10 minutes ago, simbol said:

First I am not being pessimistic, I am being realistic all simulators have pro and cons, and so far we know very little about this new sim.

Fine, that is your position however there are many others that do care about these things, bottom line people will use the simulator that fulfill their own needs, yours seem to be quite simple (eye candy), however others users want to have a simulator that covers more than just flying.

I am just expressing my opinion based on my experience.

S.

And great physics.

I would dedicatedly welcome if all developers could contribute. However, the current rank growth notably on Prepar3d is a nightmare to maintain. All those incompatibilitites, mesh issues, misplaced parking positions, missing autogen around airports and whatnot whith NO ONE begin responsible to correct conflicting stuff scares a lot of users off, notably those (like me) using a high number of addons in parallel. Just consider that AVSIM mega thread about Sky Force + Enviroment Force + Active Sky + ASCA + TS + PTA. I got a headache even from glancing through it. Or, recall the childish year-long war between ORBX and France VFR for the authority over autogen definitions.

I have been in favor of a completely open architecture where anyone could contribute for a long time, but, over time, this created a beast to maintain. MS will have to regulate this, finally, if they want to catch technically less advanced users, too.

Kind regards, Michael

I'm going to have to agree with Rob on this. We have posts that paint a rosy picture of complete stability and trouble free simming but I don't think that will ever exist. 

My sincere hope is that it will be much less in the new sim. 

17 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

You do realize these issues exist because Microsoft created SDK for ESP?  So why do think they will go away given it’s the same company?

Have you actually tried using the SDK in P3D/ESP or XP’s version?

The very reason issues existed in because the core product produced by Microsoft had issues than many developers had to work around.

So you think the 11th attempt at creating a Flight Simulator is going to somehow be magically different than the prior 10 versions?

Reminds me of this

Wishy thinking and spaceology

Cheers, Rob

Half the issues with 3rd party add-ons in ESP-based sims are things we will never have to waste our time or money on again.  Like weather.  And scenery. 

You wanna deal with that stuff go right ahead.  I'll be happy to put it behind me, and I know I'm not alone.

AVSIM on a Saturday night following the announcement of a new flight simulator from Microsoft a week ago.

Go for it chaps!

I'm a few beers up so will quit at this point but, keep the comedy coming and I'll catch up on Monday.

Edited June 15, 20196 yr by Guest

3 hours ago, bonchie said:

Another killer breakdown video, this time by Jeff F.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psZgtalap7Y

That’s the one and only YouTube video I’ve watched by a user dissecting different parts of the video. He did a good job pointing out things I’d never noticed when viewing on my own.

By the looks of it, I’d wager that the majority of the planet will be using a traditional ground texture/landclass approach with a lot more high definition areas filled in the satellite imagery. Watching the video it was showing areas where the edges of satellite scenery cutting of and default textures showing through, as well as the Africa scene with the default textures and 3D grass on the ground.

I think that would make more sense than assuming the whole planet will be covered with photoreal, not only to save space but not needed in sparse areas or where there isn’t anything to really see. Based on that, if we have maybe 40+ or so HiDef cities with photoreal ground and cityscapes, there probably wouldn’t be any need for streaming anything but weather updates.

37 minutes ago, cmpbellsjc said:

By the looks of it, I’d wager that the majority of the planet will be using a traditional ground texture/landclass approach with a lot more high definition areas filled in the satellite imagery.

That's what I find much more plausible, too. And it would enable distribution via conventional channels. Think AeroflyFS2 which has a number of high-definition photo areas (a couple of them rather extended). Now AeroflyFS has (virtually unusable) low-res imagery worldwide, just substitute this by a clever landclass system. AeroflyFS2 needs 40 GB out of the box, so this is an order of magnitude which can be distributed conventionally via Xbox Game pass or Steam those days. AeroflyFS2 is even distributed on DVD by Aerosoft.

Kind regards, Michael

6 minutes ago, pmb said:

That's what I find much more plausible, too. And it would enable distribution via conventional channels. Think AeroflyFS2 which has a number of high-definition photo areas (a couple of them rather extended). 

Given the IP data caps a lot of companies place on user consumption, varying IP download speeds, I think that if they tried to stream a lot scenery, users would quickly be over their data caps after a few weeks of flying or might not have fast enough IP speed to make it work acceptably.

Besides the fact that 71% of the earth is water, there’s tons of unpopulated areas in all continents that don’t need photoreal coverage, putting 30, 40, 50+ photoreal cityscapes or other Areas of Interest in the sim could be done with current HD storage space.

Perhaps they’ll include 15-20 HD city areas as base and make all the others available for purchase that way you can pick and choose areas that are important for yourself. 

2 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

The very reason issues existed in because the core product produced by Microsoft had issues than many developers had to work around.

I could care less if the new flight simulator has 10,000 add ons and 9,980 of them break the sim as long as I can install it, realize it's garbage, then uninstall and move on with my life.  The reason people don't like add-ons is the fractured dysfunctional FUBAR process behind 80% of it.   No one knows how to install in a standardized fashion.  No one knows how to use an SDK from this decade.  No one knows how to manage piracy so we have to have a spreadsheet for logins and serials.  Orbx treats your sim like a colonoscopy.  $1500 and two weeks later I roll out to EGLL w/ autogen from the 90s and stuttering so bad it probably needs a disclaimer for those with epilepsy.  On an 8700k and 1080ti to boot.  The secondary market has had 13 years now to get it's act together, yet, everyone daydreams like nothing will ever come along and blow this up.  That somehow FSX is the technology that will stand the test of time and be the first technology to only slowly evolve at a reasonable pace over decades of incremental changes.  Nop.  Someone is going to blow this whole thing up for better or for worse. 

Do people think modern eye candy and simple set up won't prevail over high end "study level" addons?  Is everyone certain that a good enough default Airbus won't steal away the majority of PMDG and Orbx users?   Do we really believe if MS doesn't play nice with the big developers it will fail b/c MS Flight is some type of apples to apples crystal ball?

Those could, in fact, be true, but I feel like that's a big gamble if someone has any skin in the game.

7 hours ago, bonchie said:

Another killer breakdown video, this time by Jeff F.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psZgtalap7Y

Go to 33:45 where he points out the movement of the clouds to the right. The clouds have cloud shadows! 😲

Edited June 16, 20196 yr by reignman40

35 minutes ago, reignman40 said:

The clouds have cloud shadows! 😲

We've had cloud shadows in P3D for some time.  It really makes a difference.

I've been using Active Sky Cloud Art and at first I thought the clouds in the video looked a little... pedestrian.  But in that video I noticed the lighting was correct and at one point we saw volumetric clouds.  I think I like the new clouds.

Another thing to notice is the cockpit shadows.  FSX didn't originally have these, and the shadows in Flight and even P3D aren't nearly as good as what we saw in the video.

And thanks to Bronchie for posting that video.

Hook

2 minutes ago, LHookins said:

We've had cloud shadows in P3D for some time.

In FSX too for ages if you pay a tenner.

7 minutes ago, LHookins said:

We've had cloud shadows in P3D for some time.  It really makes a difference.

Sorry I need to clarify 🙂 I meant the clouds are casting shadows on other clouds. Does P3D do this? It does make a huge difference. The first time I tried P3D a couple years ago, the cloud shadows gave me that wow factor I have not had in FS for awhile.

Edited June 16, 20196 yr by reignman40

So we're almost finally there...

 

 

27 minutes ago, reignman40 said:

I meant the clouds are casting shadows on other clouds. Does P3D do this?

Oh!  That would make quite a difference, sorry I didn't understand.  And no, P3D doesn't do that.  Nor is the cloud lighting as good.

Flying an open cockpit biplane with cockpit shadows and cloud shadows is quite an experience, as there are a lot of things to cast interesting shadows in a biplane.

Hook