Is serious flight simming threatened ?

[Seat7A]

I've been flightsiming for over 40 years. Now I feel less and less interest in the hobby, which I regret. Here's what I think. After FSX, P3D and A2A have always been my choice. It has given me a lot of joy but also knowledge about flight, navigation, computers etc. P3D with all its shortcomings and not least a mediocre landscape has, despite everything, slowly developed into a good flight simulator. P3D has been totally dependent on third party manufacturers. They are A2A, Majestic, HiFi simulation, RealityXP and others who made P3D what it is today, a flight simulator.

So a year ago comes Microsoft Flight Simulator and we were all hoping that now comes Bird Phoenix. An advanced flight simulator with an amazing scenery. I'm disappointed. It's a fantastic scenery but hardly a serious flight simulator. I've tried the JF Piper but it certainly doesn't meet my requirements, used to A2A. The experience is also spoiled by the whole impression one gets of MSFS, an arcade game, a toy.I think much of the reason we ended up here is in the discussion we have been able to follow on this forum over the last few months, our anticipation of news that A2A with Accu Sinm is coming to MSFS. The difficulty for third party manufacturers like A2A and others to be released into the MSFS. I neither understand nor know all the details. I can only state the reality as a simple consumer.

This creating a flight simulator to satisfy two such separate needs as serious simmers and x-box kids becomes difficult to reconcile and I think the SU5 update to MSFS was proof of this. Let me take a very simple example. In P3D I use the X-box controller to control the camera using Chaseplane, incidentally another one of those talented third party manufacturers that doesn't get a place in MSFS. In MSFS update SU5 the system is adapted for X-box with the result that all the time you move the camera in the cockpit there is a white dot in the middle of the field of view. It cannot be disconnected because it is needed for x-box users. MS doesn't seem to have any plans to second this ratio for us PC users.

Unfortunately I think this is what we are in for. Third party manufacturers are stopping developing for P3D and chances are they won't follow through with upgrades to P3D.
The third party manufacturers who want to be kavar will have to resign themselves to being on par with JF or Carenado to fit MSFS. We have already seen these thoughts in the forum. A2A aicraft in MSFS without Accu Sim. Beautiful pictures of nice panels and aircraft, no thanks for me. MSFS and the mass X-box kids are where the money is and that will drive the development of flight sims going forward. Flying a B737 up and down under a bridge near you. The flight simulator has become a toy. I simply don't think A2A fans are or will be the target audience for MSFS. We are simply too few.

We are left with aging P3D simulator and an MSFS that few of us find any pleasure in using. I know there are differing opinions on this matter and that is of course perfectly ok and I hope I am the one who is wrong. I want my beloved hobby back.

/Thomas

[Skycat]

Maybe we're just a little jaded.

40 years ago, what excited you about flight simulators? It probably wasn't monochromatic gauges and the wireframe representation of the world. It was probably an imaginative sense of exploration, or perhaps pride in technical mastery.

I knew about flight simulations in the 1980s but it wasn't until the end of the 1990s that I became hooked. The exciting combat action of Jane's WWII Fighters led me to Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator which in turn caused me buy FS98 just because I could port my CFS1 aircraft into it. I still remember the hair-raising thrill of flying over California's mountains in a P-51D Mustang for the first time. Neither the FS98 terrain nor the CFS aircraft were great by today's standards, but in their time they were cutting edge technology for home consumers. In later versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator it agonized me that the terrain and autogen often very poorly represented the world I knew from experience. Still, the enjoyment of flying over cities I had once lived or visited was compelling enough to keep returning to the flight sim world.

You talk of MSFS being a poor flight simulator but I don't see it as being any worse than the default FSX or default P3D. I agree that third party entrepreneurs evolved those platforms to what we enjoy today. I think for the mechanics of flight, MSFS is about where FSX was after its first year. It will evolve. The platform as it is now though, OhhMahGawd! It is beyond what I could have dreamed of 15 years ago chasing meshes and landclass and terrain texture products for FS2004 and FSX. It's better than my ORBX True Earth in P3Dv5.

Last night I flew a DCS P-47D mission from the "Wolf Pack" campaign. I was in VR for over two hours for one mission, fully manual operation, dozens of P-47s and B-17s around me. Serious simming 2021 style. I got some hits on two Fw 190s on the return home but no credit for kills. For two hours I felt like I was fighting the "uber-realistic," ultra sensitive flight characteristics of the DCS P-47. Trim trim trim. Always Tail End Charlie to the AI. Was I having fun? Yes, although the mission was a lot of work from startup to wheels down. But it also was exactly the type of experience I dreamed of 15 years ago when playing stripped down, automated versions of Thunderbolts in various sims.

I don't fear the XBox crowd. You may envision pre-teens with ADHD crashing into buildings out of boredom before switching to Call of Duty. I look at XBox as a means of introducing a different demographic to flight sims. Many people simply do not have the physical space or the money for a dedicated simming PC. Consoles are portable. They are also relatively cheap. If MSFS on XBox is the only means available to someone who wants to learn or experience basic flight, I say it is a fantastic portal into the genre. Meanwhile the quality of addons we've become accustomed to will come to the PC version of MSFS. Competitors like X-Plane will evolve too and maintain their place in the PC ecosphere.

My .02

[MarcE]

The biggest problems of MSFS are the terrible UI, optimized for an x-box controller but done sloppily and second the lack of an openminded platform for 3rd party devs. The SIM itself isn't bad at all, a lot can be done by skilled developers. Just look at the PMDG DC-6. The sim will further evolve but the problem remains the really bad infrastructure. And there are probably too many construction sites for Asobo to work on it efficiently adn hence we see some modifications here and there with every sim update but nothing definite. Time will tell but I lose hope for any soonish implementation of Accusim.

[bullfox]

The problem will come when market saturation reduces the revenue stream and somebody still has to pay to run the servers and what ever additional infrastructure is required. Think about the way Microsoft abandoned FSX. I'll just add that the business model for most gaming is no longer buy a disk at the computer store or download fee based addons. Its monthly subscriptions.

[Manu F-JOHI]

Hello,

I think both of you have good arguments. One thing I was afraid of when I've entered the MSFS alpha program is that the scenery was so good right out of the box, that we will never see again products like ORBX True Earth because it simply doesn't worth the investment anymore to make a good global product, with corrected ortho, custom landmarks, Mesh and autogen, custom tree placement, custom watermask...

You'll tell me that we doesn't need this anymore because MSFS does it right out of the box...but not quite : MSFS default sceneries are good, and on some point like the ortho definition, very good, but in every other places, it's not equivalent to the detail level of a TrueEarth product.
The mesh is not as good, the watermask is far from being good most of the time, excellent in some place, and very bad in most others, there is very few landmarks etc, and it's already very good for an out of the box product.
My point is, the 3rd party product politic has changed, and I was afraid we won't see anymore some good "all in one product" and that's the case : for one true earth product that included, meshes, custom landmarks, accurate autogen and placement, forest, watermask, cityscapes, better airports plus a complete ortho, now we have it sold separatly without some of the most interesting features, so for the equivalent of one True Earth product that worth 49,99 AUD for P3D, we are being sold one landmark addon for 18,17 AUD, one addon that cover the marinas and ships for 20,99, one cityscape for 9,99 and eventually a mesh for 12,99, at the end, it's 62,14 AUD for a True Earth equivalent in MSFS, but we are still short in custom forest, custom watermask and custom autogen, there is no airport enhancement, and there is no investment in the Ortho...

So, for now, I feel a serious trust drop about some 3rd party developpers I was relying on without doubts since a while in flightsimulation.
Same thing with aircraft addons, I've also bought the piper by JF, and well, this is not really good in my opinion, I don't really feel any real change or improvments if you compare to the default flight model and that's probably because for now MSFS is locking it...same with other 3rd party dev who are releasing work in progress aircrafts that sometimes have kind of incredible essential handling failure due to MSFS flight model.

I'm afraid, for now the quality of the addons is dangerously falling down to match MSFS market, and this seems to be kind of new.
Until now, I don't recall that serious third party developpers has downgraded their products to go to a new simulator...

Of course this is not the case with every third party developpers! But this is definitely giving you a hint about what kind of market MSFS is right now : When I was buying scenery addons before for P3D or xplane, I've got custom sceneries that really changed the sim experience, for now it's rarely the case in MSFS. Most of the airport sceneries are good but far from revolutionary, and a lot are just port of P3D with PBR... For example : there is very few that offers now better ortho than default on the surrounding, custom autogen for the city, custom trees, custom detailed textures, custom sounds...Things that made you feel really the astmosphere of the place.
But there is plenty of new things every week.

I think this is the problem the newcomers and the competition didn't lead to more quality until now, it's more the opposite, the 3rd party dev needs to be there right now to not lose their market, and if their standard quality from before isn't really there, it's not a problem, because the global quality isn't really there.
So there is a lot of unfinished product sold, then they are supposed to be updated, but there is also other products coming, so...
This is not really about X-box kids, there was problems with MSFS since the begining, not only since SU5 ( wich I admit made it worse) it's just the market volume has changed, so it changed the rules and led to something that is still unsteady, maybe it will be solved for the best, maybe not...
Right now it's kind of impossible to know what will happen, but I really understand the disappointment of people who are into serious flight simulation since a long while because the results are not really what we were looking for.

MSFS devs had claimed since the begining they were working for the simmers, and it kind of turned that it's not really the case, but the implication of microsoft with MSFS is greatly overtaking our simmers community and ASOBO.
Even when in alpha, some bugs you would consider like great importance for the basic handling of piloting an aircraft were reported right at the begining, and they've never been solved until MSFS was released and during the same time, you could see that one of top ten wishes on the alphatesters forum was "bring trains to MSFS"...
Microsoft also claimed that they want anybody who want to try flight simulation to have an easy access to it with MSFS, and I think it's certainly their first goal, more than to satisfied the real simmers.

I do feel the same kind of frustration, I rarely enjoy flying in MSFS as much as I do in P3Dv4.5, even if all the graphics are way better, even if the performances are also better, even if the landscape is greatly depicted everywhere in the world...the feeling of flying a real aircraft is not really there.

Hopefully, there is some great freeware mods out there, like the JPL C152, wich is probably the best GA I've flown in MSFS, very close to what you can find in x-plane.
And there is some magical moments you can't live with any other flight simulator with the weather, volumetric fog that's naturally moving on the runway, giving you this organic feeling of the world, and making the approach a lot more lively and challenging.

[ImpendingJoker]

The problem will come when market saturation reduces the revenue stream and somebody still has to pay to run the servers and what ever additional infrastructure is required. Think about the way Microsoft abandoned FSX. I'll just add that the business model for most gaming is no longer buy a disk at the computer store or download fee based addons. Its monthly subscriptions.

I don't know what games you are playing but none of the games I own have a monthly subscription.

[ImpendingJoker]

Hello,

I think both of you have good arguments. One thing I was afraid of when I've entered the MSFS alpha program is that the scenery was so good right out of the box, that we will never see again products like ORBX True Earth because it simply doesn't worth the investment anymore to make a good global product, with corrected ortho, custom landmarks, Mesh and autogen, custom tree placement, custom watermask...

You'll tell me that we doesn't need this anymore because MSFS does it right out of the box...but not quite : MSFS default sceneries are good, and on some point like the ortho definition, very good, but in every other places, it's not equivalent to the detail level of a TrueEarth product.
The mesh is not as good, the watermask is far from being good most of the time, excellent in some place, and very bad in most others, there is very few landmarks etc, and it's already very good for an out of the box product.
My point is, the 3rd party product politic has changed, and I was afraid we won't see anymore some good "all in one product" and that's the case : for one true earth product that included, meshes, custom landmarks, accurate autogen and placement, forest, watermask, cityscapes, better airports plus a complete ortho, now we have it sold separatly without some of the most interesting features, so for the equivalent of one True Earth product that worth 49,99 AUD for P3D, we are being sold one landmark addon for 18,17 AUD, one addon that cover the marinas and ships for 20,99, one cityscape for 9,99 and eventually a mesh for 12,99, at the end, it's 62,14 AUD for a True Earth equivalent in MSFS, but we are still short in custom forest, custom watermask and custom autogen, there is no airport enhancement, and there is no investment in the Ortho...

So, for now, I feel a serious trust drop about some 3rd party developpers I was relying on without doubts since a while in flightsimulation.
Same thing with aircraft addons, I've also bought the piper by JF, and well, this is not really good in my opinion, I don't really feel any real change or improvments if you compare to the default flight model and that's probably because for now MSFS is locking it...same with other 3rd party dev who are releasing work in progress aircrafts that sometimes have kind of incredible essential handling failure due to MSFS flight model.

I'm afraid, for now the quality of the addons is dangerously falling down to match MSFS market, and this seems to be kind of new.
Until now, I don't recall that serious third party developpers has downgraded their products to go to a new simulator...

Of course this is not the case with every third party developpers! But this is definitely giving you a hint about what kind of market MSFS is right now : When I was buying scenery addons before for P3D or xplane, I've got custom sceneries that really changed the sim experience, for now it's rarely the case in MSFS. Most of the airport sceneries are good but far from revolutionary, and a lot are just port of P3D with PBR... For example : there is very few that offers now better ortho than default on the surrounding, custom autogen for the city, custom trees, custom detailed textures, custom sounds...Things that made you feel really the astmosphere of the place.
But there is plenty of new things every week.

I think this is the problem the newcomers and the competition didn't lead to more quality until now, it's more the opposite, the 3rd party dev needs to be there right now to not lose their market, and if their standard quality from before isn't really there, it's not a problem, because the global quality isn't really there.
So there is a lot of unfinished product sold, then they are supposed to be updated, but there is also other products coming, so...
This is not really about X-box kids, there was problems with MSFS since the begining, not only since SU5 ( wich I admit made it worse) it's just the market volume has changed, so it changed the rules and led to something that is still unsteady, maybe it will be solved for the best, maybe not...
Right now it's kind of impossible to know what will happen, but I really understand the disappointment of people who are into serious flight simulation since a long while because the results are not really what we were looking for.

MSFS devs had claimed since the begining they were working for the simmers, and it kind of turned that it's not really the case, but the implication of microsoft with MSFS is greatly overtaking our simmers community and ASOBO.
Even when in alpha, some bugs you would consider like great importance for the basic handling of piloting an aircraft were reported right at the begining, and they've never been solved until MSFS was released and during the same time, you could see that one of top ten wishes on the alphatesters forum was "bring trains to MSFS"...
Microsoft also claimed that they want anybody who want to try flight simulation to have an easy access to it with MSFS, and I think it's certainly their first goal, more than to satisfied the real simmers.

I do feel the same kind of frustration, I rarely enjoy flying in MSFS as much as I do in P3Dv4.5, even if all the graphics are way better, even if the performances are also better, even if the landscape is greatly depicted everywhere in the world...the feeling of flying a real aircraft is not really there.

Hopefully, there is some great freeware mods out there, like the JPL C152, wich is probably the best GA I've flown in MSFS, very close to what you can find in x-plane.
And there is some magical moments you can't live with any other flight simulator with the weather, volumetric fog that's naturally moving on the runway, giving you this organic feeling of the world, and making the approach a lot more lively and challenging.

And while you are correct that it is worse in some areas than in others, you miss the point that they are still there. Not even ORBX Tru Earth covers the whole planet, and there are terrains and watermasks in MSFS in areas that ORBX has never touched in any simulator. That said, Asobo is actually working on the watermasks little by little and releasing them with the sim updates and this has already made a vast improvement to the sim where as ORBX hasn't really done anything like Tru Earth for MSFS at all. So right now, MSFS is in its teething stage and there are going to be bugs and growing pains but it has already gotten vastly better since release, and will only get better. And lets not forget that in order for A2A to get their planes to run the way they wanted them to in FSX/P3D they literally switched off the flight engine in the simulator and injected their own, so that should show you pretty easily that no sim is perfect even after 14 some odd years. Fact is MSFS does a lot more out of the box than FSX/P3D or Xplane has ever done, and even Asobo has said that what they released was a lattice work for them to build on for the next 10 years, so I don't expect it to be going anywhere any time soon.

And to answer the question proposed by your post title: No, serious flight siming is not going anywhere. My go to for helicopters for a long time now has been DCS:World, and while its being a combat sim is a turn off for some, the planes are highly detailed and have their systems modeled nicely. From something simple like the UH-1H to something more complex like the F/A-18C to the soon to be release AH-64D Apache, you'll not find more realistic planes outside of professional sim or A2A. Scott has said they have looked at other platforms and I would love for them to bring the P-40 to DCS as it is plane that is missing from the DCS modules and with the addition of the Marianas Islands map it would nice to have a Pacific fighter to go with the F4U they are developing.

[Skycat]

The problem will come when market saturation reduces the revenue stream and somebody still has to pay to run the servers and what ever additional infrastructure is required. Think about the way Microsoft abandoned FSX.

People are still buying copies of FSX: Steam Edition as their first flight simulator, despite its age and waning compatibility with modern PCs. As for MSFS sales covering the cost of the servers, was that ever the goal? https://www.protocol.com/microsoft-flig ... lator-2020

[Adam_NZ]

Can't resist adding my 2c here (!!) ...

I've been simming since day one (CGA Flight Sim and "Aviator" on the BBC Micro) ... and have probably tried them all at some stage: combat/military and civil.

My view is that, at the moment, MSFS (default) is mainly an "eye-candy" platform and has far less to offer for serious simmers than the later P3D or XP11 offerings in terms of basic aviation procedures and systems.

As it stands, the visuals are *superb* - and come at a surprisingly low hit on performance. However - unless you're a screenshot fanatic (like me!!), you'll soon get bored and want to get your teeth into more complex aircraft and the challenge of doing things realistically - even if you're not buffing up to be a CPL in RL.

BUT ... MSFS could be such an amazing platform if only they'd code it in such a way that add-on developers don't have to reinvent the wheel each time there's a core update. A2A and PMDG have produced superb add-ons for FSX/P3D in the past, though I've heard how frustrating re-coding for MSFS can be. I sincerely hope they find the revenue to develop for MSFS.

Bearing in mind that the sims in their default state tend to leave huge gaps in functionality - leaving the market open for addon-developer. I think the main problem with MSFS is that *basic* functionality is either totally missing or plain buggy (to say the least). By "basic" I mean correct ATC, working AI traffic and navigation. Flight models can (I suspect) be corrected either by public tweaks or properly implemented by payware aircraft.

Having a decent aircraft (as any MSFS offering from A2A will undoubtedly be) is only half the picture: we need a realistic environment to fly it in.

Adam.

[TBryson2]

I fully understand both arguments and believe they are valid.

Keep in mind, MSFS isn’t “finished” and still needs more work. I’m thinking when all of that settles down you’re going to see more content released that will “tweak” it to “our” specs. Why release anything yet that’s only going to need more work as they update the program?

TB2

[AerialShorts]

I started this silliness years ago with Bruce Artwick’s SubLogic Flight Simulator on an Apple ][, switched to Microsoft Flight Simulator and flew that through FSX and lost interest. It just didn’t do anything for me. Then came FlyInside and VR using the Oculus DK2. Totally changed and reinvigorated flight simulation for me.

It’s certainly not perfect. You need a capable system and for me I get the best experience with a high resolution headset. I have to fumble with a mouse and keyboard to interact with the sim, but the immersion is what does it for me with everything full size and right there in full 3D glory with being able to look all around, adjust my head to see around window frames, struts, etc, and it really fools my brain. The cockpit is my refuge now and I can go there whenever I want.

It’s not everyone’s cup of tea and there are issues but flying in VR brought a whole new life to flight simulation for me. Activities that put planes in close proximity get really exciting - group flights, aerobatics, and formation flight all get to be edge of the seat experiences. Also, things like bass seat shakers help to complete the experience.

If you haven’t tried VR flight simulation, I’d definitely recommend trying it at least. Low resolution head sets are problematic though. There’s a lot of fine detail in a cockpit and though you can lean in or zoom, high resolution enhances the experience. If anyone tries VR on a low res headset just keep in mind the experience can be much better. You’ll still see the full size/3D effect, though

But whatever floats anyone’s boat. I totally lost interest in flight simming for years but the VR experience changed everything for me. Even with the warts and issues with FS2020, it’s the best looking and most immersive sim I’ve seen. Do that in VR and it gets stunning. I can overlook the other issues. But I’m not shooting precision approaches in tubeliners or doing the other things that I hear are indeed issues in FS2020. I’m just out having fun. Anyone losing interest and on a monitor might at least give it a shot before walking away.

As for aircraft and AccuSim, there’s no doubt the experience in A2A planes in P3D was a lot of fun. I do look forward to A2A migrating aircraft to FS2020 whenever the SDK supports whatever A2A needs. But there are some really nice other aircraft out there too and I’ve found some excellent substitutes to hold me over.

[Dogsbody55]

I fully understand both arguments and believe they are valid.

Keep in mind, MSFS isn’t “finished” and still needs more work. I’m thinking when all of that settles down you’re going to see more content released that will “tweak” it to “our” specs. Why release anything yet that’s only going to need more work as they update the program?

TB2

In general, I agree with your point that both arguments are valid to this point in time. But SU6 has introduced a dumbing down of some controls in the cockpit to suit X-boxers. Tried the condition lever lately?? Bad move, MS/Asobo.

Yes, the sim still needs more work, but will it ever get a good flight model?? Despite so many updates, it's still not fixed, yet this is such a basic part of a flight sim. Very disappointing. This is a sim very different from anything before and much more complicated making third party development so much harder, yet if it doesn't settle down soon to some workable level, we will see much less in the way of addons, which themselves will need constant attention by the devs to keep up with a constantly changing sim. Is it worth it?? On the whole, I'm beginning to wonder if MS/Asobo have bitten off more than they can chew in their stated ambitions.

On a personal level, I'm also finding the sim getting more twitchy. When first released, it looked great, ran smoothly and no crashes. Now, I often have trouble accessing MSFS as whatever it connects to fails to find my license, and it crashes much more. MS Support have given me some advice on this, including checking for programs which cause issues with MSFS (none of which I have) and only a scan of Windows seems to fix it and even then only temporarily. I could go down the reinstall route with MSFS, but I really can't be bothered as I have no such issues with P3DV4.5 and usually have an enjoyable flight experience with that sim. So at this stage, I'm not spending another cracker on MSFS and can best hope for a new P3D release.

Disappointed to hear from some here that third party development for P3D is reducing as this may make P3DV6 something we may never see. If so, I'm not hopeful about the longer term future of this hobby.

So that's my $0.02 worth at this juncture. I can only trust in the gods that a brighter future is in the offing.


Cheers,
Mike.

[ImpendingJoker]

I fully understand both arguments and believe they are valid.

Keep in mind, MSFS isn’t “finished” and still needs more work. I’m thinking when all of that settles down you’re going to see more content released that will “tweak” it to “our” specs. Why release anything yet that’s only going to need more work as they update the program?

TB2

Yes, the sim still needs more work, but will it ever get a good flight model?? Despite so many updates, it's still not fixed, yet this is such a basic part of a flight sim. Very disappointing.

Cheers,
Mike.

The point I like to make in this situation is that FSX/P3D STILL don't have good flight engines and they never have and most likely never will. A2A spoiled a lot of us on what a sim plane can and should be like but, you all seem to forget one important thing: A2A doesn't use the FSX or P3D flight engine. So this argument is moot. That said, the base flight engine of MSFS is still light years ahead of stock FSX/P3D(and it the ability or inability to turn this on and off that I suspect is the real hold up for A2A entering into MSFS) but, if you are comparing A2A flight dynamics to stock MSFS then of course you're not going to like it because even I admit that it's not as good, however it IS better than stock FSX/P3D.

Y'all seem to forget how long it was before we even got the first good planes and Orbx scenery into FSX. It was literally years. And the same nay sayers in this thread will be the same ones touting how the MSFS verison of the A2A X-X is the best one they've come out with, mark my words.

[AerialShorts]

…On the whole, I'm beginning to wonder if MS/Asobo have bitten off more than they can chew in their stated ambitions.

On a personal level, I'm also finding the sim getting more twitchy. When first released, it looked great, ran smoothly and no crashes. Now, I often have trouble accessing MSFS as whatever it connects to fails to find my license, and it crashes much more…

Disappointed to hear from some here that third party development for P3D is reducing as this may make P3DV6 something we may never see. If so, I'm not hopeful about the longer term future of this hobby.

For whatever it’s worth, I definitely agree keeping FS2020 running has turned into a chore at times and big service outages during updates don’t help. They still require you to update in three different places to fully update the program. No way that isn’t design failure in the software team. On the PC side I totally get why people are dumping the platform at least until it stabilizes somewhat, maybe much longer. It’s not that much better on Xbox. Those guys were reporting update failures and the Xbox equivalent of CTDs this last update.

My install was twitchy too and to some extent still is. The way it breaks makes me really wonder how well it’s coded because it breaks in such weird ways, fixes get reverted to bugs, and so on. What they took on was a huge project, though, and some amount of bugs is expected. But breaking such fundamental things as multiplayer on a big update reeks of marketing also having their hands in all this and driving it the wrong way. The schedules are too short, testing is inadequate, and it looks like it’s more important to meet marketing goals than releasing solid code.

For whatever it’s worth (not much), I don’t think any of this will impact P3DV6. L-M is developing and selling P3D to civilian flight training and the military. We were the ones swearing we weren’t using it for entertainment when we bought student licenses. I’m sure they loved all the money to look the other way and nobody was hurt after Dovetail exited, but their main markets didn’t go anywhere and doubt they ever will. P3D is pretty solid now. Only thing is that while eye candy is nice in the rigorous simulator, it’s not necessary. I don’t know how much pull we ever had with L-M but I’d bet we have even less now.

But one good thing - we have L-M still developing P3D if Microsoft ever decides to get tired of FS2020 which we already know they can and could do. It was their longest running and biggest application and the MS execs decided to abandon it and lay off all the staff. Something will eventually have to give with FS2020, though. All these giant downloads, satellite data streaming, weather serving, etc, costs money. It’s recurring and ongoing money out the door for them and bean counters don’t like that. Microsoft will get $60 from me with the Reno addition but those kinds of monies are few and far between. Over time I don’t know how all the server time will be paid for, even as much as they seem to scrimp on it now. I suspect there is another shoe to drop at some point which is why I didn’t ever delete all my files and licenses for P3D.

I want to add this, though… I said a lot of bad about FS2020 and there are certainly issues, but I should also say that for me the experience is definitely worth all the bother. My style of flying is more like sightseeing and just the experience so I’m probably not as impacted with some of the bugs, and for me, FS2020 is the most amazing fun I’ve ever had in a flight simulator. For me it’s more than worth it.

[Adam_NZ]

But breaking such fundamental things as multiplayer on a big update reeks of marketing also having their hands in all this and driving it the wrong way. The schedules are too short, testing is inadequate, and it looks like it’s more important to meet marketing goals than releasing solid code.

In a nutshell!!! +1