1 hour ago, france89 said:

I already spotted elitism like messages in this topic, and well, that is no surprise. I would suggest you all to approach it with an open mind without starting to make comparison with current simulators, addons bought and money spent on them.

Agree. In my mind, scalability was on  the base of the success of the MSFS franchise was. Give people a chance to start with a C172, engines running, on the runway and get into the air. Let them have fun doing so, learn to master more complex planes and procedures, let the addon devs contribute the more sophisticated stuff and let users and end up as a captain, if they like.

This way, neither a non-extensible game nor a highly-sophisticated base sim requiring beginners to go through a Boeing-style manual will fit the bill. Microsoft knew and considered this until FSX. They failed with the jump to the non-open Flight! architecture and DT doubled that fail.

I can't imagine they didn't learn that lesson, but how knows.

Kind regards, Michael

Edited June 10, 20196 yr by pmb

22 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

@sethosbut I thought all that expertise went with ACES? In my mind it might be cheaper to enhance a more recent existing graphic engine than start from FSX, Flight or totally afresh 

Can't really do much with their expertise in terms of creating a brand new engine or doing major rewrites. Most professional people can do that. Think that's more relevant if you're working with a highly specialized, already built engine or trying to re-create a certain form of gameplay. Here, the slate is fairly clean. Off-the-shelf engines rarely work when you're trying to create specialized games / products like this, because they do have limitations and when you don't have full source code access to the engine itself, you often have to work around said engine limitations, instead of just making the engine do what you need. You can have a full team of developers bogged down for weeks or months, trying to overcome some mundane issue(s) because you're working within strict confines of a third party engine base.

Plus, there's also a question of licenses for selling games built on said engine and all the support you need from the engine's developer at times. Flight simulators especially are such a completely different beast, there's a reason why pretty much all of them are built on in-house proprietary engines.

 

Edited June 10, 20196 yr by Sethos1988

This definitely Google Earth type of engine. You can see the 3d geometry bugs and the photo cars.

MS could be releasing a game changer, or, we were just terribly bamboozled. 

2 minutes ago, strider1 said:

This definitely Google Earth type of engine. You can see the 3d geometry bugs and the photo cars.

It's still a huge huge advancement over what we have now, I can let those 3D geometry bugs slide. And of course there may be fixes for those in the future, still a lot of work left to go I'm sure. 

1 minute ago, PWJT8D said:

It's still a huge huge advancement over what we have now, I can let those 3D geometry bugs slide. And of course there may be fixes for those in the future, still a lot of work left to go I'm sure. 

Maybe! As long as there is not a ton of those 3D geometry bugs.  

Wow interesting.  Visuals look amazing...weather looks amazing!  That's one area that has been neglected in all sims for ever.  

But after the Flight failure, I too am cautiously optimistic.

I hope I can use PTA to enhance the graphic, LOL ! Do I still need to buy sky and cloud texture add-on to make the sky look good?

I am eager to see what's next with MSFS (should I call it like that?). Specially, I want to know if Microsoft will allow developers to create addons without the hassle or restrictions of a closed source software.

What raised my left eyebrow though, was the part of the A320neo, specially the cockpit. I noted on the ECAM EWD, that the "NW STRG DISC" - "TCAS STBY" and "APU BLEED" were displayed. Now, that's something I wouldn't expect from a default sim aircraft, but rather from an addon. And the cockpit looks very very very similar to the Aerosoft's A320. Somebody mentioned a couple of pages back that this might be the secret proyect they were working on? I don't know.

These are great times for flight simmers. Lots of options to choose right now!

Edited June 10, 20196 yr by N_matus

VR has ruined everything non VR for me.

As nice as these graphics look..I just can’t go back to pancake 2D.

It is my understanding that one of the reasons for developing the first MS Flight Simulator was to showcase the graphics capabilities of Windows. MS couldn't force more than 50% of the current computer users to switch to windows 10 so they are bringing back MSFS. Something tells me that my new windows 7 rig is not going to run this.

Ted

 

I noticed there are proper white caps on the ocean. Please let this be good. 

6 minutes ago, Ted Striker said:

It is my understanding that one of the reasons for developing the first MS Flight Simulator was to showcase the graphics capabilities of Windows. MS couldn't force more than 50% of the current computer users to switch to windows 10 so they are bringing back MSFS. Something tells me that my new windows 7 rig is not going to run this.

Ted

 

Not really, they had 6 releases in MS-DOS well before a Windows version came out. When Microsoft bought it from Bruce Artwick it was said that Bill Gates was a fan, and they also gave Bruce a place to continue to develop it with MS and on his own. Eventually it developed into a Windows95 title under the Microsoft Home family, but they had 6 releases of it prior to that in MSDOS

Edited June 10, 20196 yr by Matthew Kane

17 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

But after the Flight failure, I too am cautiously optimistic.

Exactly.  I think everyone needs to come back to earth and have a reality check.  We know nothing about this.

11 minutes ago, N_matus said:

And the cockpit looks very very very similar to the Aerosoft's A320.

Yeah someone on Reddit pointed out that the registration number was the same one always used on Aerosoft airbus.