4 hours ago, Montie said:

If LM is serious about their own development they will have to migrate to a new game engine themselves. That will break backwards compatibility.

I for one will not invest in a new P3D V5 based on the current engine, it’s old and outdated years ago. It’s more frustration rather than “flight simming”.

 

Not necessarily, they are in the business of high end simulations or Level D simulations and the current engine would be sufficient for that for many years. Lots of Level D Simulators are not that great graphic wise. They don't have you the home user in mind with P3D, it is to support training programs for when they sell things like F35's. The Academic Licence is just good ambassadorship on their part but insignificant revenue for them. It gets young people and schools interested in Aviation.

Give if up, @Skywatcher... 

While I applaud your effort, you're 'arguing' with people in here, who won't/can't accept a version of the reality, where their wishes and dreams aren't fulfilled. 

I've come to conclusion (after hopelessly tilting at that particular windmill) that they believe - and nothing and no-one is changing that vision and expectation that they have. 

And before people in here get's totally 'out-of-wack' - NO I don't have ANY problems with people wishing and dreaming of things!!! But the atmosphere in here is filled with expectations and unbiased certainties, which - quite frankly - are baseless. People are - to a large degree - expressing their wishes as facts and are totally busy creating a dream-world around these fantasies. It feels like, that they've sunken so deep into that 'reality', that nothing can or will make them at least accept that there could be another version of their reality. 

7 hours ago, sjt said:

Yayyyy! Let's start new speculation thread...………..

 

 

The thread is mostly speculation.

I wonder what the MFS devs make of this thread as I suspect they may read it.

Edited June 15, 20196 yr by rjfry

4 hours ago, TravelRunner404 said:

I have always been curious about what they can do to improve the scenery loading.

You misunderstand what they really do. They don't create a flight simulator by themselves. Normally someone would decide to write his own flight simulator They would license P3D and use it to write their own simulator. It is a very special case that they use it as a direct flight simulator. Normally iut has nothing to with flight simulation but with visualization. That's what many people don't understand. For them the normal load times don't matter because it is the reponsibility of the programmer that license the program to handle such things.

5 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Montie, you know nothing about the code behind P3d. 

That is right but I know the game engine is old and outdated. Using a modern engine would surely improve performance and features.

1 hour ago, Matthew Kane said:

 

Not necessarily, they are in the business of high end simulations or Level D simulations and the current engine would be sufficient for that for many years. Lots of Level D Simulators are not that great graphic wise. They don't have you the home user in mind with P3D, it is to support training programs for when they sell things like F35's. The Academic Licence is just good ambassadorship on their part but insignificant revenue for them. It gets young people and schools interested in Aviation.

I know how it works.

For sure ! With Aerofly FS2 and Orbx full max 4k, you can easily reach stable 120 fps. So if a small company like ipacs (makers of Aerofly fs2), can resch easily such peformance all slider max with orbx sceneries with full autogen, it will be a shame if MS cannot make at least the same. P3D is just - like was Flight Sim World - a revamped 64bits version of the old fsx code.

Reading through several of the contributions, most people do think this will be a completely new engine (weather developed in-house or licensed) and a new sim from the ground up.

There is an alternative scenario, though: MS took their "old and outdated" engine, added Bing support (maybe streaming), a new weather engine (either in-house or licensed) and a couple of other licensed packages like TrueSky or similar, some new planes, and of course switched to 64 bits. This alone would enable most of what we see in the trailer. I wouldn't judge performance at this point until we've seen some YouTubers to demonstrate it.

This would be a much more evolutionary than revolutionary scenario. Most of you (maybe including me) certainly would not want this to be true, but from the few bits I've seen and heard so far it can't be excluded either. This would be certainly effective as MS could reuse at least part of the code from the old MSFS/Flight! days.

Even 3rd parties might have a chance that way. While I wouldn't expect our present addons to run out of the box (... but who knows...) they might have retained the legacy file structures like bgl and textures, perhaps even the (supposedly enhanced) landclass system, aircraft.cfg, .mdl and all that. This way 3rd parties would be able to jump train quite quickly building on their former experience and just a modified SDK. Even ORBX might have a chance with "TE Washington for MSFS2020", perhaps just minus the Seattle area being streamed or just downloaded from MS. They certainly can go on modelling Europe as this seems to be flat in Bing anyway. PMDG might be well able to adapt their beloved Boeings (and offer them for 200$) Aerosoft will provide Super-Professional Airports for only 50% more. And so on.

Just an idea, and I hope I am completely wrong, but who knows.

Kind regards, Michael

@Michael

Imho their “outdated “ engine would not be capable of producing a good framerate and smooth sim...

 

12 minutes ago, GSalden said:

@Michael

Imho their “outdated “ engine would not be capable of producing a good framerate and smooth sim...

That's an argument, and I hope it will be smooth - finally. However, as far as recall, their trailers since FS4 have always been super-smooth...

Kind regards, Michael

From a software engineer perspective I can say not doing a new engine from scratch would be very stupid and from the looks of the trailer this ain’t the case here. New engine does not mean that some old but good structures like aircraft.cfg have been reinvented but most probably rewritten.

MSFs2020 is probably 4–5+ years already in the making 

Some Placeholders have appeared on the foot of the Xbox page. One button suggests it will be directly downloadable from Microsoft Store.

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/microsoft-flight-simulator

They've gone now but from memory they read left to right;

"LAUNCHES:" (Countdown Timer: SS/ MM/ HH/ DD/ MM/)     - -    "EXPLORE"   - - PURCHASE (Link to MS STORE)  - - "MORE"

They were there when I found the page this morning but as I said, gone now.

Here we are; found the HTML code lurking in the background...

        </div>
        <div id="ContentBlockList_9" class="GLPtranslations">
             <span id="salepricetext">Save [[PLACEHOLDER1]] </span>
<span id="daystext">days</span>
<span id="hourstext">hours</span>
<span id="minutestext">minutes</span>
<span id="daytext">day</span>
<span id="hourtext">hour</span>
<span id="minutetext">minute</span>
<span id="daysremaintext">[[PLACEHOLDER2]] remaining</span>
<span id="xboxlivegoldtext">[[PLACEHOLDER]] with Xbox Live Gold</span>
<span id="gamepasstext">[[PLACEHOLDER]] with Xbox Game Pass</span>
<span id="eaaccesstext">[[PLACEHOLDER]] with EA Access</span>
<span id="userratingtext">User rating</span>
<span id="buynowtext">BUY NOW</span>
<span id="preordertext">PRE-ORDER NOW</span>
<span id="downloadtext">DOWNLOAD NOW</span>
<span id="boxshottext">box shot</span>
<span id="buyariatext">Buy [[PLACEHOLDER]] from the Microsoft Store</span>
<span id="preorderariatext">Pre-order [[PLACEHOLDER]] from the Microsoft Store</span>
<span id="downloadariatext">Download [[PLACEHOLDER]] from the Microsoft Store</span>

        </div>

Wait....you are suggesting it’s NOT going to be a monthly rental!?! I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you! 😂

14 hours ago, irrics said:

Good lord I hope the developers spend exactly 0 minutes reading any of the reactions in forums.

I hope they read the forums and recognize that people aren't going to buy it if they don't do it right, but also recognize that those people are astoundingly loyal to a good product (how many are still using FSX? It's 13 years old!). I also hope they read the forums and ride the marketing department hard not to do the usual pie-in-the-sky BS that marketing people like to engage in. The whole reason people are skeptical here is that we all know that marketers - especially marketers in the technical space - are nearly incapable of accurately representing what a product will be. 

Ironically, many marketers will do exactly what some of the "optimists" in here are doing. They'll look at a 30 second presentation, make all sorts of wildly optimistic assumptions about what that presentation is saying, and then run around telling everyone else about their assumptions as though it's verified fact. 

I know a guy who used to work at a place that did custom computer setups, back in the days when not everyone had computers. Best desktop machines he had to dole out were 486's. He was constantly getting yelled at by customers because the marketers would tell him stupid things like "you can just tell the computer what you want your product to do and it will instantly design it for you!" There's a reason that many people have a healthy skepticism for anything a marketer shows us - marketers are genetically pre-wired to exaggerate at minimum.

 

Deleted post.

 

Edited June 15, 20196 yr by Guest