Interest gone...any one else experienced this?

[AKar]

What was your glider sim? Condor? I had pretty good luck in FSX with CumulusX (registered) and the Aerosoft DiscusX sailplane in real world weather by ASN.

Condor, yes. A realistic soaring simulator really is a purpose-made as of today. No weather engine in FSX/P3D really has been up to the job to recreate the dynamics of thermals and other phenomena necessary for realistic soaring. On the other hand, the weather engines in glider sims don't do real weather, presumably because it would simply be too much to link the real world weather updates into a dynamic weather engine with nuances relevant to soaring.

-Esa

[Hook]

The weather engine doesn't do good thermals, but CumulusX does. It also handles ridge lift, but last I looked it didn't do waves. It integrates well with Active Sky. In fact, you need to remove the thermals file from FSX or clear it out for P3D and let CumulusX handle it all.

I haven't tried very hard to get it to work in P3Dv4 but I've read that it's possible.

Hook

[Hook]

I watched a couple of Condor videos. It looks a lot better than the last time I looked. I didn't see any MacCready rings or variometers though, which surprised me. I may eventually try it out.

If you haven't checked out CumulusX, here is the link, and the link to the forums:

http://www.luerkens.homepage.t-online.de/peter/
https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/f ... -cumulusx/

Download the manual available on Peter's page as the web page doesn't have a lot of information.

One advantage to the registered version of CumulusX is that if you enter a thermal off center, the wing toward the center of the thermal will lift a bit which allows you to use some real world techniques to center in the thermals. I eventually got pretty good at it.

A major advantage of CumulusX was that I could fly in FSX with all the things it offers, including real world weather provided by Active Sky Next, which works very well with CumulusX. I was able to fly from my home airport near my house with all the familiar terrain. I also had a few favorite places for ridge soaring but sometimes I had to set historical weather to get winds in the proper strength and direction.

Something I was surprised to see in P3Dv4 with ASP4 was cloud streets, which I've seen several times. I didn't try flying near them to check out the thermals though.

I found soaring to be an excellent way to break yourself of following magenta lines and keeping a constant altitude. And you will definitely become a better pilot. Soaring is the purest form of flight.

Hook

[AKar]

I watched a couple of Condor videos. It looks a lot better than the last time I looked. I didn't see any MacCready rings or variometers though, which surprised me. I may eventually try it out.

Condor's been in version 2 for some time now. Essentially, it is a complete re-make. I'd highly recommend Condor to any glider buffs, though with reservation that one probably needs to be a glider buff to properly enjoy it!

If you haven't checked out CumulusX, here is the link, and the link to the forums:

I've checked it out some long time ago. I think it is quite good effort, if using FSX for soaring, but in the end, it is still FSX. Weather limitations aside, the flight dynamics aren't quite there for soaring (with the caveat that I haven't tried even nearly all the available addon gliders). Small things that feel obviously weird, you know... such as using alterations in bank to keep the nose and speed control; overbanking to bring the nose quickly down when slowing down while entering thermal....so on. One set of specific circumstances where it has never felt quite right in FSX/P3D.

But that's just perfect reason to have multiple platforms.

Condor is great for glider stuff. P3D is my 'trip flying' and procedural sim. DCS goes for its things.

-Esa

[Hobart Escin]

One has to consider also that Prepar3D in it's present form is still an iteration of an almost twenty year old FSX codebase that had serious limitations from the very beginning. It's not a programming environment that fosters creativity and innovation; rather, developers embrace a constant challenge in finding ways to overcome the inherent limitations with an old Microsoft legacy simulation. P3D will apparently always be a patched version of FSX, and seemingly about ten years behind current technology. Dealing with everything from either a developer's or user's perspective gets old after a while, unfortunately.

Then there are Prepar3d's constraining licensing requirements - the lion's share of LM's income from the platform. This will always and forever plague new add-on development.

X-plane is far from perfect, but it's progressing quite impressively on different fronts. Environmentally, X-plane is already light years ahead of P3D at this stage. There's really just no comparison. More and more brandname developers are embracing XP across the board, and I personally see XP as the dominant simulation platform in the very near future, while P3D I think will gradually relinquish market share in the coming years.

DCS World is unbeatable in terms of combat simulation and systems modeling, along with mind-boggling environmental modeling in it's current form. Honestly, if the DCS platform had world geography instead of sectionalized add-on theater maps, it would seemingly be the ultimate simming platform for both developers and users. Maybe one day.

Just for context here, you mention P3D and its old FSX codebase then go on to mention two other sims that have exactly the same lineage and limitations. Just thought I'd give you a heads up there as the myth that P3D is a million years old an others are not is one hell of an annoying Myth. DCS still shares a whole bunch of pre-Lock ON stuff and XP just like MSFS is built upon the older version, changing and adding just like the old FS and now P3D series of sims.

Every platform has pros and cons, pointing out ones cons and then stating only the pros others have is a bit silly. The reason to own multiple platforms is because overall the platforms are not too expensive to own with little saving and each and every one has something over the other, from P3D and FSX's ease of jump in and go to DCS's weapon dropping digital systems heavy jets, IL-2's stunning immersive WW2 warbird dogfights and XP's out of this world nightscapes and the forgotten gem of Aerofly FS2 offering the most fluid amazing experience you can have on monitor or VR when it comes to running at a million frames a second, not dropping any and it still looking jaw droppingly good with a hint of orbx thrown in.

Lewis, I didn't think I unfairly portrayed either XP or DCS too favorably over P3D. In fact, I clearly stated that XP was "far from perfect". My point was that Microsoft legacy code has a long history of stagnant development and P3D is built on an old foundation, regardless of how one looks at it. XP and DCS in their present forms, whilst I readily concede are themselves both a product of older coding in some form, were still nevertheless built up from the ground in a modern 64 bit environment. P3D was simply ported over to 64 bit, and in so many ways is still just another iteration of an ancient FSX codebase. Aesthetically, out of the box, P3D still looks as horrible as FSX ever did (albeit with few cosmetic differences). Indeed, developers like Orbx provide substantial improvement, but this will cost around $300 U.S. dollars for the average P3D user, just to bring the outside environment to similar standards of XP right out of the box.

I honestly don't think Lockheed-Martin would've even moved P3D to 64bits nor made other recent features available if it weren't for rising competition from X-plane, so regardless of what simming platform one prefers, having a choice is good for the end user. But where does P3D even fit in with Lockheed's long term business model and how long will it be viable with a corporation that grossed over $55.5 billion last year? Can a mega-corporation like LM continue to justify the paltry revenue from a desktop simulation platform that relies on independent third party developers to keep it relevant? Is P3D seriously a training platform with enough of a professional customer base to even be seriously profitable, or is it rather mostly an entertainment entity with far more sales to flight simulation enthusiasts? My point being that it would seem that LM will inevitably shelve further development of P3D in the short term because it's simply a very minor source of revenue to a company that primary produces high tech military hardware for worldwide customers. Maybe there are things I simply don't understand, but this is my perspective as a user of P3D.

Finally, none of this is in any way an indictment of A2A or any of it's products. I use P3D primary BECAUSE of A2A products, as I'm sure quite of few other users do. Without Orbx scenery or A2A aircraft, P3D would be, well, FSX.

[Lewis - A2A]

Sorry but you have it wrong again, the others you mention where moved over to 64bit the exact same as P3D. Whilst for sure eye candy wise things are different under the hood the sim, be it P3D, DCS, XP etc is as it is today because it is exactly built not from the ground up but on an extensive developed code base with a long history. If we can stop the myth that old = trash that would be grand.

Regarding development, one simply has to understand that this is a professional platform when talking of P3D. The update notes you will note for P3D are quite lengthy and packed, but tend to be aimed solely at developers and opening the platform to developers for the professional markets in which P3D is used be it flight or ground training, VR or Augmented realities etc. Since release P3D from a development standpoint has rather massively changed, and having played dogfighting on the high end platform versions that worked very well it really is something special.

As I say every platform has its pro's and con's from a professional and consumer side pov. assumptions and myths aside of course.

thanks,
Lewis - A2A

[Hook]

Well, there you have it. If your interest in FSX/P3D ever wanes, move over to XPlane. Any time you get tired of flying you can go into an FSX community and bash FSX. That never gets old.

Just for fun, go though those posts and swap the names FSX/P3D and XPlane.

---

The stock sailplanes in FSX aren't all that good, which is why I recommended the Aerosoft versions.

...but in the end, it is still FSX.

Which is exactly why I liked it! Keep in mind that when I was soaring Condor 2 wasn't out yet.

Hook

[AerialShorts]

@crippy - Been there. I was big into flight simulation early on and for years. Actually started back with SubLogic's flight simulator for the Apple ][ and rode through many versions of Microsoft’s flight sim after that but began to get bored. For me it was longing to be in the sim rather than watching it on a monitor. When the Oculus DK2 was announced and FlyInside for FSX was Kickstarted, I had to try VR flight simulation and haven’t looked back. It’s crazy fun.

Both cross-country flight in P3D in the A2A planes, on ORBX scenery with Active Sky scenery for the ultimate (or near) in realism, or more recently doing aerobatics in DCS with Ron for just amazing, close-in visuals. It’s been a blast and a near daily activity and escape now that I’m retired.

My brother is a private pilot, flew C-130s in the Air Force, and retired from Southwest after years as a Captain. He’s been curious about VR flight since he hears me talk about it and was just here for a few days and tried it out. He was blown away when I put him in the DCS P-51 and let him take it out for a spin. He may or may not spring for the cost to fly VR himself but he wants to. He’d be starting from scratch with no computer, software, or VR rig, but he said it felt and looked just like real-world flying minus G forces, and looked amazing to him. Way better visuals than Southwest's or the military sims he, and occasionally I, got to fly. He also wants to do formation again.

If anyone is curious about the visuals, here is a video from flying DCS formation with Ron. It’s huge fun and with the other planes full size, 3D, and just feet away, it’s terrifying, exhilarating, awe inspiring, and way fun. It’s like no flight simulation I’ve ever done.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=w_AinzLnaaQ

[Raebo]

I only fly the B-377, I fly it everyday rain or shine, have been since it was first introduced.
I am blessed to have a very good system in which to get the most out of this wonderful hobby.
I'm retired and am very slow to change just for the sake of change, You know if it aint broke.
I fly FSX steam and simply love it, no P3D'? for me, and thankfully I dont experience OOM's.
I have all the ORBEX regions and all ORBX pay ware and their free ware, B-377 capable airports.
I use an oldie but a real goodie in REX Essentials Plus HD, for my weather which works flawlessly for me.
I fly by the book and within the period that this aircraft was operating commercially.
I only fly VOR to VOR following many of the original routes this airplane flew for the handful of airlines that owned it.
I can't say I get bored, as this aircraft and its long range keeps my interest up.

I recently researched a product that I eventually purchased that has really changed/improved everything for me, I'm talking about ForeFlight premium.

It's better than a built in GPS for me as Im trying to keep the aircraft stock for the period.
Fore Flight provides so much information enroute it's mind numbing, its so much more than an EFB, or built in GPS.
The biggest reasons I bought ForeFlight was for it's real time weather radars, it's built in DME, and highly accurate ( within inches) moving map which is displayed on your I-pad.
I now have the ability to fly published SIDS and STARS if need be or Vectors, (my pefered method) by hand to the designated runway.
I never much liked the FSX stock ATC as it vectors get messed up and can and will fly you into a mountain, or zig zag you way off coarse.
ForeFlight allows me to fly published vectors ( The same Vectors the Stock ATC was intended to use but can't reliably do) to the appropriate runway "By hand" which is very important for me in keeping within the period.
I highly recommend this product to all enthusiasts, it performs flawlessly and will breath new life back into this great hobby for many as it has done for me.

[patful]

Well, there you have it. If your interest in FSX/P3D ever wanes, move over to XPlane. Any time you get tired of flying you can go into an FSX community and bash FSX. That never gets old.

[Hobart Escin]

Sorry but you have it wrong again, the others you mention where moved over to 64bit the exact same as P3D. Whilst for sure eye candy wise things are different under the hood the sim, be it P3D, DCS, XP etc is as it is today because it is exactly built not from the ground up but on an extensive developed code base with a long history. If we can stop the myth that old = trash that would be grand.

Regarding development, one simply has to understand that this is a professional platform when talking of P3D. The update notes you will note for P3D are quite lengthy and packed, but tend to be aimed solely at developers and opening the platform to developers for the professional markets in which P3D is used be it flight or ground training, VR or Augmented realities etc. Since release P3D from a development standpoint has rather massively changed, and having played dogfighting on the high end platform versions that worked very well it really is something special.

As I say every platform has its pro's and con's from a professional and consumer side pov. assumptions and myths aside of course.

thanks,
Lewis - A2A

"The obvious objective of video games is to entertain people by surprising them with new experiences." -Shigeru Miyamoto

[GunninGamerz]

"Environmentally, X-plane is already light years ahead of P3D at this stage. There's really just no comparison."

You've got to be kidding me?

The season-less simulator. How far away from realism can you get?

[Hook]

A few more goodies.

If you are an airline pilot, either real life or in the sim, take some time on a layover at your destination to rent a small plane and try flying low and slow. This will help keep your stick and rudder skills current and you can check out local landmarks. In Rome there is the Vatican and Colosseum and in Athens there is the Parthenon, to give a couple of examples. Look for the Pyramids near Cairo, very impressive. Many major cities have custom buildings and special local landmarks. London and Paris are incredible.

No matter where you are flying, check out local landmarks. Mount Rushmore and the Meteor Crater in Arizona (between Flagstaff and Winslow) are two I saw when recreating the flight from the book "The Cannibal Queen." Go find Stonehenge or the stone faces on Easter Island. Some won't be there (such as Neuschwanstein castle in Bavaria or the Crazy Horse statue near Rushmore) and the visual quality might be a bit lacking on some, but most will be there and it is worth exploring.

If you only fly in one area of the world, try a different country and check out the different scenery there. For example, Greece will be different from Italy which will be different from Germany. Buildings and vegetation will vary from one area to the next. There are many different landclass areas in FSX which gives considerable variety if you fly low and slow. I was flying over Greece once and later chatting with a Greek online friend and we were discussing the architecture there. "I saw a lot of blue roofs, is this accurate?" "Yes, but that's mostly in the islands."

If you only fly low and slow, an airline flight can be interesting, especially in the A2A Stratocruiser, Connie or B-17 with the possibility of failures. Flying the Stratocruiser between San Francisco and Honolulu was more exciting than it sounds as I wasn't using any of the in-game mapping facilities but flying a predetermined course with heading changes to fly a great circle route and a fuel load that would put me at my destination with just an hour reserve. Then I had a cabin pressurization failure during the flight and had to drop to 10,000 feet and wasn't sure I'd have enough fuel to complete the flight. I also had only a vague idea of the typical winds aloft. There is no feeling like the moment you pick up a VOR near your destination after flying several hours with no navigational help. Next time I'll use celestial navigation.

Hook

[GunninGamerz]

A few more goodies.

If you are an airline pilot, either real life or in the sim, take some time on a layover at your destination to rent a small plane and try flying low and slow. This will help keep your stick and rudder skills current and you can check out local landmarks. In Rome there is the Vatican and Colosseum and in Athens there is the Parthenon, to give a couple of examples. Look for the Pyramids near Cairo, very impressive. Many major cities have custom buildings and special local landmarks. London and Paris are incredible.

No matter where you are flying, check out local landmarks. Mount Rushmore and the Meteor Crater in Arizona (between Flagstaff and Winslow) are two I saw when recreating the flight from the book "The Cannibal Queen." Go find Stonehenge or the stone faces on Easter Island. Some won't be there (such as Neuschwanstein castle in Bavaria or the Crazy Horse statue near Rushmore) and the visual quality might be a bit lacking on some, but most will be there and it is worth exploring.

If you only fly in one area of the world, try a different country and check out the different scenery there. For example, Greece will be different from Italy which will be different from Germany. Buildings and vegetation will vary from one area to the next. There are many different landclass areas in FSX which gives considerable variety if you fly low and slow. I was flying over Greece once and later chatting with a Greek online friend and we were discussing the architecture there. "I saw a lot of blue roofs, is this accurate?" "Yes, but that's mostly in the islands."

If you only fly low and slow, an airline flight can be interesting, especially in the A2A Stratocruiser, Connie or B-17 with the possibility of failures. Flying the Stratocruiser between San Francisco and Honolulu was more exciting than it sounds as I wasn't using any of the in-game mapping facilities but flying a predetermined course with heading changes to fly a great circle route and a fuel load that would put me at my destination with just an hour reserve. Then I had a cabin pressurization failure during the flight and had to drop to 10,000 feet and wasn't sure I'd have enough fuel to complete the flight. I also had only a vague idea of the typical winds aloft. There is no feeling like the moment you pick up a VOR near your destination after flying several hours with no navigational help. Next time I'll use celestial navigation.

Hook

So many great ideas! You just ruined it for me on the Neuschwanstein castle, was just thinking of trying to go find it! I do have the scenery for Germany North and South from ORBX, wonder if that will help?

Me and some friends once loaded up the A2A B17 and flew from San Francisco to Honolulu, that was fun and close on the fuel. Another great flight was Alaska to Hawaii in the Connie, also a close one. I really enjoy flying low and fast through the mountains in a A2A warbird. Gets the heart pumping and keeps things interesting.

[Hook]

If ORBX scenery includes the area around Munich it will almost certainly have Neuschwanstein. Please get pictures and post them along with the Marienbruche and Hohenschwangau. I found a freeware add-on for the castle, which looks good enough but is in slightly the wrong place, but there are other versions available. Even if there is no castle there you can find the hill where it is supposed to be.

I had the great fortune when I was in the US Army stationed in Bamberg in 72-75 to visit Neuschwanstein twice. The official tour was good, but if you wanted you could wander at will around most areas of the castle. At least when I did it no one stopped me. I remember seeing a backgammon board.

I still regret not thinking to track down and purchase a chess set at Oberammergau, famous for their wood carvings.

Hook