I'm a bit surprised of the length of this thread. 60 pages now in less then one week, Hundreds of "Likes" for circling discussions and many, many speculations. And best, it keeps me busy reading 10 pages per day 😊

51 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Uh... I'm not the one who is angry.  

Oh, very sorry. I'm starting to have trouble keeping up with who said what in this monster thread!

 

8 hours ago, GSalden said:

A little of topic but I really am curious what LM and Laminar are thinking ..... 😩

The bigs at Lockheed Martin are thinking about what kind of raises they can get after signing the new 34 billion dollar contract to deliver 475 F-35's. 

Austin Meyer at Laminar Research is playing with that new E-VTOL thing, and thinking about what new plane he wants after he gets tired of flying his Lancair.

Neither developer will be much impacted by whatever MSFS turns out to be, because neither one depends exclusively on consumer PC sales of their respective sims (LR has the FAA approved Pro/Training version of XP which isn't going anywhere, and they do subcontracting for aerospace firms).

Austin might have an interest in the technology of the new MSFS because he's a consummate geek and aviation enthusiast, but I seriously doubt he feels threatened by it. You have to think of X-Plane as his personal hobby that we all get a chance to fly. I predict he's not going to change anything as a result of this.

16 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

You have to think of X-Plane as his personal hobby that we all get a chance to fly.

With all the conjecture in this thread, this may be the most fact-based statement made 🤣

7 hours ago, GSalden said:

If MS is going to release a SDK to let 3rd party developers be part of this new flightsim, then both LM and Laminar will loose a big part of their currrent customers.

Probably, but the details matter. We won't get a fully built-out sim for quite a while. The current capabilities of P3D and XP didn't happen overnight. Not everyone wants the same things from a flight sim either.

For example: I do almost all my flying in the FSEconomy game, using it as a sort of mission generator to sustain my interest in flight sims. I "own" two aircraft in that game: a Pilatus PC-12 and a Bell 412. I use LittleNavMap to generate flight plans for loading into the sim. For the new MSFS to replace the platform I use now, it would need:

* A plugin SDK to allow use in FSEconomy
* A good flight planner that can load files into the aircraft's GPS
* Very good models of a PC-12 and a 412 helicopter
* Support for my Warthog HOTAS, pedals, and Saitek multipanel

I could probably do without the multipanel. How long will it take before the new MSFS gets to the point of replacing the rest? I could switch to alternatives for the PC-12 and 412, but they couldn't be too different. I've also been spoiled by what is at this point a pretty decent flight model for both fixed wing and helicopters, so MS will have to at least match that. 

Now, I know it may be a blast to load up and fly the new MSFS just for the scenery. Zooming through downtown Seattle or the Grand Canyon will be fun. That's why I'm tracking this and will buy it to see how it works. But it's not likely to sustain my interest in civilian flight sims until it can do what I describe above, as my everyday flying activity. And if that happens at all, it won't happen quickly. 

I love good quality detailed scenery......but a flight simuator with no other features would bore me silly inside ten minutes.

Considering FSEconomy's determination to stick with the 2004 airport database, I think using it in a modern sim would be potentially very frustrating. It was frustrating enough with FSX.

 

12 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Now, I know it may be a blast to load up and fly the new MSFS just for the scenery. Zooming through downtown Seattle or the Grand Canyon will be fun. That's why I'm tracking this and will buy it to see how it works. But it's not likely to sustain my interest in civilian flight sims until it can do what I describe above, as my everyday flying activity. And if that happens at all, it won't happen quickly. 

Valid judgement. I am not into FSEconomy but agree. However, the "Microsoft" tag might certainly speed up addon development - IF MS supports it. My Saitek FIPs are still sitting idle under AeroflyFS2 because neither IPACS nor Logitech nor any other party finds it worth to support them for 2 yrs now. I doubt Logitech will ignore FS2020 for so long.

Kind regards, Michael

55 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

(re:  X-Plane)

I predict he's not going to change anything as a result of this.

That's the sad part.  It's such a double edge sword over there on features and the roadmap.

 

My great hope is that he somehow gets OBSESSED with IFR flying into lots of hairy situations and he determines that the XP weather needs a complete group up overhaul.  😁

Edited June 14, 20196 yr by irrics

8 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I love good quality detailed scenery......but a flight simuator with no other features would bore me silly inside ten minutes.

This is a disingenuous statement.  We all saw the trailer.  The default A320 was obviously very detailed.  Rain effects.  Sloped runways.  There are hints of an improved weather engine in addition to ATC improvements, but since those haven't been confirmed I won't list them as definite features.

So what do we have?  A new simulator, with several significant enhancements over all other (serious) simulators on the market, and with a whole lot of potential and (perhaps) unannounced features.

44 minutes ago, eslader said:

Considering FSEconomy's determination to stick with the 2004 airport database, I think using it in a modern sim would be potentially very frustrating. It was frustrating enough with FSX.

Nah, it works fine for me with XP11, even with the 2004 database. The FSEconomy database will never be updated, because that would affect people who virtually "own" FBOs at all those locations.

There haven't been that many changes over the years. I just check LittleNavMap before taking an assignment to verify that it matches something I can fly to in the current XP database. Sometimes it's just a code difference. If it doesn't exist at all, I just don't take the assignment. You can even download an adjusted XP database that matches the 2004 one, but I haven't bothered. 

The airports are just a Lat-Long location in the FSEconomy database, so you can fly into an updated model of the airport in the sim, use Rnav, SIDs and Stars, all of that stuff. If at some point the new MSFS does manage to support the game, it should work as well as it does now for people using XP or P3D. The game wouldn't be popular if the locked 2004 database was a major problem.

Quote

This is a disingenuous statement.  We all saw the trailer.  The default A320 was obviously very detailed.  Rain effects.  Sloped runways.  There are hints of an improved weather engine in addition to ATC improvements, but since those haven't been confirmed I won't list them as definite features.

I was responding to Paraffin's comment about having fun zooming through downtown Seattle or the Grand Canyon. It was not intended to be aimed specifically at the new Microsoft Flight Simulator. However, I should have clarified that instead of posting a single sentence response with no context to back it up. My apologies.

Edited June 14, 20196 yr by Christopher Low

10 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I was responding to Paraffin's comment about having fun zooming through downtown Seattle or the Grand Canyon. It was not intended to be aimed specifically at the new Microsoft Flight Simulator. However, I should have clarified that instead of posting a single sentence response with no context to back it up. My apologies.

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.

I'm not sure why people are thinking "hand done" 3rd party scenery is necessarily better.

Look around that Seattle city scenery.  Those buildings are accurate not just in footprint, but even in the color and correct textures on the sides (perhaps from street view type of imagery). 

 

What I'm seeing is literally as accurate is one could reasonably imagine and certainly exceptional for low level flying around.  Ultimately this type of collation of data to create real generated buildings off real world actual mapping data & imagery is by far the best way to go moving forward.  It has so many advantages, especially over the long term.

 

Get outside the cities and I'm sure our mileage will vary, but that's already the case in every FS program out there anyhow.

Edited June 14, 20196 yr by irrics

not better but without 3rd parties we will get maybe 2-3 airpots a year. but we need hundreds