You've lost me as a long time customer for ALL your products if you continue to not support P3D's new V5 features/changes.

[Abriael 377]

17 hours ago, Gregg said:

I was part of the MSFS Alpha testing and while I found it to be visually stunning, it didn't and still doesn't strike me as the serious platform that I am interested in - hence I never moved to purchase it. As time goes on it's obvious that we are way, way off having the sort of realistic aircraft simulations I want to fly within this platform and for that reason P3D will remain my simulator platform of choice -  a decision shared with many, many others.

 

I can guarantee with zero doubts that you're part of a vastly overwhelmed minority, so you may want not to cite "many, many," because it's actually "few, few" comparatively.  I thought it was clear by this point of the discussion that numbers do your argument no favor.

 

Incidentally, MSFS is a very serious platform, and Microsoft and Asobo are a lot more serious than LM in both evolving it and creating a thriving business environment for third-party developers. This is clearly shown by the resources that they're pouring into the simulator, which LM can't even come close to match. That's what a "serious" platform is. 

 

17 hours ago, Gregg said:

3 years later, LM push the boundaries yet again to move the platforms forward and the response appears to be that it's not worth developing for and your rational for this is wholly flawed.

 

LM has not pushed any boundaries. It has done basically nothing to actually evolve the flight simulator hobby besides making it even more niche and less accessible to a wide userbase when it was already declining, causing many developers to struggle because there simply isn't much of a market to sell to. If I had ten bucks for every dev I know that I heard moaning about how much they missed the times in which Microsoft was involved in the market before MSFS was announced, I'd likely be able to buy all of Aerosoft's catalog twice.  

Other than that, they simply picked already obsolete code that was a decade old, and applied layers of paint on it, without actually succeeding in hiding how obsolete it is. 

 

Funnily, the updates requested in this thread are all graphical, despite the fact that the self-elected "hardcore pro simmers" keep claiming that they don't care about visuals.

 

On the other hand, Microsoft Flight Simulator has brought the first real innovation to the genre since FSX, pushing the tech forward like no other has done in a long time. The fact that its SDK is still incomplete is actually justified by the fact that it does many actually new things. P3D's SDK issues simply depend on the fact that LM doesn't dedicate (or doesn't have) enough resources for its timely development. 

 

On top of that, the industry is pushed forward by attracting as much new blood as possible, part of which will then gradually become interested in the more serious aspects of the hobby, fueling a market for more and more advanced addons. The way you do *not* push the industry forward is by catering exclusively to the self-professed "pros" and by gatekeeping against the "gamers" which are infinitely more numerous (and have a lot more money to spend cumulatively).   

 

17 hours ago, Gregg said:

In regards to your sales - if you don't support the platform and encourage your own inhouse and external developers to embrace the enhancements of P3Dv5 and make improvements to their current catalogue of products whilst developing fresh new products, how do you expect to drive the sales you so desire? If you don't bring new products to market, how can I purchase them? The vast majority of sceneries I am using in P3D were brought across from P3Dv4 - there was nothing for me to purchase.

 

I'm sorry, this makes zero sense. It's absolutely not how this industry works, both at a flight simulator level and at a broader gaming level.

 

As I mentioned above, it's Lockheed Martin's responsibility as the first party to create a thriving business environment for third parties to work in. It's their responsibility not only to optimize the SDK so that developers can create their products with minimal hassle, but also to make their platform accessible to as many users as possible that third parties can sell to, and to market it actively so that people outside of the small circle of the "chosen" sim pros actually know it exist and can purchase it. They have done and keep doing the exact opposite. P3D comes with ludicrous pricing and nearly zero marketing, with the obvious results that it sold and is still selling peanuts. I work in the media and I can promise you that I can count the people among my acquaintances in that field who know what P3D is on the fingers of a hand, me included (and literally none of them has a single reason to write two lines about it). Almost everyone knows MSFS, and they're happy to give it coverage, which directly results in an expansion of the hobby and the market. 

 

Aerosoft and other third party developers have absolutely no responsibility to create that market for Lockheed Martin. That's LM's job, and that's a job they either have no will or no capability to do. 

 

By your logic, since the Xbox One sold peanuts in Japan, it's the Japanese developers' fault because they didn't support the Xbox One. It's the opposite. It's Microsoft's fault because they didn't create a thriving market for Japanese developers, so Japanese developers made their games for PS4 and Switch instead, where they could actually make a buck. It's simple as that. 

[Der Merowinger 162]

Very good arguments, clear and sharp! Nothing to add!

[Emi 5161]

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

 

I can guarantee with zero doubts that you're part of a vastly overwhelmed minority, so you may want not to cite "many, many," because it's actually "few, few" comparatively.  I thought it was clear by this point of the discussion that numbers do your argument no favor.

 

Incidentally, MSFS is a very serious platform, and Microsoft and Asobo are a lot more serious than LM in both evolving it and creating a thriving business environment for third-party developers. This is clearly shown by the resources that they're pouring into the simulator, which LM can't even come close to match. That's what a "serious" platform is.

 

 I disagree. For now.

MFS has nice visuals, but flight dynamics, systems, controls and so on are really lacking at the moment.

The default jets handle like toyplanes, not even close to realistic. The props, while having certrain advantages over P3D default aircraft, are quite lacking as well, especially the avionics.
MSF is about visuals for now, MS didn't care yet to add anything serious you could actually fly within the simulator. They wanted to leave that to addon developers. And they are probably right with that.

The lack of SDKs however means that it's impossible to create anything serious at the moment.

 

Gregg therefore has a point. Right now you can not do anything serious except maybe for procedural training (learning which button to press at what time) in the Cessna. And it'll be a while until you will be able to do anything serious.

[Abriael 377]

40 minutes ago, Emi said:

 

 I disagree. For now.

MFS has nice visuals, but flight dynamics, systems, controls and so on are really lacking at the moment.

The default jets handle like toyplanes, not even close to realistic. The props, while having certrain advantages over P3D default aircraft, are quite lacking as well, especially the avionics.
MSF is about visuals for now, MS didn't care yet to add anything serious you could actually fly within the simulator. They wanted to leave that to addon developers. And they are probably right with that.

The lack of SDKs however means that it's impossible to create anything serious at the moment.

 

Gregg therefore has a point. Right now you can not do anything serious except maybe for procedural training (learning which button to press at what time) in the Cessna. And it'll be a while until you will be able to do anything serious.

 

You can disagree as much as you want, you're missing the point. 

 

But first, let's address yours. The default aircraft are in general superior to default aircraft in any other simulator and not by a small margin. The bar is pretty low, but expecting more from default aircraft simply means not understanding what default aircraft are for. 

 

While IFR and airliner simulation isn't at the point of maturity of other sims with hundreds of dollars in addons piled on top of them, it's already superior in many aspects to their default state. VFR simulation is superior to any other sim regardless of how many addons you pile onto them simply by virtue of the fact that VFR simulation is actually supported, which other sims simply do not, because they don't reproduce the environment with nearly enough precision. That's the whole point of VFR.

 

While some seem dead set on pretending that "Serious" simulation is just IFR and airliners, that's very far from the truth. VFR is just as "serious." They're simply two aspects of flight simulation and one isn't more important than the other.

 

Incidentally, there isn't any "lack of SDK." The SDK exists. It's simply in progress and I'm rather surprised to see someone with an Aerosoft tag making such a grossly inaccurate statement. I hope it's just a matter of language barrier. This not to mention the fact that I'm fairly sure that it's very possible to create "something serious" at the moment, as Aerosoft itself is doing with the CRJ. From everything Mathijs has said while talking about the project, it seems to me a fairly serious piece of kit and it certainly doesn't appear to be so far from completion that it shouldn't be considered. Feel free to correct me if "serious" simmers need not apply, but I seriously doubt it, no pun intended. I really don't think only PMDG-level aircraft should be considered "serious."

 

This kind of "serious this, serious that" gatekeeping is exactly the problem with Lockheed Martin's approach to the hobby, and ultimately why it sells like peanuts and can't support a thriving industry.

 

Now, to what I define a "serious" platform. It's a platform with which the first-party developer and publisher invest enough resources not only to evolve it progressively, but also to expand and push the industry and with it the market. That's most definitely what MSFS is doing and what P3D isn't doing and has never done. P3D may or may not be a platform for self-professed "serious" pretend pilots (depending on what you want from it), but a serious platform it isn't. It's somewhat akin to a very secondary hobby/part-time job for LM, and it certainly shows in the scarce resources and literally zero marketing it gets. 

[Emi 5161]

4 minutes ago, Abriael said:

 

You can disagree as much as you want, you're missing the point. 

 

But first, let's address yours. The default aircraft are in general superior to default aircraft in any other simulator and not by a small margin. The bar is pretty low, but expecting more from default aircraft simply means not understanding what default aircraft are for. 

 

While IFR and airliner simulation isn't at the point of maturity of other sims with hundreds of dollars in addons piled on top of them, it's already superior in many aspects to their default state. VFR simulation is superior to any other sim regardless of how many addons you pile onto them simply by virtue that VFR simulation is actually supported, which other sims simply do not, because they don't preproduce the environment with nearly enough precision. That's the whole point of VFR.

 

While some seem dead set on preaching that "Serious" simulation is just IFR and airliners, that's very far from the truth. VFR is just as "serious." They're simply two aspects of simulations and one isn't more important than the other.

 

We agree to disagree.

The only part of VFR flying that is superiour to any other sim is the navigation. So what about flight planning, aircraft handling, ATC, etc.?

Flight Planning: I am yet to find any planner similar to P3D's. Surely P3D's planner isn't the best, but at least you can do more than with the MFS planner.
Aircraft handling: None of the default aircraft can be flown by the same numbers as their real life equivalents that I have flown. Nor do real life procedures have to be applied. In this aspect they are on par with P3Ds default aircraft.

ATC: 1:1 copy, same unrealistic procedures. Not usable for anything close to real life anywhere outside the united states.

You see, my point is: Surely MFS beats any other sim out there in the navigational part, but there is SO much more to flying than just navigating.

 

You can simulate any way of flying seriously. But seriously includes all the steps and aspects of flying that you do in real life. Not just navigating.

 

  

4 minutes ago, Abriael said:

ncidentally, there isn't any "lack of SDK." The SDK exists. It's simply in progress and I'm rather surprised to see someone with an Aerosoft tag making such a grossly inaccurate statement. I hope it's just a matter of language barrier. This not to mention the fact that I'm fairly sure that it's very possible to create "something serious" at the moment, as Aerosoft itself is doing with the CRJ. From everything Mathijs has said while talking about the project, it seems to me a fairly serious piece of kit. Feel free to correct me if "serious" simmers need not apply, but I seriously doubt it, no pun intended. I really don't think only PMDG-level aircraft can be considered "serious."I

 

Well, what is an SDK that can not be used worth? Nothing. That makes it a lack of SDK, doesn't it? Have a read in some other developers forums, PMDG, FSL, they're all saying the same. With the current SDK it's simply impossible to do what needs to be done.

"Serious" simming is a matter of what you want to do with the sim. You can use for example the Aerosoft Airbus to practice exactly what is done during the first 4 sim sessions in a real type rating. Learning the SOP's. I tend to call that dead serious, training for a type rating. At the same time others will laugh at me if I tell them the Aerosoft Airbus can be used for serious simming.

You only want to practice VFR navigation? Fine, MFS is a serious sim for that. No doubt. What simmers most commonly call serious is having to follow SOPs, with the consequences of not following them, while having to handle the aircraft "by the numbers" and of course having realistic navigational possibilities. In MFS I currently only see the last part.

  

4 minutes ago, Abriael said:

Now, to what I define a "serious" platform. It's a platform in which the first-party developer and publisher invests enough resources not only to evolve it progressively, but also to expand and push the industry and with it the market. That's most definitely what MSFS is doing and what P3D isn't doing and has never done. 

 

I agree to your definition of a "serious" platform, however the moment it actually becomes serious, for me, is the moment when you can do what in your personal opinion is a serious flight. And we haven't quite reached that state with MFS yet.

They're working on it, but as many developers out there say, it'll be  year or more until they reach that point.

[Abriael 377]

23 minutes ago, Emi said:

We agree to disagree.

The only part of VFR flying that is superiour to any other sim is the navigation. So what about flight planning, aircraft handling, ATC, etc.?

Flight Planning: I am yet to find any planner similar to P3D's. Surely P3D's planner isn't the best, but at least you can do more than with the MFS planner.
Aircraft handling: None of the default aircraft can be flown by the same numbers as their real life equivalents that I have flown. Nor do real life procedures have to be applied. In this aspect they are on par with P3Ds default aircraft.

ATC: 1:1 copy, same unrealistic procedures. Not usable for anything close to real life anywhere outside the united states.

You see, my point is: Surely MFS beats any other sim out there in the navigational part, but there is SO much more to flying than just navigating.

 

 

Navigation is basically what defines VFR. It's pretty literally the foundation over which a VFR flight can be built. Without that, there simply is no VFR. So yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. 

 

23 minutes ago, Emi said:

Well, what is an SDK that can not be used worth? Nothing. That makes it a lack of SDK, doesn't it? Have a read in some other developers forums, PMDG, FSL, they're all saying the same.

 

That's a very strange statement. The SDK is most certainly being used to create a wide range of products by an increasingly large number of developers. That's the whole reason why P3D fans are complaining all over the place because support for their sim is dwindling, including this very thread.

 

I don't particularly need to refer to their forums because I know quite a few developers personally. Absolutely none told me that that SDK in its current state can't be used, it's worthless, doesn't exist, or anything of that sort.  Mind you, even looking at the forums of the devs you mentioned, none of them ever said the SDK isn't there or is worthless to my knowledge. I've heard from many that it's incomplete, in progress, and lacks certain features they're looking forward to, but none described it as it doesn't exist or anything close to that effect. 

 

And again, since you skipped the point, I'm still wondering if your idea of "serious" doesn't include Aerosoft's CRJ, because that certainly wouldn't match what we've heard so far from Mr. Kok, unless I misunderstood his reports quite badly. 

 

To be fully honest, your idea of "serious" seem to be quite limited to "what I'm personally interested in doing in flight simulators." You're entitled to it, mind you, but I guarantee it's not limited to that. If the product doesn't provide what you personally need for serious simulation, that's certainly your prerogative, but that absolutely does not mean it's not a serious simulator. 

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Friends, I am closing this topic. I believe everybody had a chance to say what he/she wanted and these topics tend to slowly slide out of control. Thank you all for your understanding.