Is serious flight simming threatened ?

[AerialShorts]

Merged to previous post…

[GaryRR]

I really like my P3D V4.5 with the full Orbx treatment and UTX NA making my mountains and valleys. See my tag. I do most of my flying over the PA, USA area and I know my native area from sky and ground IRL. ORBX/UTX does it very well. I easily VFR navigate between State College and the Delaware and the Maryland line and the Williamsport area based on my real world familiarity with the mountains, valleys, and rivers here. And the multitude of small towns have the very accurate footprint and street grid, at least the ones nearby that I know intimately. I could only dream of a sim looking this good in 2000 when I started. With ASN the weather is great to. I haven't gone to version 5 yet. I am waiting for Christmas and a MVMe drive to put it on. That and XP12 whenever it's ready. I can't wait to see the EA above the nice world below.

[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

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.

I'd agree that the FSX/P3D flight model is lacking. This was one area dumbed down from FS9, from what I read the the time of FSX's intro. I'm also well aware that A2A's flight modelling is completely independent from the stock sim, which I understand is part of the issue with the release of any future A2A product for MSFS. Perhaps part of the issue for current MSFS users regarding the flight model is also bound up with the very twitchy controller response. This can be adjusted, but unless you're an experienced pilot, you wouldn't really know how to adjust the responses other than an unrealistic "I think it should be this".

For all it's development to date, this is one area that should have been tackled immediately. Until it is, it's more game than simulator.


Cheers,
Mike

[AKar]

This can be adjusted, but unless you're an experienced pilot, you wouldn't really know how to adjust the responses other than an unrealistic "I think it should be this".

It is not at all uncommon to judge flight models on basis whether it feels nice - even if the real life counterpart is quoted to have sub-average handling characteristics by most independent sources who know what they are talking about.

-Esa

[DHenriques_]

When we were working on our FDE for Accusim, Scott and I would spend a lot of time on the phone while each of us had the plane being worked on up and running in the sim. We would "fly" a maneuver through with both of us offering comment back and forth. The criteria was how something looked and sounded to each of us.
Along these lines I always had the cockpit set up exactly as I would be seeing it in real life were I actually in the aircraft. I never changed the zoom or eyepoint as I "flew" the aircraft. I never altered my visual cues so that what I was experiencing on the screen both visually and audibly were as real as possible.
I did all my testing using this method. If it didn't look right to me it wasn't right........period.
We altered and changed the air file doing this, sometimes many many times a night.
In other words, neither Scott or myself ever "looked at the monitor" in any way other than set up in the sim exactly as we would be sitting in the cockpit flying the actual plane. This is how we got things as real looking as possible.
Dudley Henriques

[Styggron]

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

You make excellent points there. I started flight siming with Microprose Solo Flight and subLogic Flight Simulator on the C64 and I still play those actually and still have them boxed of course. I am sticking with FSX. All my A2A aircraft are in there, I don't care about scenery, I only have FSX default scenery. I have accu-feel for the non A2A planes and for me it's all about being in the plane and flying it not the graphics.

I'm sticking with FSX SE Boxed Edition and all my A2A planes because there is nothing that comes close. I've followed the progress of FSXI which is what I call it, because it is flight sim 11, and I saw the horrible graphics of London which of course are now fixed and I was waiting for the "ahhh here it comes, 3rd party devs to improve what was there". Yes no thanks.

FSX SE and A2A is all I need, I am happy with them. I don't care about countless updates, I fly offline on my laptop, I can take it with me to places with no internet and enjoy it and that is how it stays.

[ImpendingJoker]

I've followed the progress of FSXI which is what I call it, because it is flight sim 11

Except it is not FS11. All the previous versions of FS built off the previous one before it and had backwards compatibility because of the code was being done by the same company again and again. This however is not the case with MSFS. It is completely new code and a completely different developer. To call it FS11 is disingenuous at best, and completely wrong at worst. This is not the FS that you used to know in anyway shape or form. It's like saying that a Lamborghini farm tractor and Lamborghini Diablo are the same because they have the name Lamborghini in them despite the fact they have different design teams and philosophies. A lot of people took to calling it FS2020 but that is not right either since there in no year in the title, and I think this was done intentionally to break from the Aces Studio naming convention, and it is the reason that I never refer to them as anything other than what is on the box. FS3, FS4, FS5, FS95, FS98, FS2002, FS2004, and, FSX. The new MSFS doesn't fit into this numbering convention and to do so adds further confusion to an already confusing situation. It is a relaunch, and as such, needs to be addressed as such so that people new to the hobby do not get confused as to what is being discussed.

[Skycat]

Asobo started with FSX code and built upon it.
https://youtu.be/32abllGf77g

[Lewis - A2A]

Except it is not FS11. All the previous versions of FS built off the previous one before it and had backwards compatibility because of the code was being done by the same company again and again. This however is not the case with MSFS. It is completely new code and a completely different developer. To call it FS11 is disingenuous at best, and completely wrong at worst. This is not the FS that you used to know in anyway shape or form. It's like saying that a Lamborghini farm tractor and Lamborghini Diablo are the same because they have the name Lamborghini in them despite the fact they have different design teams and philosophies. A lot of people took to calling it FS2020 but that is not right either since there in no year in the title, and I think this was done intentionally to break from the Aces Studio naming convention, and it is the reason that I never refer to them as anything other than what is on the box. FS3, FS4, FS5, FS95, FS98, FS2002, FS2004, and, FSX. The new MSFS doesn't fit into this numbering convention and to do so adds further confusion to an already confusing situation. It is a relaunch, and as such, needs to be addressed as such so that people new to the hobby do not get confused as to what is being discussed.

As others have mentioned this is incorrect, FS2020 is indeed built upon the previous release as with all others and as told by Asobo/MS themselves. Its a big jump for sure, but under all that is still an evident FS code base. Its how you are able to select FSX flight model and how so much freeware is able to be made relatively quickly through porting.

thanks,
Lewis

[Ron Attwood]

Lewis is banned for putting a sensible spin on the subject.



Oops! Wrong thread

[twsharp12]

P3Dv5 is so good, so complete, and so full of excellent add-ons. I'm not sure how it could ever be "threatened."

[ImpendingJoker]

Except it is not FS11. All the previous versions of FS built off the previous one before it and had backwards compatibility because of the code was being done by the same company again and again. This however is not the case with MSFS. It is completely new code and a completely different developer. To call it FS11 is disingenuous at best, and completely wrong at worst. This is not the FS that you used to know in anyway shape or form. It's like saying that a Lamborghini farm tractor and Lamborghini Diablo are the same because they have the name Lamborghini in them despite the fact they have different design teams and philosophies. A lot of people took to calling it FS2020 but that is not right either since there in no year in the title, and I think this was done intentionally to break from the Aces Studio naming convention, and it is the reason that I never refer to them as anything other than what is on the box. FS3, FS4, FS5, FS95, FS98, FS2002, FS2004, and, FSX. The new MSFS doesn't fit into this numbering convention and to do so adds further confusion to an already confusing situation. It is a relaunch, and as such, needs to be addressed as such so that people new to the hobby do not get confused as to what is being discussed.

As others have mentioned this is incorrect, FS2020 is indeed built upon the previous release as with all others and as told by Asobo/MS themselves. Its a big jump for sure, but under all that is still an evident FS code base. Its how you are able to select FSX flight model and how so much freeware is able to be made relatively quickly through porting.

thanks,
Lewis

I understand that they STARTED with FSX base code but, Asobo themselves said the threw almost all of it out and pretty much built MSFS from scratch. So my point still stands. It's like saying that P3Dv5 is the same as FSX, when it has been totally recompiled for 64bit systems. MSFS is new code with a new graphics engine.

[MarcE]

Except it is not FS11. All the previous versions of FS built off the previous one before it and had backwards compatibility because of the code was being done by the same company again and again. This however is not the case with MSFS. It is completely new code and a completely different developer. To call it FS11 is disingenuous at best, and completely wrong at worst. This is not the FS that you used to know in anyway shape or form. It's like saying that a Lamborghini farm tractor and Lamborghini Diablo are the same because they have the name Lamborghini in them despite the fact they have different design teams and philosophies. A lot of people took to calling it FS2020 but that is not right either since there in no year in the title, and I think this was done intentionally to break from the Aces Studio naming convention, and it is the reason that I never refer to them as anything other than what is on the box. FS3, FS4, FS5, FS95, FS98, FS2002, FS2004, and, FSX. The new MSFS doesn't fit into this numbering convention and to do so adds further confusion to an already confusing situation. It is a relaunch, and as such, needs to be addressed as such so that people new to the hobby do not get confused as to what is being discussed.

As others have mentioned this is incorrect, FS2020 is indeed built upon the previous release as with all others and as told by Asobo/MS themselves. Its a big jump for sure, but under all that is still an evident FS code base. Its how you are able to select FSX flight model and how so much freeware is able to be made relatively quickly through porting.

thanks,
Lewis

Technically it might be a successor of FS8, 9, X and P3D but it has a completely different concept and mentality. FSX, P3D, XPlane, even DCS have the main focus on the possibility to implement realistic flight simulation if developers aim for that. In MSFS, currently, it's hard to find developers who9 even try to get there. There are Justflight who have made really good flight models but they only feel fine as long as you stay inside of the normal flight envelope. Even stalling feels weird. PMDG get closer to the release of the 737 which will be the first large aircraft with pointed wings that really strives for realism, the FBW A320 excluded here, freeware allows the total ignorance of economical feasibility.

MSFS feels to us like a big playground for everyone who wants to make quick money and serious developers who know their stuff and really want to support the mentioned serious simming with all consequences and today's possibilities with their products seem to be unwanted or at least uncared for. Of course we're only one year in and other sim versions required their time too but in case of you (A2A) we saw a constant development and evolution of Accusim that became better and better, some adjustments but always growing and improving. Now with MSFS it sounds like you had to start from zero again if Asobo doesn't open the side door for you and I think this is what Scott meant when he said Accusim might not come at all to MSFS with this or that percentage. And so this sim is not a successor, not in terms of the Flight Simulator frenchise. The name has been put on top of it but stand now for us customers it isn't the flight sim we need, want or care about. It's a nice sim or flight game or whatever we want to call it, with some nice aircraft that have severe limitations. "FS11", like P3D5 or 6 however would be an improvement that would welcome developers like A2A including their custom and highly evolved and realistic software with open arms.

[GaryRR]

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

I use UTX for geography and Orbx Global, Open LC NA, Global Buildings, Global Trees. I HAVE ASN P3D all on Version 4.5. It looks outstanding. I can easily VFR around over my own region. Roads, rivers, creeks, town and city footprints are all very close to real. I could have never imagined this on old FS2000 when I started. The A2A planes, my trinity of Skylane, Bonanza, and Commanche are 95% of my hours. I also have fun with the Alabeo C421 with modified flight dynamics. I am having a blast with my sim. With CH Yoke, Quad, and Pedals it is very immersive for me. You can have that joy back but be prepared to invest.

[GaryRR]

Honestly, when the novelty tappers down for the Xboxers I think a lot of them will get bored and go back to games. A few will be new aviation enthusiasts. But as time goes by it will be the Simmer crowd although maybe a larger one. XP 12 is soon due and it looks like a big leap from 11. I hope ATC and weather were addressed.