1 minute ago, irrics said:

My money is on the "pie eating" will be in the cockpits of P3D and XP pilots

I hope you are correct...

(P3D pilot)

20 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

 

P3D and XP11 are optimized for today's hardware ... heck I think Austin claimed something like over 80% of the XP10 code was re-written for XP11 ... and I can still get XP11 down to single digit FPS at 4K res just as I can in P3D with the right set of add-ons configured to extremes and some visual enhancement tweaks to go even further.  So much for "new code" and "new design" ... there are real computing limits for everything that makes up a flight simulator ... that's my point.  

 

p3d and XP11 are gpu limited because of the number of draw calls

XP11 is an objectively ugly and low quality game in terms of graphics, water, trees, autogens, cars.. there is nothing impressive except the night lightning shader. And yet I can drop to 30 fps without clouds with a medium graphic card like gtx960, which is completely ridiculous because there is nothing more than low poly autogens and a plane rendered on the scene. My character on the witcher has probably more vertices than an entire city rendered in xp11, yet I have better fps

its because they havent batched the textures and models etc of autogens, so they have too many draw calls

passing 32 bits to 64 bits or replacing code is meaningless if the developers are bad at what they're doing, which they clearly are

 

10 minutes ago, irrics said:

My money is on the "pie eating" taking place in the cockpits of P3D and XP pilots

Mine is the opposite, people are having so big expectation in regards to MS2020 that when the release finally comes, they inevitable will feel disappointment one way or another.

The sad part is that this new simulator surely will introduce very good new technology but You always need to balance people expectations, otherwise it doesn't matter how good your products are as they will jump into considerable amount of criticism (aka bashing).

Regards,

Simbol 

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by simbol

10 minutes ago, cepact said:

XP11 is an objectively ugly and low quality game in terms of graphics, water, trees, autogens, cars.. there is nothing impressive except the night lightning shader

lol - ouch!

I'm not sure even I'd go that far.  

The planes can look very nice, but the default "everything else" I agree with your take mostly.

Most good look XP shots, as one would expect, require lots of add-ons, 3rd party scenery or Ortho4XP, etc.

The weather and cloud depiction is hot garbage.  The lighting is just "drab" and "dull" - would be my description.

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by irrics

4 minutes ago, simbol said:

Mine is the opposite, people are having so big expectation in regards to MS2020 that when the release finally comes, they inevitable will fill disappointment one way or another.

That's sort of subjective.  My personal expectations are actually pretty tempered.

Give me something that's reasonably complex in terms of simulation, that performs great and looks like that trailer and I'm golden.  Third party stuff will be icing on the cake, but I'm hoping the native offering is rather complete for a moderate expectations user.  

I do not expect the base program/offering to completely fulfill people asking for PMDG type or home cockpit build stuff.

I'm fine with that.

MS is best to leave the hyper niche stuff to 3rd parties for those looking for that.

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by irrics

15 minutes ago, irrics said:

How do you know how long they've been working on this and what state the development this is at?

&They say they release it next year. Furthermore we are talking about a product from a marketing department. They don't even want to see so many prerelease versions in its alpha state. IUt simply costs them too much money. I already said from the perspective of a developer they are simply liars. We are taught to see the errors and problems. They have to hide problems. Very good games can hide problems, but they are there. We are all using more or less the same algorithms. They can still be calculated by a Turing machine. The things that have gotten better in the last few years were memory and the parallel computing of GPUs. So the algorithms were optimized for these units. Now we are slowly getting into a time of parallel working rendering queues.But even they have severe constraints.

They will have improvements but the amount of improvements is nowadays counted in percent. You are really lucky if an improvement gets more than 10%.  But if I look at your expectations I know that they won't be able to fullfill them. P3D and XP11 will be in striking distance.

 

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by Longranger

There will never be a PC flight simulator that meets everyone's expectations. Every time a new version shows up, regardless who it's from, Avsim and all the other related websites are packed out with the same old complaints. I won't list them because we've all read them.

I expect MS new one to be no different.

 

@Rob_Ainscough

So fix bugs, extend physics, less draw calls, improve the weather, add to SDK and DX12.

Good stuff - thanks for taking the time to write that.

 

As for "who said they are starting from scratch"?

You quoted me only partially.

I suggested we assume they are for the sake of conversation being anchored on something - that's all that was meant there.

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by irrics

Just now, irrics said:

That's sort of subjective.  My personal expectations are actually pretty tempered.

Give me something that's reasonably complex in terms of simulation, that performs great and looks like that trailer and I'm golden.

I don't like base my expectations because a trailer, we don't know what PC they used to run sim (Maybe it had 3 2080Ti cards in SLI), we don't know if they added video effects as part of the video edition process, we don't know yet if it requires streaming or not.

And this is the issue, every one is watching the video and making assumptions of how the simulator will work because they are creating an image inside their heads of what they would like to receive as a final product.

We need to wait for confirmation from MS in regards the simulator full set of features, system requirements, etc.

Hopefully we will receive such this year.

S.

57 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

 Improvements to performance and visual quality has been happening in P3D and XP, one would have to be blind to not notice them.

Cheers, Rob.

I would say this more similar to when people add the odd modern technique to an old game, like some fancy shaders on Oblivion or something. The game still looks and runs like an old game, but has some level of visual improvement nonetheless. 

I would be very disappointed if the new sim doesn’t run dramatically better than fsx or p3d. Maybe I’ll be disappointed...

i suppose I’m expecting something a bit similar to the difference between arma 2 and 3, I.e. much better graphics and performance, but still very demanding. 

Just now, simbol said:

And this is the issue, every one is watching the video and making assumptions of how the simulator will work because they are creating an image inside their heads of what they would like to receive as a final product.

Keep in mind, some developer/MS quotes from interviews have been helpful also.

That one about "you need to write that this is in-game footage because nobody will believe it is" was very hopeful indeed.

That implies something rather impressive in person.

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Yes it does.

1.  Cars don't fly ... no a jump isn't flight.

2.  LOD radius of Forza is tiny relative to a flight simulator that has to render out the Horizon.

3.  There is no real world weather in Forza, there are no fog banks, there aren't 5-10 cloud layers, no variable haze layers, etc.

4.  There is no complex SDK for Forza

5.  Car physics are horrible in Forza (should have used iRacing for compare to physics)

6.  No seasons

Cheers, Rob.

In considering the context of the original post, nothing is this long distraction refutes this statement..."new games are optimized better for new hardware". 

However, you have chosen to go on a tangent that seems unbecoming for someone who claims to read so much on the subject.

Cheers.

@Rob_Ainscough

In case you missed it earlier as this thread as moved quickly..

 

What are you actually optimistic about here?

 

(you've said multiple times you are "cautiously optimistic")

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by irrics

16 minutes ago, simbol said:

The sad part is that this new simulator surely will introduce very good new technology but You always need to balance people expectations, otherwise it doesn't matter how good your products are as they will jump into considerable amount of criticism (aka bashing).

 

I would just dismiss the negativity of some and I sort of disagree with your first line there.

There is nothing "sad" about a simulator introducing very good new technology.  

That's all positive to me.

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by irrics

29 minutes ago, SamYeager said:

So what is it that you're "cautiously optimistic" about? It almost seems that you're saying that FS2020 will be no different from XP or P3D as they're both optimised for today's hardware so why bother having it?

Let me try to add my thoughts..  FS2020 will likely be different from XP and P3D.. but in what way?

MS Flight was different from FSX.. but very limited in its capabilities.. and ultimately withdrawn.

For FS2020 to be well accepted by the flightsimming community, it has some big shoes to fill!

You have read the wishlists on this forum..

At the very least, most of us expect a realistic flying experience in well equipped airplane cockpits, with functional avionics, over realistic terrain, including realistic airports.  Add in weather, ATC, 3rd party SDK etc and pretty soon you have a sizable development challenge..

Note the "realistic" keeps appearing.. "Simulation" is the recreation of a realistic experience, not a well executed fantasy world, unlike most "Games"..

So, "cautiously optimistic", to me means not only well optimized, but at its very core a "Flight Simulator", not a "Flying Game"... Lets see what Microsoft delivers..  FSX was a very successful effort.. FS2020 could be also..