14 minutes ago, 188AHC said:

Commercial 3rd party developers are in it to make a profit so I repeat, why should they get the tolls for free? 

As for freeware developers, they are a passionate group and I don't believe they would balk at  paying a reasonable sum. 

If they charge the same as for previous versions that would probably be acceptable to commercial developers.

@188AHC, if Microsoft charge a flat rate for the commercial SDK how does that make it fair for the developer who sells his product for 20 dollars and someone like PMDG or FSL who charge significantly more?

A free (or minimal priced) SDK does away with all that and treats everyone equal.

Big if Ray. 

It seems that everything said about the new sim, you go straight to the negative. 

Before you get settled in to  that side, let's be patient and enjoy the ride to its conclusion.

I'm sure there will be enough to disappoint when we arrive. 

12 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

if Microsoft charge a flat rate for the commercial SDK how does that make it fair for the developer who sells his product for 20 dollars and someone like PMDG or FSL who charge significantly more?

I would be willing to bet Carenado sells a lot more planes than PMDG. A lot easier to toss $20-30 at an addon than $100, and Carenado has a lot more planes to choose from because they aren't worried about getting the planes right.

So, yeah, probably worth it for them to buy into the SDK just like it is for PMDG.

 

Some of you are so negative and cynical and just can’t seem to take an optimistic view here for some reason.

I don’t understand the reason for being like this.

If this thing totally bombs - great you were right…

...But in the meantime why even think like that?

Why not be hopeful and positive?

This whole announcement is totally unexpected exciting news!

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by irrics

15 minutes ago, 188AHC said:

Big if Ray. 

It seems that everything said about the new sim, you go straight to the negative. 

Before you get settled in to  that side, let's be patient and enjoy the ride to its conclusion.

I'm sure there will be enough to disappoint when we arrive. 

And with respect you can only see the positives. Whilst you might call it negative I call it realistic or cautious. A view I am perfectly entitled to take.

As I said earlier I’m only interested in this sim if FSL develop Concorde for it.

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by Ray Proudfoot
Spelling

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

And with respect you can only see the positives. Whilst you might call it negative I call it realistic or cautious. A view I am perfectly entitled to take.

As I said earlier I’m only interested in this sim if FSL develop Concorde for it.

There is nothing that substantiates your viewpoint as any more realistic than those who believe the SDK will be free, or at the same cost as previous sims. Being negative does not make you realistic. Cautious, maybe, but not realistic.

 

If you were to take the trailer and the ensuing comments made by the MSFS2020 team at face value, then being POSITIVE is the more realistic approach, because they've said all the right things so far and have made an effort to connect with the core fanbase and assure them that this is a simulator and not a repeat of MS Flight.

 

Everything else is pure speculation and conjecture at this point, and no more realistic than any other opinion out there.

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by A330-300

This all reminds me of the posts here shortly after we heard about LM and Prepar3d. I was so confused and did not know which route to take until one of the guys who was a regular poster here gave me all the facts that I needed. He really, I think never received all the credit that he deserved for his deep understanding of law and how it effected our use of the internet and was able to back it up with real verified experts. He said this: We would never be able to use Prepar3d because his wife had a girlfriend who was dating a guy who was going to school to be a lawyer and he said that it was not legal. I am hoping that someone comes along soon who has that clear vision and verified sources about the new MS flight sim.

2 minutes ago, A330-300 said:

There is nothing that substantiates your viewpoint as any more realistic than those who believe the SDK will be free, or at the same cost as previous sims. Being negative does not make you realistic. Cautious, maybe, but not realistic.

If you were to take the trailer and the ensuing comments made by the MSFS2020 team at face value, then being POSITIVE is the more realistic approach, because they've said all the right things so far and have made an effort to connect with the core fanbase and assure them that this is a simulator and not a repeat of MS Flight.

Everything else is pure speculation and conjecture at this point, and no more realistic than any other opinion out there.

I don’t claim that my comments are any more realistic than anyone else’s. They’re just my thoughts.

Can I remind you the video was around 1m 30s plus a few lines from Microsoft. That is all the hard evidence we have. I don’t know what fps I will get nor if I can store scenery locally. And crucially I don’t know how much it’s going to cost.

Important points don’t you think? FSX was a slideshow when it came out in 2006. Until I can see evidence with my own eyes I will remain cautious / realistic / sceptical.

@Rob_Ainscough

With respect, I have to honestly say that reading most of your posts doesn’t give one the impression that you are “cautiously optimistic”.

I do apologize if I am misinterpreting your tone.

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by irrics

1 minute ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

 There is a bizarre level of expectation that “new code” is somehow faster?  Or a ground up from scratch code will somehow be faster?  But no one provides any concrete code sample or design spec to demonstrate, they just move to the abstract inaccurate interpolation of based on some 3D shooter “game” followed by “I’m not a programmer, but...”.

I remain cautiously optimistic until more information is provided.

Cheers, Rob.

 

Um....new code written for new hardware will objectively be better than a game still using 13 year old code. Example: Forza motorsport, which runs like butter on new hardware even though it's graphically demanding. I don't need to be a programmer to know that new games are optimized better for new hardware. 

 

Think about how long you've spent tweaking FS to run the way you wanted it to run. There's a good chance that MSFS2020 will run extremely well out of the box because 1. MS have done it before with Forza and 2. This will be cross-platform with the Xbox, which means that there is a certain assurance that the game will run well with hardware that is equivalent in power to an Xbox.

Optimism is no more legitimate than pessimism at this point. There isn't enough information. If you think someone is foolish to be pessimistic about what this will end up being like, then in fairness you have to acknowledge that it is just as "foolish" to be optimistic. We don't know enough to come down on either side of the fence with any sort of credibility. It's all just personal opinions - you have no more grounds to tell someone to stop being pessimistic than they do to tell you to cut the optimism.

 

10 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I don’t claim that my comments are any more realistic than anyone else’s. They’re just my thoughts.

Can I remind you the video was around 1m 30s plus a few lines from Microsoft. That is all the hard evidence we have. I don’t know what fps I will get nor if I can store scenery locally. And crucially I don’t know how much it’s going to cost.

Important points don’t you think? FSX was a slideshow when it came out in 2006. Until I can see evidence with my own eyes I will remain cautious / realistic / sceptical.

But Flight ran a lot smoother? You can't ignore Flight when talking about performance. It ran pretty well all things considered. Using FSX as a benchmark is a little unfair.

And like I mentioned in my previous comment, Forza Motorsport runs extremely well on the PC considering how demanding it is. I prefer to look at MS's recent track record rather than (with all due respect) basing my opinion off of  a 13 year old game.

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by A330-300

I wonder if MS will be using Agile Methods for development of MSFS 2020?  It will be interesting to see if they will be developing by increments and we get to provide feedback as each increment is released.

5 minutes ago, A330-300 said:

But Flight ran a lot smoother? You can't ignore Flight when talking about performance. It ran pretty well all things considered. Using FSX as a benchmark is a little unfair.

And like I mentioned in my previous comment, Forza Motorsport runs extremely well on the PC considering how demanding it is. I prefer to look at MS's recent track record rather than (with all due respect) basing my opinion off of  a 13 year old game.

Maybe not but wasn’t Flight just limited to Hawaii? Default aircraft, default scenery tends to give best performance.

Any motor sim cannot be used for a decent comparison. The LOD is probably a mile or two. Very different to flight sim where it will extend for tens of miles.

Probably the primary reason I’m not happy about this new sim is because Its announcement has caused FSL to pause development of a 64-bit Concorde. Without it they would have continued work for P3D v4/5.

So yes, given I will probably have wait for a few years for a 64-bit Concorde I am pretty piddled off with this sim. Worst possible news for some of us.