own weather system in the SDK?

Just FYI: before Active Sky I was using Fs Global Real Weather which is a great tool with one major drawback: aircraft add on developers only opened up for Active Sky to use their weather radar with even though it would be perfectly doable for FSGRW. IIRC only in the Aerosoft Airbus I was able to use the weather radar together with FSGRW. So it's not a simulator restriction, it's more like a tit-for-tat kind of thing I would think.

Link to comment
Steven Agre

Honestly Rob I found your original post so hilarious that I had to comment. I hope I don't offend, but I'm sure someone will appreciate my sense of humor.

__________________


Couldn’t care less about P3D… after taking off out of Istanbul and flying out over the coast of Africa in P3D these global scenery adding just seem to keep making P3D worse and worse … it’s frankly just garbage graphics in P3D (even more so when it’s cloudy, OMG what a mess). I just don’t get how P3D fans can turn a blind eye to these obvious issues in P3D:

Entire landmasses a single color?

2022-3-29_12-18-11-842.png

What even is this fog?

2021-4-4_21-4-36-702.png

Pixelated oceans and hundreds of miles of repeating textures?

2021-4-4_21-39-44-718.png

And what is going on with this lighting?

2022-3-29_0-50-41-896.png

And the list of visual problems with P3D goes on and on … I just don’t get the attraction let alone understand how P3D users just ignore these problems? When MSFS has visual problems (and it does) the world is coming to and end, but when P3D has worse visual problems all is good?!

P3Dv5 is “Next generation” … a couple years of updates and it’s still the same old FSX underneath… maybe in 10 years when I have children it’ll be fixed?

Best,
Steven.

 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Rob Ainscough

Don't be offended, but wow you need some tips on P3D settings and scenery add-ons ;)

Agree, P3D has visual issues, MSFS has even worse visual issues ... at least you didn't see walled bridges in P3D!  

This is the P3D V5 I see:

Cheers, Rob.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Steven Agre
14 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Don't be offended, but wow you need some tips on P3D settings and scenery add-ons ;)

Agree, P3D has visual issues, MSFS has even worse visual issues ... at least you didn't see walled bridges in P3D!  

This is the P3D V5 I see:

Cheers, Rob.

You're missing the forest for the trees. As a normal person with limited free time who wants enjoy flight simming, and has sunk literally hundreds of dollars into addons for P3D, there are still significant parts of the world that look identical to how they did in FS9. MSFS has solved this problem, if you're willing to put up with a couple weird looking bridges that you had to illegally fly a few hundred feet over Portland to even notice.

I picked up MSFS 3 days ago, purchased a plane and downloaded some basic freeware airport scenery. I think this compares pretty favorably to my time landing at FlyTampa Amsterdam with TrueEarth Netherlands, Envtex and Envshade, Activesky and ASCA. And I was getting about 2-2.5x better frames in MSFS.

Screenshot_34.png

MSFS has its issues no doubt - no weather radar is sad, but I put up with that in P3D for years before Activesky was a thing, I can live with it again for a few months. The planes are brand new and show amazing potential, just like the Labus did when it first launched. The handflying feels great too, no doubt thanks in part to the better performance. Again, I cannot state enough how excited I am for FSlabs first forays into the new sim. It is a platform with incredible potential, and while there are certainly tradeoffs for some regarding historical weather, the bandwith usage, and other niggles, it's clear that for those of us who want to get to flying and aren't too worried about tinkering with settings that MSFS represents an absolutely incredible starting point.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Rob Ainscough
8 minutes ago, Steven Agre said:

"well theoretically you could pay a dev to make Orbx True Earth just for you!", you're either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant. As a normal person with limited free time who wants enjoy flight simming, and has sunk literally hundreds of dollars into addons for P3D, there are still significant parts of the world that look identical to how they did in FS9. MSFS has solved this problem

But for some of us, that wasn't a problem we needed a solution for ... I still haven't explored 70% of what I currently have in P3D.

Completely agree you get more scenery and aircraft out of the box in MSFS, never will debate that because that's something LM have always left to 3rd party to solve.

Like I said, there is a long list of problems I have with MSFS (not just walled bridges) that I honestly have no idea if they will ever get addressed (2 years later and some of them are still there).  Until they are addressed, the best platform for me is still P3D "for now". 

MSFS photogrammetry seems to only work well when you fly slow, or do circles around a specific area and wait for the melted buildings to be less melted and resolution to resolve (cache seems to make very little difference) ... sorry but I don't see that as a great solution if the resolution can't be better ... I get better image quality out of Google Maps flight simulator (ya know, the one released long before MSFS). 

The building/object LoDRadius may not be relevant to you, but to me 4-5 mile limit in MSFS is like going back to FSX LoDRadius, just NOT sufficient (I guess they don't want XBOX users getting memory errors).

I have a list of problems for P3D also (which I added to this thread) ... performance is definitely NOT one of them.

But we're just circling the wagon of what has already been identified ... like I said, the only surprise to me was the increased level of tolerance to MSFS problems ... apparently many of my deal breakers were just not that important to many "simmers" or more accurately they would tolerate those deal breakers because they enjoyed the global coverage and the visual experience in MSFS.

Cheers, Rob.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Rob Ainscough

Last weekend's flight out of PDX to OAK, here are those same Portland bridges ...can you spot the difference ;) 

Nice specular rays also, LM need to do a much better job of implementing specular rays as the TruSky SDK does provide for it and currently implementation is pretty weak (hello DX12 ray tracing).

Weather into KOAK:

and a little Afterburner treat out of PDX:

Sorry no HDR version (had to convert to 709 rather than HLG 2100 native).

Would love to see FSLabs do an ERJ-175.

Cheers, Rob.

Link to comment
A_ndré_F_olkers
19 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Agree, P3D has visual issues, MSFS has even worse visual issues ... at least you didn't see walled bridges in P3D!  

Cheers, Rob.

Sorry but this comment made my day :D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

@Rob Ainscough, I had a fly with MSFS at the weekend on a fellow enthusiasts PC at a monthly flight sim meeting.

The Menai Strait separates the island of Anglesey from mainland Wales. There are two big bridges crossing the Strait. On one the road traffic that should be on the bridge was directly underneath driving on water! :o

Is that something you’ve seen?

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
23 minutes ago, Alex Pugh said:

tl;dr of this thread: If you're really into bridges, MSFS is not for you

Why? Is it a known problem? And if so, will it be fixed?

Link to comment
Rob Ainscough
27 minutes ago, Alex Pugh said:

of this thread

but not tired enough to avoid posting in it :) 

5 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Is it a known problem? And if so, will it be fixed?

Yes, some areas got addressed, but many areas have not been "fixed" by Microsoft, there are some third party fixes but apparently MSFS doesn't require 3rd party to look good ... at least that's the argument being presented by some. ;)  

There are many other issues that are listed as "Investigating" (Photogrammetry Bridges issue is certainly NOT the only one) ... there was a consolidated bug list but I can't seem to locate it now (it was very long).  Here is Latest bug report forum.

MSFS development road map.  There was another more comprehensive one, again not sure where it went?

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Thanks Rob. For some strange reason my ancient iPad won’t show those linked pages.

I’m nowhere near buying it. P3Dv5 gives me everything I need and the bonus will be a 64-bit Concorde.

Link to comment
Alex Pugh
2 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

but not tired enough to avoid posting in it :) 

That's not what tl;dr means, but ok.

2 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Yes, some areas got addressed, but many areas have not been "fixed" by Microsoft, there are some third party fixes but apparently MSFS doesn't require 3rd party to look good ... at least that's the argument being presented by some. ;)  

Yeah, it really doesn't need third party add-ons to look good. Most people agree with that. 

2 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I thought MSFS users were ignoring the sim's many glaring issues? 

2 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Wow! Imagine that. 

Link to comment
Rob Ainscough

Covfefe  :huh:

On 5/14/2022 at 12:11 PM, Alex Pugh said:

Oh and btw it took me 5 seconds to search for a freeware fix for bridges it Portland:

https://flightsim.to/file/2374/portland-or-bridges

Not an add-on if it's free?  What about the 600,000 other bridges across the globe that need to be fixed?

Indeed MSFS users are posting issues ... so MSFS does have lots of problems but users still using it ... that sounds like ignoring or more to my first post, blind eye which was about tolerance of the issues?

I think there is a better long term development map, I just haven't found it ... the one I linked doesn't really say much about anything I consider relevant to the issues I pointed out nor my specific desires/features ... just more scenery, SDK updates (no specifics), facebook snapshots, trailers, and some TBAs.  So yes, I'm still having to imagine :)

Back at ya ... 

Cheers, Rob.

Link to comment
Steven Agre
On 5/25/2022 at 8:00 PM, Rob Ainscough said:

Covfefe  :huh:

Not an add-on if it's free?  What about the 600,000 other bridges across the globe that need to be fixed?

Indeed MSFS users are posting issues ... so MSFS does have lots of problems but users still using it ... that sounds like ignoring or more to my first post, blind eye which was about tolerance of the issues?

Hmm, let's see. MSFS is currently $48 on steam right now, and a certain A320 addon is $61. It flies nicely, systems are good, frames are quite good. No weather radar for now, but will come in the future. Certainly some bugs to put up with, but so far for me I've found it plenty acceptable. Looks like this with I'd say a couple hours of set up if you include getting some good model matching:

Screenshot_7.png

unknown.png

May I remind you this is MSFS with no scenery addons at all. Think about how much money you have to spend just to get one city in P3D to look like this :)

1029277896_Screenshot(165).thumb.png.8ee70f7b4a5a21c08f7f81d0d0be539e.png

The only addons in this photo are the plane itself and Munich airport. All the scenery around the airport is what you get out of the box:

548706100_Screenshot(142).thumb.png.3e75a9fa2f091dd32518e305702ae5dc.png

Throw in a payware airport or two, you're down another $30-40, and you're here:

1802087767_Screenshot(124).thumb.png.947d258f8313e3520609d959b5c2290c.png

So for a grand total of $150 I'm doing pretty well. Lots of lovely free airports in flightsim.to as well to check out, I highly recommend Lhasa and Dheli personally :)

_________________________________________________

Okay so P3D time...

Well, P3Dv5 is $200. But I'll be generous and assume we're all gonna skirt the license agreement and use the Academic version for $60 instead. Alright, well let's be honest, as my previous screenshots prove and as Rob so kindly pointed out, I clearly know nothing about P3D addons and it looks bad without them so.. let's get the list going shall we?

Our favorite A320 addon is $150, so we'll add that to the tally. I'll be extra generous and assume you don't care about weather radar and won't tally up the $40 that will cost you since it doesn't exist in MSFS yet.

Oh, and the default camera system is absolutely awful so let's add Chaseplane: $35

Scenery wise, we've got quite the shopping list:

Orbx Global: $63, Orbx Vector: $31, of course. Oh, and you're gonna want an Orbx Landclass as well. But this is gonna get expensive fast so we'll just assume you're only interested in flying on one particular continent. And it better not be Asia: $37. Oh, and P3D default trees are pretty rough so we'll throw in TerraFlora as well: $21. You'll want airports too, so again we'll pony up $40 (and that's very generous) for a couple nice ones. 

And your final result is pretty decent:

unknown.png

2021-4-5_4-53-37-523.thumb.png.a7973e5ce1540849106595d01756b15f.png

But don't you dare leave that continent you purchased or you're back in FS9 again:

1881198318_2021-4-7_23-56-44-904copy.thumb.png.9f7f1c5fc14ec6c3d730d6bf08b3d152.png

Anyway, this experience has cost us $437. (Or $575 if you want to follow the EULA ;)) And you're severely limited in where you can fly that looks respectable. And (at least for me) I'd also be getting worse frame rates than I do in the new sim. And that's not to mention the amount of hard drive space you'll need to dedicate to all these addons (well over 1.5TB for me).

So the final tally:

MSFS:.......$48     P3D Academic ;):......$60
A320:.......$61     A320:................$150
2 Airports:.$40     Basic global scenery:$152
_______________     2 Airports:...........$40
Total:.....$149     Chaseplane:...........$35
                    _________________________
                    Total:...............$437

Throw in another $148 to fly to all the other continents (except Asia, it will still look like poop). And then maybe you'll want some regions, since let's be real OpenLC is still just fine. And I didn't even mention Envtex, Envshade, GSX...

If I want just california to look as good as it does in MSFS, we're talking $68 for TE Norcal and Socal. Oregon and Washington? Another $68. We're gonna be pushing the thousand mark here pretty quick if we want to venture any further.

I know we all forgot how much money we've sunk into P3D but it's easy to tolerate what most people think are minor issues if it means not having to buy 15 addons from 10 developers for $100 to get a respectable flight going every time you want to fly to a new part of the world.

I Hope this answers your question about why many of us are so excited to get an FSLabs A330 in the new sim. Lots of new places to fly, with minimal effort and dollars to get the whole flight to look great. Not just good airports at either end with vast swaths of wasteland in between :)

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Steve Prowse
6 hours ago, Steven Agre said:

Well, P3Dv5 is $200. But I'll be generous and assume we're all gonna skirt the license agreement and use the Academic version for $60 instead.

Thanks Steven for mentioning the, never to be discussed, license agreement.  It is one of the biggest complaints I've had with LM since day one, and still is.  I have never thought I was suitable for the terms they give, this is my hobby, by definition not work for my enjoyment etc, no I've been entertained by flight sim...so I'm not suitable...I've used FSX since MS released it and now I've upgraded to MSFS and what an upgrade it is a big thank you to MS and Asobo for allowing me to continue my hobby with their sim platform.  Hell it's entertaining;  I've loved it since day one, it is the future of flight simulation;  I've said that since release day too :D

Cheers

  • Like 2
Link to comment
brendon powys
5 hours ago, Steven Agre said:

Hmm, let's see. MSFS is currently $48 on steam right now, and a certain A320 addon is $61. It flies nicely, systems are good, frames are quite good. No weather radar for now, but will come in the future. Certainly some bugs to put up with, but so far for me I've found it plenty acceptable. Looks like this with I'd say a couple hours of set up if you include getting some good model matching:

Screenshot_7.png

unknown.png

May I remind you this is MSFS with no scenery addons at all. Think about how much money you have to spend just to get one city in P3D to look like this :)

1029277896_Screenshot(165).thumb.png.8ee70f7b4a5a21c08f7f81d0d0be539e.png

The only addons in this photo are the plane itself and Munich airport. All the scenery around the airport is what you get out of the box:

548706100_Screenshot(142).thumb.png.3e75a9fa2f091dd32518e305702ae5dc.png

Throw in a payware airport or two, you're down another $30-40, and you're here:

1802087767_Screenshot(124).thumb.png.947d258f8313e3520609d959b5c2290c.png

So for a grand total of $150 I'm doing pretty well. Lots of lovely free airports in flightsim.to as well to check out, I highly recommend Lhasa and Dheli personally :)

_________________________________________________

Okay so P3D time...

Well, P3Dv5 is $200. But I'll be generous and assume we're all gonna skirt the license agreement and use the Academic version for $60 instead. Alright, well let's be honest, as my previous screenshots prove and as Rob so kindly pointed out, I clearly know nothing about P3D addons and it looks bad without them so.. let's get the list going shall we?

Our favorite A320 addon is $150, so we'll add that to the tally. I'll be extra generous and assume you don't care about weather radar and won't tally up the $40 that will cost you since it doesn't exist in MSFS yet.

Scenery wise, we've got quite the shopping list:

Orbx Global: $63, Orbx Vector: $31, of course. Oh, and you're gonna want an Orbx Landclass as well. But this is gonna get expensive fast so we'll just assume you're only interested in flying on one particular continent. And it better not be Asia: $37. Oh, and P3D default trees are pretty rough so we'll throw in TerraFlora as well: $21. You'll want airports too, so again we'll pony up $40 (and that's very generous) for a couple nice ones. 

And your final result is pretty decent:

unknown.png

2021-4-5_4-53-37-523.thumb.png.a7973e5ce1540849106595d01756b15f.png

But don't you dare leave that continent you purchased or you're back in FS9 again:

1881198318_2021-4-7_23-56-44-904copy.thumb.png.9f7f1c5fc14ec6c3d730d6bf08b3d152.png

Anyway, this experience has cost us $402. (Or $540 if you want to follow the EULA ;)) And you're severely limited in where you can fly that looks respectable. And (at least for me) I'd also be getting worse frame rates than I do in the new sim. And that's not to mention the amount of hard drive space you'll need to dedicate to all these addons (well over 1.5TB for me).

So the final tally:

MSFS:.......$48     P3D Academic ;):......$60
A320:.......$61     A320:................$150
2 Airports:.$40     Basic global scenery:$152
_______________     2 Airports:...........$40
Total:.....$149     _________________________
                    Total:...............$402

Throw in another $148 to fly to all the other continents (except Asia, it will still look like poop). And then maybe you'll want some regions, since let's be real OpenLC is still just fine. And I didn't even mention Envtex, Envshade, GSX...

If I want just california to look as good as it does in MSFS, we're talking $68 for TE Norcal and Socal. Oregon and Washington? Another $68. We're gonna be pushing the thousand mark here pretty quick if we want to venture any further.

I know we all forgot how much money we've sunk into P3D but it's easy to tolerate what most people think are minor issues if it means not having to buy 15 addons from 10 developers for $100 to get a respectable flight going every time you want to fly to a new part of the world.

I Hope this answers your question about why many of us are so excited to get an FSLabs A330 in the new sim. Lots of new places to fly, with minimal effort and dollars to get the whole flight to look great. Not just good airports at either end with vast swaths of wasteland in between :)

agree 100% I started using msfs a week ago, ditched p3d cause of the AA problem which was not fixed. Totally enjoying msfs, I can finally fly in my home country (RPA) without coughing up $ to look good. And the Mods are endless

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

The title of this topic includes the word Concorde. It’s hardly got a mention. If you have MSFS and have bought the only one available you might be regretting your decision.

P3D remains the only viable sim for that aircraft. Pretty scenery or a correctly modelled Concorde? Not a difficult decision for me and many others here I suspect.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Jose Rodrigues

@Steven Agre

Yeah... if I was just starting out and hadn't invested so much (but so much) in Prepar3D, as I said a few days ago, I would have switched too (even with the lack of Historical Weather); but, for me at least, it's hard to throw "everything away" because of a new platform that, I insist, hasn't convinced me enough yet...

MSFS would be redundant if it was installed at the same time as P3D, at least for me...

PS: I hope LM brings many new features and improvements in version 5.4 because obviously now (not now, two years ago!) its problems and graphical limits were even more "visible". And if, as @Rob Ainscough says, it is possible to improve AND A LOT TrueSky... well, let those improvements come!

Link to comment
Steven Agre
8 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The title of this topic includes the word Concorde. It’s hardly got a mention. If you have MSFS and have bought the only one available you might be regretting your decision.

P3D remains the only viable sim for that aircraft. Pretty scenery or a correctly modelled Concorde? Not a difficult decision for me and many others here I suspect.

To be honest, for you Ray, it would probably be in your interest that the Concorde come to MSFS before P3D v4/v5. Since you're on V3, it's going to be a new installation for you anyway, and I will tell you from first hand experience that getting setup in MSFS is a much easier time than building up a new P3D installation :)

7 hours ago, Jose Rodrigues said:

@Steven Agre

Yeah... if I was just starting out and hadn't invested so much (but so much) in Prepar3D, as I said a few days ago, I would have switched too (even with the lack of Historical Weather); but, for me at least, it's hard to throw "everything away" because of a new platform that, I insist, hasn't convinced me enough yet...

MSFS would be redundant if it was installed at the same time as P3D, at least for me...

PS: I hope LM brings many new features and improvements in version 5.4 because obviously now (not now, two years ago!) its problems and graphical limits were even more "visible". And if, as @Rob Ainscough says, it is possible to improve AND A LOT TrueSky... well, let those improvements come!

I definitely feel you here. I had friends flying the Flybywire for months telling me how great MSFS was, and I was telling them nah, don't want to dedicate the drive space, don't want to bother installing, P3D is good enough for me for now, etc. But I have to say, MSFS is pretty easy to dip your toes into just to try.

Once the Fenix launched I decided to just give it a try and it had me hooked right away. I went from "I'll try it for now but I am not dedicating drive space to it that I need for P3D" to "If I need more space for addons P3D is the first to go" in the span of about two flights. I can definitely say that the last thing I want to do now is sink any more money into P3D addons, it's MSFS from now on for me.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
17 minutes ago, Steven Agre said:

honest, for you Ray, it would probably be in your interest that the Concorde come to MSFS before P3D v4/v5. Since you're on V3, it's going to be a new installation for you anyway, and I will tell you from first hand experience that getting setup in MSFS is a much easier time than building up a new P3D installation :)

Steve, check my signature more carefully. I have v5.3. I just list v3.4 because I fly Concorde and only Concorde in that sim.

If I waited for it to be available for MSFS I’d be waiting a very long time. The SDK still requires a lot of work. The DCD Concorde was “broken” after the last update despite the developer liaising with Asobo / Microsoft. The developer had to release a hot fix. Imagine that for FSL. That’s why they’ll take their time and move when appropriate.

MSFS is totally alien to me. I’ve spent 30 years with Microsoft flight sims. It would be like starting at year zero. 30 years of accumulated knowledge lost overnight. No thanks.

Link to comment
Steven Agre
20 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

MSFS is totally alien to me. I’ve spent 30 years with Microsoft flight sims. It would be like starting at year zero. 30 years of accumulated knowledge lost overnight. No thanks.

It was totally alien to all of us when we first tried it out. I gave up 10 years of X-Plane knowledge when I first tried FSX 11 years ago, and now it's happening again. But this time, it's a pretty shallow learning curve. So far there's been no serious tweaking needed for me, no worrying about shaders, no worrying about scenery load orders. I know, we all have a shared PTSD from decades of worrying about every scenery tweak, which addon can I use to fix that issue, what problem exists here, why am I getting CTDs here... So far for me this has been a breath of fresh air and I think for most people it's so easy to dip your toes into and test that there's no excuse not to. 

Steam even have a return period if you don't like it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Steve, most of those worries you list are not a problem for me. It’s a stable mature sim.

MSFS has two red lines for me and until those are removed / available (they won’t be) I’m not interested in it as a serious sim.

1) Forced updates.

2) Historical weather.

Asobo were asked when they’ll bring it in and couldn’t understand why it would be needed. :wacko:  I rest my case.

PS. Let us know when road traffic can use bridges and not the river directly below. :D

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Steven Agre
20 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Asobo were asked when they’ll bring it in and couldn’t understand why it would be needed. :wacko:  I rest my case.

PS. Let us know when road traffic can use bridges and not the river directly below. :D

Totally get you on the red lines, they're different for all of us. While historical weather isn't anything I've ever utilized, I can see why it's important to some and as I said, I still have P3D on my machine (though admittedly I haven't had the urge to launch it since I setup MSFS). One can only hope that a 3rd party dev will take care of what Asobo don't, just like happened with P3D. :)

The road traffic zinger though I still find hilarious. 1/3rd of the world in P3D is literally just flat grass with 2D roads randomly strewn on top and no traffic, but somehow the traffic driving on the water in one location is supposed to be a gotcha against MSFS. Whatever floats your boat I guess!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
  • Tom van der Elst locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...