Getting into P3D

[cevans]

Well in my opinion you don't need to get anything further to make it 'playable'

I've given Asobo FS (aka MSFS) a good try and gone back to P3D because I can't be bothered with the updates and don't like many aspects about it. It's pretty gamey feeling. You cannot change aircraft or airport easily, etc.

There are a bunch of sheep who think you need payware this and that but my advice would be to get it and try it and get some freeware aircraft (many of which are as good as payware). With a decent video card and RAM it is, in my opinion,the best sim out there. Basically it is a highly developed version of FSX and there are so many addons that it will keep you going for a long time. The options, ease of use, additions, available addons, FD, etc etc leave all others in the dust in my opinion. You may want to add a favourite airfield/airport if you find the default not up to your expectations but you can do that.

Here are some freeware/default scenery shots. (Some of these are from recent upload, the SimV facebook and some are my own repaints but all P3D and no payware)

[Canuck1955]

I have to agree with cevans. MSFS is the first time that I have NOT jumped in at the beginning since I started this malarkey with FS4 in 1993ish. MSFS imo seems to an Alpha release (never mind Beta) and the paying public are being used as guinea pigs. I will stay with FSXSE (in main because of the huge commitment in $$$) and P3Dv5 for the foreseeable. P3Dv5 is great without much in the way of addons. P.S. Tried XP and I could not love it and claims that it is more realistic than MS is fantasy. I have only flown C152 for real and XP is not anything close to real life. It's all a game let us not fool ourselves.

[striker]

As above. Agreed. I also tried MSFS2020 but not for me with the long load times, and worse that they make you download 20GB regularly before you can play. Mandatory! . My internet connection is about 6mbps that's more than an hour and life it too short for that nonsense. Apart from scenery (and even that isn't correct in my area) and glossy aircraft textures, it has little going for it in my view.

P3D is the best 'sim' out there at the moment in my view. I would love if they somehow managed to add Google Earth scenery option and you never know. It would have to be some kind of free addon earth tiles method. Meanwhile you can get warehouse loads of addons both free and payware, though I would also recommend you look at free 1st as the quality is so good these days.

If I add a new aircraft when the sim is running it seems to need to be restarted before the thing comes up in the menu but another beauty of it is that it only takes about 10 seconds to load up to select aircraft menu.

[volatilecarpenter]

The overheamini crosswordd shot of the parts is very detailed. It gives credentials.

[villagedefrance]

Yeah I totally get what you are saying.
I was so hopefull three years ago that MSFS would carry-on the FSX playability and feel, with better aircraft systems, better weather and of course, updated graphics. Well, no one can deny the technological achievements of MSFS as a piece of software. However this comes at a cost, with very long login/loading times and massive storage capacity, .. and a MS/XBox account required. But most importantly it is not fun and quickly it gets so boring.
I have tried XP11 too and I just couldn't get into it. I don't think XP12 will make me feel any better either so I'll probably pass on that one.
... so I came back to FSX because I just love it and I never get bored of it! There is always something to do or tweak in FSX!

Now I don't have P3D but I might get tempted some day and if I do, which license would you recommend: the Academic or the Professional?

[Daube]

The topic of the licenses in P3D are a kind of taboo on forums because it's a touchy legal aspect.
I can tell you most people go with the Academic license, although it's supposed to be for students only.
P3Dv5 is a pretty good update over FSX honestly. You get more or less the same sim, but with serious upgrades such as 64 bits, graphic engine improvements, and such. Be aware you won't be able to use your FS9 addons anymore, though.

Concerning XPlane, I understand your feeling about it, but I think you should invest a bit more effort into it depending on what kind of flights you like to do. Here is why: no matter what computer you have, FSX has a terrible rendering performance in the cities. Not only the FPS crawls down as soon as you approach any major city or airport (or a major city WITH a major airport inside ), but also the way the city is drawn is quite disappointing. It lacks details.

Back when I was flying FSX and, later on, P3D up to version 4, I was using the OrbX sceneries for the Washington state area (PNW), but for example it was a nightmare to go anywhere near Seattle, for performance reasons. I loved to fly low&slow aircraft such as small GA or bush airplanes, as well as helicopters. But when I tried flying around the buildings of the Seattle city center, it was both inconfortable and unpleasant, visually. When I tried the same experience in XP11, it was a completely different experience: the city looked good and full of incredible details, the road traffic looks fantastic at dawn, dusk and night, and the performance was MUCH better than anything I ever experienced in FSX or P3D. Now, I'm told P3Dv5 has better performance than P3Dv4, but I haven't seen that myself yet.

XP11 adds a lot of ground details compared to FSX, and there are quite a lot of nice freeware addons for it (sceneries and aircraft) to make it interesting. Contrary to FSX, the XP demo is always kept up to date with the latest version of the "complete" sim, so any update the sim gets, the demo gets it as well. XP12 brings in an additional layer of major improvements, but it's much more demanding on the hardware, if I'm not mistaken. You do get 3D clouds like in MSFS, at least.

As for MSFS, I'm not sure why you find it "boring" ? The exploration flights are endless, the amount of freeware sceneries is simply unbelievable (with an average quality higher than most of what we used to get in FSX...), the quality of the default aircraft is very high and keeps increasing, etc... The range of freeware aircraft is lower for sure, but that's not a big issue so far. What was missing there, that made it boring to you exactly ?

[villagedefrance]

Hi Daube,

First thing first, thanks for answering my question. I'll probably still put P3D on hold tho because MSFS 2024 maybe will spice things up next year ... will see.

I mostly fly airliners (as an amateur because I am not a professional airline pilot) and I don't really mind if the systems are not 100% life-like. Going through checklists or cold and dark starts are not my thing. However, what I like is to "feel" an aircraft such as an A380-800 landing should have the "feel" of the main gear suspension compressing on touch down, the wings loosing lift, reversers activating, etc... and so on. This is more my thing and FSX does it well.

MSFS (2020) doesn't quite give me that "feel". I have the Premium Deluxe version because of the Dreamliner, since release, and all airliners have been so disappointing from day one. They are slightly better now but I still can't get that "feel". It is hard to explain but basically I find flying airliners in MSFS monotonous and therefore boring, if that makes sense.

Anyway, that's me. I am now more and more curious about the Asobo Engine for MSFS 2024.

[Daube]

Well, it is indeed a matter of personal taste and I fully understand the kind of liners flight you do, because I used to do exactly the same back in my FSX and P3D days
I did them starting cold&dark, but I didn't really have any plane with an FMC or MCDU until the very late days. I'd say 99% of my liner flights were done just without complex systems, just following the default ATC instructions and playing around with the autopilot.

I am however quite surprised by your comments regarding the flight models and the feel of them.
In FSX I always felt like something was missing. It's especially obvious for ground contacts. Planes are not rolling, they are kind of sliding on the ground, it feels off. XPlane by the way, was a big step forward in that area for me, as it finally felt like my planes had actual soft-rubber tires, instead of ice-skates... and MSFS was similar, but to a lesser degree. I was glad though, that the ground contacts were much more nicely handled than in FSX or (earlier versions of) P3D.

When it comes to the physics in flight, the situation is similar: FSX had always felt like planes had too much inertia and movements were too much smoothed out.
In MSFS at the very beginning they did it wrong, for sure. Inertial was almost totally absent. Then they fixed it fortunately. They reached a nice balance between inertia and a believable reactivity. I did several flights with difficult approaches in all sims, and I do not see any lack of "feel" of the flight model during the various manoeuvers. I do feel the plane shaking more in turbulences though, and in the precise case of the PC6, I finally saw some plane shake/reaction similar to what I was feeling as a passenger in that same plane in real life, on hot summer days at my local skydiving club. The plane was sometimes shaking so violently that everybody would stop discussing and start tightening theirs harnesses, glasses and helmets I never had such 'harsh' shakes in FSX or P3D, for example. So what many people described as 'lack of inertia' was in fact an increase of realism for me.

On a more "make myself ridiculous" note, I also received quite a slap in the face with gliders. I used gliders a lot in FSX and P3D, I loved them, despite the limited simulation of thermals and ridge lift (I was using an external program for these). But it was ok, and I could soar quite nicely most of the times. But in MSFS ? Man, I don't know how many times I crashed to the ground due to sudden loss of lift on a wing, or due to turbulences (inverted ridge lift when you're on the wrong side of the mountain). If anything, I feel like there much more to feel (and to fear) in MSFS now, than I ever felt in FSX or P3D.

Finally, just a word concerning the "simple" IFR flights: in MSFS we can still do that. I only have the standard version so I'm missing the B-787. However, the default A-320 with the FBW mod and the default 747 with the Salty mod are both enough to provide me a lot of excitement. It's like, I can both do "simple" IFR and "complex" IFR if I feel like it. And I can do that anywhere in the world, without wondering if I need an addon for that area or not,which also added a lot to my pleasure.

The longest "simple" IFR flight I ever did in FSX and P3D was Nice (LFMN) to Athens in Greece. I have yet to do the same flight in MSFS though. Now that I fly in VR, long flight tend to be more tiring

[Delta Tango Nine Two]

Yeah I totally get what you are saying.
I was so hopefull three years ago that MSFS would carry-on the FSX playability and feel, with better aircraft systems, better weather and of course, updated graphics. Well, no one can deny the technological achievements of MSFS as a piece of software. However this comes at a cost, with very long login/loading times and massive storage capacity, .. and a MS/XBox account required. But most importantly it is not fun and quickly it gets so boring.
I have tried XP11 too and I just couldn't get into it. I don't think XP12 will make me feel any better either so I'll probably pass on that one.
... so I came back to FSX because I just love it and I never get bored of it! There is always something to do or tweak in FSX!

Now I don't have P3D but I might get tempted some day and if I do, which license would you recommend: the Academic or the Professional?

I wanted to answer you..... although P3D is mentioned as an "improvement" of FSX, ...yes, it is an improvement, in ALL aspects, it practically corrected and expanded all the features of fsx. (in return, it naturally requires a powerful PC).

if it is to fly "for fun" or "normal" ifr flights that anyone can do with default planes, addons, or payware... I recommend the ACADEMIC version... you hardly need anything else.
(me, a FSX-SE user)

[Delta Tango Nine Two]

stupid question here...

in FSX (obviously, also in FSX-SE, and P3D), there are "more than 24,000 airports", free flight, changing weather, navigation aids...etc...etc...etc

AIRPORTS: I know that of those 24,000 airports, most of them are small airfields, ...but hey! At least it's a great feature.
FREE FLIGHT: you can travel anywhere, WITHOUT LOADING SCENARIOS (as in a game, when you go to ANOTHER sector, you load another scenario). You can also save a flight in the middle of the air, and come back at another time to resume, with all the flight systems already configured (they are also saved)
AIDS TO NAVIGATION: you have vor, ndb, ils, radios, ATC, ifr, vfr, ....etc..etc..etc

now my questions about MSFS 2020
-How many airports does it have?
-When you get too far from a place...does it load another scenario? (loading screen) or is this "live"?
-can you save a flight in mid-air, with all systems configured and then (at another time) resume?
-In an hypothetical case...can you go ALL the way around the world (as in fsx) continuously? (landing and reloading and saving... all continuous, "live")
-How complex are the navigation aids in MSFS? (atc, vor, ndb, ils, radios, ifr, vfr, etc..etc..etc)


something "of the essence" of FSX was lost in P3D... let me explain:
FSX is a SIMULATOR (it has NOTHING arcade)....but it had a "FUN TOUCH"(or "game touch")...you see it in the way they did the menu, in which the planes they have THUMBNAILS in the list of planes, the Missions, ROD MACHADO and his jokes... well, FSX tells you "hey! this is a simulator... but don't forget to have fun"
P3D is absolutely better IN EVERY WAY over FSX...but it doesn't have this "essence" (they removed the thumbnails, the menu is plain and boring, they removed fun quests.....I guess it's because it's focused on real learning)

my question here is about MSFS...
How much of this "fun" does MSFS have?... BEWARE...if you focus too much on this...it would be an arcade with hints of realism. (and if it were the other way around, it would be a pure simulator, but "boring")

haha , I ask for things that I will not have.. since my PC can barely handle FSX in performance.

[Daube]

stupid question here...

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers

in FSX (obviously, also in FSX-SE, and P3D), there are "more than 24,000 airports", free flight, changing weather, navigation aids...etc...etc...etc

AIRPORTS: I know that of those 24,000 airports, most of them are small airfields, ...but hey! At least it's a great feature.
FREE FLIGHT: you can travel anywhere, WITHOUT LOADING SCENARIOS (as in a game, when you go to ANOTHER sector, you load another scenario). You can also save a flight in the middle of the air, and come back at another time to resume, with all the flight systems already configured (they are also saved)
AIDS TO NAVIGATION: you have vor, ndb, ils, radios, ATC, ifr, vfr, ....etc..etc..etc

now my questions about MSFS 2020
-How many airports does it have?

Something around 35.000, I don't remember the exact number. On top of this, there are 30 or 40 highly customized airports (not generic buildings) also included. And I think you get some additional ones when you install the free "world updates", which is optional (free) content that improve some specific areas of the globe.

-When you get too far from a place...does it load another scenario? (loading screen) or is this "live"?

It's live, completely. You use it exactly the same way as you use FSX.

-can you save a flight in mid-air, with all systems configured and then (at another time) resume?

Good question... I think so, but I'm not 100% sure. I never used that feature :/

-In an hypothetical case...can you go ALL the way around the world (as in fsx) continuously? (landing and reloading and saving... all continuous, "live")

You can go EVERYWHERE, live.

-How complex are the navigation aids in MSFS? (atc, vor, ndb, ils, radios, ifr, vfr, etc..etc..etc)

You get everything FSX has, and in addition there is also a native support for SIDs and STARs. The screen to create a new flight includes a nice flight planner where you can enter a departure and destination airports, choose between IFR or VFR, and select SID and STAR directly. With some planes, the route is automatically saved into your FMC or GPS, if I'm not mistaken.

something "of the essence" of FSX was lost in P3D... let me explain:
FSX is a SIMULATOR (it has NOTHING arcade)....but it had a "FUN TOUCH"(or "game touch")...you see it in the way they did the menu, in which the planes they have THUMBNAILS in the list of planes, the Missions, ROD MACHADO and his jokes... well, FSX tells you "hey! this is a simulator... but don't forget to have fun"
P3D is absolutely better IN EVERY WAY over FSX...but it doesn't have this "essence" (they removed the thumbnails, the menu is plain and boring, they removed fun quests.....I guess it's because it's focused on real learning)

my question here is about MSFS...
How much of this "fun" does MSFS have?... BEWARE...if you focus too much on this...it would be an arcade with hints of realism. (and if it were the other way around, it would be a pure simulator, but "boring")

I haven't explored much of this. You get some flight lessons if you want, and you also have a few exploration scenarios (routes to follow to discover the beautiful places), but I don't remember seeing any "fun" scenarios like we had in FSX, with unexpected events and such. That being said, I don't really miss them. Too much pleasure exploring the world.

haha , I ask for things that I will not have.. since my PC can barely handle FSX in performance.

FSX is probably more ressource-hungry than MSFS.

[ftldave]

haha , I ask for things that I will not have.. since my PC can barely handle FSX in performance.

FSX is probably more ressource-hungry than MSFS.

What? Seriously? Sorry, friend, lost me there. FSX may certainly be harder to configure for best performance, but there's no way it can be more resource hungry than MSFS considering what all the newer program does.

[Delta Tango Nine Two]

stupid question here...

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers

in FSX (obviously, also in FSX-SE, and P3D), there are "more than 24,000 airports", free flight, changing weather, navigation aids...etc...etc...etc

AIRPORTS: I know that of those 24,000 airports, most of them are small airfields, ...but hey! At least it's a great feature.
FREE FLIGHT: you can travel anywhere, WITHOUT LOADING SCENARIOS (as in a game, when you go to ANOTHER sector, you load another scenario). You can also save a flight in the middle of the air, and come back at another time to resume, with all the flight systems already configured (they are also saved)
AIDS TO NAVIGATION: you have vor, ndb, ils, radios, ATC, ifr, vfr, ....etc..etc..etc

now my questions about MSFS 2020
-How many airports does it have?

Something around 35.000, I don't remember the exact number. On top of this, there are 30 or 40 highly customized airports (not generic buildings) also included. And I think you get some additional ones when you install the free "world updates", which is optional (free) content that improve some specific areas of the globe.

-When you get too far from a place...does it load another scenario? (loading screen) or is this "live"?

It's live, completely. You use it exactly the same way as you use FSX.

-can you save a flight in mid-air, with all systems configured and then (at another time) resume?

Good question... I think so, but I'm not 100% sure. I never used that feature :/

-In an hypothetical case...can you go ALL the way around the world (as in fsx) continuously? (landing and reloading and saving... all continuous, "live")

You can go EVERYWHERE, live.

-How complex are the navigation aids in MSFS? (atc, vor, ndb, ils, radios, ifr, vfr, etc..etc..etc)

You get everything FSX has, and in addition there is also a native support for SIDs and STARs. The screen to create a new flight includes a nice flight planner where you can enter a departure and destination airports, choose between IFR or VFR, and select SID and STAR directly. With some planes, the route is automatically saved into your FMC or GPS, if I'm not mistaken.

something "of the essence" of FSX was lost in P3D... let me explain:
FSX is a SIMULATOR (it has NOTHING arcade)....but it had a "FUN TOUCH"(or "game touch")...you see it in the way they did the menu, in which the planes they have THUMBNAILS in the list of planes, the Missions, ROD MACHADO and his jokes... well, FSX tells you "hey! this is a simulator... but don't forget to have fun"
P3D is absolutely better IN EVERY WAY over FSX...but it doesn't have this "essence" (they removed the thumbnails, the menu is plain and boring, they removed fun quests.....I guess it's because it's focused on real learning)

my question here is about MSFS...
How much of this "fun" does MSFS have?... BEWARE...if you focus too much on this...it would be an arcade with hints of realism. (and if it were the other way around, it would be a pure simulator, but "boring")

I haven't explored much of this. You get some flight lessons if you want, and you also have a few exploration scenarios (routes to follow to discover the beautiful places), but I don't remember seeing any "fun" scenarios like we had in FSX, with unexpected events and such. That being said, I don't really miss them. Too much pleasure exploring the world.

haha , I ask for things that I will not have.. since my PC can barely handle FSX in performance.

FSX is probably more ressource-hungry than MSFS.

Thank you very much for your answer....
about the new "2024" simulator that was announced....I don't feel like watching videos anymore...I just don't want to get depressed when comparing it with my PC.
greetings

[Daube]

haha , I ask for things that I will not have.. since my PC can barely handle FSX in performance.

FSX is probably more ressource-hungry than MSFS.

What? Seriously? Sorry, friend, lost me there. FSX may certainly be harder to configure for best performance, but there's no way it can be more resource hungry than MSFS considering what all the newer program does.

Yes seriously.
I'm not speaking about FSX stock, but more about FSX with a few scenery addons for example. Sceneries such as OrbX regions, or even better, OrbX TrueEarth (provided it can run in FSX without causing out-of-memory errors every 20 seconds...).
FSX is not optimized to use the hardware power efficiently. We can do what we can with the tweaks in FSX.cfg, but often this has limited results.

MSFS uses the hardware ressources in a much better way.
I wouldn't be surprised to see better FPS in MSFS in a big airport than FSX with an addon for the same airport.
P3D also (well, up to v4 at least, I don't know for v5) has better performance than FSX, by the way.
For info my computer currently has an i7 8700k CPU, with a GTX 1070ti video card. It was a nice computer more than 5 years ago...