A2A is MIA

[clarkejw]

I'm sure if we revisit the comments following every iteration of Microsoft Flight Simulator, P3D and X Plane, we will find the same pattern. There are those who eagerly embrace the new, and erase the old, those who have them all, and move between them, and those who stick stubbornly to their preferred, and therefore "the best" flight sim.
In my case, I had all three, but now have only one, MSFS. For all its faults, and in only my opinion, it is a gorgeous sim, and the aircraft that I have chosen to buy, do a pretty good job of representing the real-world types. Some I have flown in the real world, others, like the DC-6, Spitfire Mk IX, F-35, A-320 etc, I am unlikely to be allowed to fly, at 69 years of age, and unrated on the types.
Still, there are obviously those on these forums, from what they are saying, that have far more real-world and multi-type experience than I have, and I defer to their expertise.
As MSFS approaches its second anniversary, it would be nice to think that A2A is near to releasing its first aircraft for the sim.

[ImpendingJoker]

I'm sure if we revisit the comments following every iteration of Microsoft Flight Simulator, P3D and X Plane, we will find the same pattern. There are those who eagerly embrace the new, and erase the old, those who have them all, and move between them, and those who stick stubbornly to their preferred, and therefore "the best" flight sim.
In my case, I had all three, but now have only one, MSFS. For all its faults, and in only my opinion, it is a gorgeous sim, and the aircraft that I have chosen to buy, do a pretty good job of representing the real-world types. Some I have flown in the real world, others, like the DC-6, Spitfire Mk IX, F-35, A-320 etc, I am unlikely to be allowed to fly, at 69 years of age, and unrated on the types.
Still, there are obviously those on these forums, from what they are saying, that have far more real-world and multi-type experience than I have, and I defer to their expertise.
As MSFS approaches its second anniversary, it would be nice to think that A2A is near to releasing its first aircraft for the sim.

Of that you are correct, and I am in all those groups. I only have MSFS installed(for civilian stuff) and DCS and Il-2 for my military fixes. And while I tend to embrace the new, I do not forget the old. I have on my desk my copy of subLogic Flight Simulator on data cassette that I flew on the Commodore 64, then it was Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Simulator on 5.25" floppy. I've had many flying games and many sims over the years but rarely do I move back to previous versions after moving forward, the exception to this being MS Flight, and that was only because it was super limited in its coverage, and they wanted to micro trans-act everything, so I, like a lot of others, voted with our dollars, and didn't pay into it. I got everything that was available for free for being on the closed beta team, and pretty active with the bug reports and the praise(it had a great flight model and I did miss not flying that Stearman PT-17 that it came with but, what are you gonna do?), and from there it was on to P3D when it came out, and I was going to make the jump from v3 to v5 when MSFS was announced, so I held off on v5 and flew v3 quite happily till MSFS dropped, and I do not regret that choice for a moment. Despite the huge progress between v3 and v5, it would still be a step backwards from what MSFS is now. Do I claim it's the best sim ever? No. Do I tout it as the future of the genre? Yes, and despite its bugs it is still light years ahead of the default P3D and with the new propeller model and dynamic airflow models, it just keeps getting better and better. Some developers are already working on propeller physics updates, while some are perfectly happy with the simple *cough Carenado* flight model. That said, their C337 is a great plane to fly, and I don't regret buying it one bit, though I do wish they'd rework the propellers to include the new physics. Maybe they will. Only time will tell.

[Blitzer]

I think it is fair to say that not any one flight simulator offers the best of everything again there’s nothing new there. That said here and now, MSFS does provide the most favourable platform to provide a flight simulator that is most likely to provide the most rounded experience in most aspects. Not necessarily the best in all aspects but I imagine where is does fall short the sum of the sim will outweigh where another sim may be regarded as superior. There is of course nothing stopping anyone using multiple simulators depending on their preference and needs at a given time.

When I was younger it was military based sims that grabbed my attention, e.g. F15 Strike Eagle, 117 Stealth Fighter or whatever it was called. A little later I got into Janes Longbow 2 and remember spending hours in that, later still Lock-on but by this point the military aspect was becoming less of a reason to fly.

It wasn’t until I took the punt and got a copy of FSX that I started to enjoying just flying itself. Initially, just with the vanilla sim, then I tried an add-on aircraft (Carenado Arrow I think)… then I was hooked in trying different aircraft so I really was buying one after the other. Then I discovered add-on scenery started adding that and of course performance gradually deteriorated…

An upgrade or so later with plenty of add-ons I discovered the A2A P47 with Accusim, not that I really had a clue what it was about but things just progressed from there. Oh and the Dodosim 206 for my helicopter fix so I had a sim that nearly gave me everything. Eventually I had a PC able to cope with all the addons, just about… but of course the 32bit architecture of FSX had by now had long been unsupported would give OOM errors.

I jumped ship to P3D when that went to 64bit, I use FSX as well for a while because of all the addons but then started to rebuy A2A birds for P3D. But P3D was useless for helicopters Dodosim we’re pretty none existent with little hope of teh 206 appearing in P3D. XP11 filled the gap there with Orbx True Eather scenery for the U.K. and some decent payware helicopters. Oh and DCS for something a little different, fast jets and helicopters.

MSFS, still waiting on helicopter support then thereafter will want third party developers to bring some high quality helicopters to the sim. Patiently waiting for A2A to throw its MSFS hat into the ring, in the meantime there are other developers starting to push on what can be accomplished in MSFS. This will continue as the sim matures, the SDK is improved to support developers and of course those developers work their own magic.

Both Flysimware (Cessna 414) and Wing42 (Boeing 247D) are already starting to bring elements of what A2A (to me) has been set as a bar to achieve. The 414 has a walk around feature and most systems are simulated to a good level of depth. The 247D brings perhaps something even closer to Accusim with vibrations, sounds, realistic engine starts and management, engine failures and fires if you do not treat them well not to mention at a very low price.

Well I went on a bit there sorry!

Bottom line is, when A2A do appear on the scene I am pretty sure they will set the bar for other developers, I just hope the wait is not too much longer…

[robains]

I'm not currently that interested in MSFS because it can't do what I can do in P3D V5.x. It really is that simple for me ... I'm not going to speculate if MSFS ever evolves into a the simulator I want, if it does great, if it doesn't so be it I've not lost anything since I have both.

As far as nothing has changed in P3D V5.x, that's just false and I've heard so many times before it gets nauseating ... usually by people that haven't used or don't understand or can't configure it or just want to believe rather than provide facts. MSFS didn't even bring in DX12 until recently and it's horrible performance implementation and brings no value to MSFS. P3D has been using DX12 for a few years now (DX11 is a 12 year old graphics API) ... and of course P3D transition from 32bit to 64bit several years ago along with PBR, etc. etc.

MSFS doesn't support 1024 res terrain tiles via Photogrammetry/Sat Imagery, P3D does support 1024 res LC/PR that's why distant mountains/terrain in P3D look a lot less blurry than MSFS. The LOD Radius in MSFS can barely make 4-5 miles and if one tweaks that LoD further performance drops significantly.

What P3D V5.x does lack is native AO support (to get ride of the flat look sometimes called "cartoon" look) and a better default world land class / PR ... they've improved a few areas but so much more area needs improvement ... but since so many already have Orbx I can understand their decision to not focus on that aspect.

As far as military, VRS TacPack still supported and fully functional for P3D V5.x ... don't see any military support (weapons) at all in MSFS?

Agree, there is no "one simulator" that has it all ... but I don't really see any reason to call something MIA because of a self-induced closed mindset.

Cheers, Rob.

[DrumsArt]

Yep, agree!

+1
Richard

[ImpendingJoker]

As far as military, VRS TacPack still supported and fully functional for P3D V5.x ... don't see any military support (weapons) at all in MSFS?

True but in this case, if you are looking for the military stuff, P3D is not the best choice for that either, especially if it's system modeling that you are interested in. So trying to use that in the argument of P3D vs MSFS, is like saying Gran Turismo is better than Forza because it has tractors, when both are car games and not farming simulators. Both P3D and MSFS are both GA simming platforms, and while TacPac is ok, I never cared for it even though I had the VRS Superbug. Everything about TacPac feels scripted and not flowing or organic. This is exacerbated when one spends a lot time in DCS where everything combat related feels a lot more real.

[robains]

Paul,

So why is the USAF using it?

Not aware of any other military package with DIS support, nor ability to run Separate IG layer, nor ability to operate multi-channel with genlock support … full 360 degrees.

Are you aware of what military aircraft Lockheed Martin design and build and sell to the US and other countries?

Just because you don’t see fully functional military systems in a default P3D, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Check in with USAF, but don’t expect detailed systems answers

[ImpendingJoker]

Paul,

So why is the USAF using it?

Not aware of any other military package with DIS support, nor ability to run Separate IG layer, nor ability to operate multi-channel with genlock support … full 360 degrees.

Are you aware of what military aircraft Lockheed Martin design and build and sell to the US and other countries?

Just because you don’t see fully functional military systems in a default P3D, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Check in with USAF, but don’t expect detailed systems answers

This Reply Intentionally Left Blank

[Bones]

I'm somewhat optimistic that we'll see the Comanche soon. Hopefully this thread doesn't get as long as Ban the Person Above You...

[twsharp12]

I'm somewhat optimistic that we'll see the Comanche soon. Hopefully this thread doesn't get as long as Ban the Person Above You...

I've heard PMDG is releasing the 737 very soon, so I find it hard to imagine A2A being far behind.

[Lewis - A2A]

Like PMDG we are re-doing some of the work already carried out as we learnt more and things progressed as the project progressed. The dev update (we are alive) video Scott has been working on is a little delayed as the Art guys are re-working some of the model bits again to make the most of what we can with our first release.

Cheers,
Lewis

[Blitzer]

The dev update (we are alive) video Scott has been working on is a little delayed as the Art guys are re-working some of the model bits again to make the most of what we can with our first release.

Certainly looking forward to hearing about progress and Accusim changes/features for MSFS.

Can you advise if Accusim persistent data and aircraft hours from FSX/P3D will be carried over and used in MSFS orperhaps converted for use in MSFS?

[Ron Attwood]

Like PMDG we are re-doing some of the work already carried out as we learnt more and things progressed as the project progressed. The dev update (we are alive) video Scott has been working on is a little delayed as the Art guys are re-working some of the model bits again to make the most of what we can with our first release.

Cheers,
Lewis

Will it be soon? I can't wait. Please hurry up and release something before I wet myself.

[Marvin-E34]

Like PMDG we are re-doing some of the work already carried out as we learnt more and things progressed as the project progressed. The dev update (we are alive) video Scott has been working on is a little delayed as the Art guys are re-working some of the model bits again to make the most of what we can with our first release.

Cheers,
Lewis

"we are alive" ... so the prophecy is true, you will lead MSFS users free from their shackles

[Daube]

Can't wait to see what A2A will be able to bring in their next model.
The good old days were we are all waiting for the next A2A video to check out all the new unbelievable features they had added to their next aircraft... I really miss these days.

Concerning the remarks made here regarding MSFS, I can understand some of them.
Right now, if you want to fly a nicely modelled Mustang or Spitfire or any plane made by A2A, FSX and P3D are the only choices. No offense to the aircraft makers who provided similar models in MSFS, but without Accusim, it's really just not the same.
Same goes for the "military" kind of stuff, which simply isn't there without VRS. I miss that a lot too.

That being said, the remarks made here about staying with FSX/P3D for "planes to fly like planes" are a bit uninformed.
I still haven't seen any unrealistic aircraft behavior in MSFS. Unprecise numbers/performance, yes, I saw that a lot. Various mods for default airplanes help a lot, though.
Something else I haven't seen yet in MSFS is an aircraft spinning out of control and climbing up to 50.000 feet in reverse gear. That's only available in FSX/P3D, but I don't think any MSFS user miss that feature