Excellent Analysis of trailer by former ACES member

[Holdit 551]

6 hours ago, LHookins said:

I think the visuals in the video and screen shots do that quite well. 🙂

Hook

Visuals are just eye candy. If you're satisfied with just that, then I'm sure it'll be a treat.

I'm more interested in things that lie deeper under the bonnet, like weather, ATC, icing, runway contamination, ridge lift/sink, powerplant modelling, engine management etc.

[Holdit 551]

5 hours ago, ca_metal said:

Right?!

The visuals are completely different. About the other features, we will have to wait and see. But saying we have no clue if will be different is an wrong statement. We already know they improved a lot in the visuals area when compared to FSX (or even with MS Flight).

Sure, we know, or rather, can see it will be "different", but the question at least for this simmer is, "how different?".

Edited July 16, 2019 by Holdit

[LHookins 3,103]

32 minutes ago, Holdit said:

Visuals are just eye candy. If you're satisfied with just that, then I'm sure it'll be a treat.

That's what I thought before I went from P3Dv2.5 to P3Dv4.  I can't imagine going back.

As for everything else, I think we can be pretty sure than it won't be *worse* than what we currently have, and may be much better.  If the new sim is nothing more than P3Dv4 with some extra eye candy, I'll be happy with it.  For that matter, except for a few areas, I'm perfectly happy with P3Dv4.

Hook

[ca_metal 2,024]

2 hours ago, Holdit said:

Sure, we know, or rather, can see it will be "different", but the question at least for this simmer is, "how different?".

Visually it will be a lot better.

About you said above, the systems and other features, we will have to wait and see. If visuals are not important to you, I can understand why not to bother with this new sim for now (we have no idea which features it will have on day one).

[Woozie 732]

Guys, don't forget, its no longer either "nice visuals but shallow depth" or "deep simulation with mediocre graphics". This golden rule is outdated, as computing power of today's PC's is more than enough to provide the best of both worlds. 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Woozie

[Holdit 551]

1 hour ago, Woozie said:

Guys, don't forget, its no longer either "nice visuals but shallow depth" or "deep simulation with mediocre graphics". This golden rule is outdated, as computing power of today's PC's is more than enough to provide the best of both worlds. 

 

 

I agree, and hopefully that will indeed be the case. In fact, I'm not even arguing that it won't be the case, all I'm saying is that we haven't been given sufficient information to know. And sufficient information means a feature list, not marketing blurb.

 

1 hour ago, Flamingpie said:

Don't think I agree. Visuals are very important for the immersion, the feeling of being there, the realism but also for the simulation of flight itself. If you get close to a thunderstorm in FSX with default graphics you might think 'No problem, I will continue' but if you get close to the thunderstorm you can see in the MFS trailer you'll think twice. A sim with ONLY great visuals would be boring pretty quickly for me but I wouldn't want to have a sim with deep systems that only has flat, dull graphics. I want both. Visuals aren't just eye candy. The history of flight sims also shows this: if you look at for instance P3D you will see that almost all changes between the various versions had to do with visuals. Apparently they are THAT important!

We'll have to agree to disagree. You appear to be working form the premise that "appears realistic = is realistic"

If the thunderstorms in the new FS are graphical only, then simmers will only think twice about flying into them until they actually do it and nothing bad happens. Consequences affect behaviour more than appearances.

The killer feature for me with P3Dv4, by the way, wasn't the graphics, it was 64-bit. 

 

9 hours ago, ca_metal said:

Visually it will be a lot better.

About you said above, the systems and other features, we will have to wait and see. If visuals are not important to you, I can understand why not to bother with this new sim for now (we have no idea which features it will have on day one).

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the visuals aren't nice, but for me, great visuals don't compensate for a shallow simulation. Hopefully that won't be the case, but I'm not yet ready to get excited about pretty pictures. Do we even know if the footage of that video hasn't had some post-processing?

 

11 hours ago, LHookins said:

That's what I thought before I went from P3Dv2.5 to P3Dv4.  I can't imagine going back.

As for everything else, I think we can be pretty sure than it won't be *worse* than what we currently have, and may be much better.  If the new sim is nothing more than P3Dv4 with some extra eye candy, I'll be happy with it.  For that matter, except for a few areas, I'm perfectly happy with P3Dv4.

Hook

I went from FSX:SE to P3Dv4, but I still use FSX:SE for certain sceneries and aircraft. I'm happy with both, and eventually I'll only use P3Dv4, and I'll need a compelling case to move on from that such as LM pulling the plug on the licences, or NewFS really being as awesome in simulation depth as it appears to be in visuals. But if all it is is sexy graphics with shallow modelling under the bonnet, that'll be a much harder sell, for this buyer at least.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Holdit

[LHookins 3,103]

48 minutes ago, Holdit said:

If the thunderstorms in the new FS are graphical only...

Why do you think this might be the case?

In FSX and P3Dv2 using Active Sky Next I didn't worry about thunderstorms.  I could usually fly under the clouds.  In P3Dv4 with ASP4 and Active Sky Cloud Art I learned very quickly that thunderstorms had real teeth.  

All else being equal I'd prefer nicer graphics.  I wouldn't want to trade good physics/weather/etc for good graphics though.  There is nothing that says we might have to.  Believing that the rest of the sim will be as good as the graphics does no harm and we'll find out soon enough.  Life's too short to look for the bad in everything.

Hook

 

[Holdit 551]

49 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Why do you think this might be the case?

In FSX and P3Dv2 using Active Sky Next I didn't worry about thunderstorms.  I could usually fly under the clouds.  In P3Dv4 with ASP4 and Active Sky Cloud Art I learned very quickly that thunderstorms had real teeth.  

All else being equal I'd prefer nicer graphics.  I wouldn't want to trade good physics/weather/etc for good graphics though.  There is nothing that says we might have to.  Believing that the rest of the sim will be as good as the graphics does no harm and we'll find out soon enough.  Life's too short to look for the bad in everything.

Hook

 

As I said, I'm not assuming it will be the case, but I'm not assuming it won't be. The current status is "insufficient data".

As I also said, I'm not against good graphics - I just don't think that you can look at  movie of nice graphics and extrapolate from that that the sim will have anything other than...nice graphics. Insufficient data again. I wouldn't want to trade the features you mention for good graphics either, so we're on the same page there.

I'm not looking for the bad, I'm just not assuming the good, and not really understanding what everyone seems to be so excited about, because so far, it's just hype and a short movie

[LHookins 3,103]

I'm not expecting perfection.  I'm just expecting something better than what we currently have.  If it is only as good as what we have now, I won't be upset or disappointed.  If it is not as good as what I'm currently flying... well, by that time I expect to be flying P3Dv5 anyway.  We'll know long before we have to buy anything if it is as good as people hope.  And it doesn't matter either way.

After all, it's only a flight sim.

Did you watch the video linked at the top of this thread?  Did you watch the frame by frame analysis?  Did you watch the trailer more than once?  There is too much going on in the trailer to take in with just a single viewing.

Hook

[Christopher Low 5,354]

I would be rather disappointed if it turns out to be no better than what we have now (FlightSim World comes to mind here). After 25 years of evolution, I think it's about time that the flight simulation community was treated to revolution.

[bonchie 2,305]

14 hours ago, Holdit said:

Visuals are just eye candy. If you're satisfied with just that, then I'm sure it'll be a treat.

I'm more interested in things that lie deeper under the bonnet, like weather, ATC, icing, runway contamination, ridge lift/sink, powerplant modelling, engine management etc.

How's P3D modeling icing these days? or turbine modeling? engine management? weather?

The visual upgrade is 100% the most important thing MSFS needs to provide because they are the only one who can provide it. A lot of the other stuff can be handled by 3rd parties, although there's no reason to believe MS aren't working to improve many of the things you mentioned. They've said the weather is being driven by real world data, for example.

Edited July 17, 2019 by bonchie

[Holdit 551]

4 minutes ago, bonchie said:

How's P3D modeling icing these days? or turbine modeling? engine management? weather?

The visual upgrade is 100% the most important thing MSFS needs to provide because they are the only one who can provide it. A lot of the other stuff can be handled by 3rd parties, although there's no reason to believe MS aren't working to improve many of the things you mentioned. They've said the weather is being driven by real world data, for example.

No reason to believe they aren't, but again (sigh) no reason to assume they are.  I'm starting to wonder how many times I'll have to make this point before it eventually sinks in with some people. 

I've patched the P3D FSX shortcomings in modelling by use of 3rd products, as you rightly point out. Having to re-purchase similar products in order to bring a sexy-looking sim up to modelling standard, isn't something I'm terribly excited about. If it excites you, great...hurray for you. I'm just not along for the ride until...lets try one more time...there is more information available.

 

What is it about AVSIM...?  

[Holdit 551]

45 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Did you watch the video linked at the top of this thread?  Did you watch the frame by frame analysis?  Did you watch the trailer more than once?  There is too much going on in the trailer to take in with just a single viewing.

But the video is, of its nature, just visuals. The reason I'm reserving judgement is because of what you don't see in videos. If you've seen anything in your multiple viewings that answers my concerns, please share.

I've no objection to being excited about new stuff...as long as I'm satisfied there's something to be excited about. At the moment I'm more excited about the PMDG J41 for P3Dv4 and the Milviz King Air...and I'm starting to wonder about those too... 

[LHookins 3,103]

1 hour ago, bonchie said:

How's P3D modeling icing these days?

Quite well, actually.  I've had four forced landings due to icing since my first in FSX.

 

50 minutes ago, Holdit said:

If you've seen anything in your multiple viewings that answers my concerns, please share.

No idea what the actual thunderstorm might be like except for seeing a lightning strike on an airliner.  I don't have any expectations about what we'll get and I'll accept whatever it is.  In the mean time, I'm not worried about it.

We saw evidence of a good flight model and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the one they used in Microsoft Flight.  For those who never tried it, it was the first time I'd ever felt like I was experiencing a true six degree of freedom flight model.

In the absence of hard data, I'm taking a wait-and-see approach.  But I'm not looking for everything that may possibly be bad.  Those who are will be sure to find it, if only because that's what they're looking for.  I'll be looking for the good stuff.

Hook

[Paraffin 2,197]

5 hours ago, Woozie said:

Guys, don't forget, its no longer either "nice visuals but shallow depth" or "deep simulation with mediocre graphics". This golden rule is outdated, as computing power of today's PC's is more than enough to provide the best of both worlds. 

Potentially, yes, but nothing is guaranteed until we get our hands on the product.

The last two attempts failed to balance those two elements equally. MS Flight had good visuals but no depth. DTG's Flight Sim World had what looked like a "serious" approach with regard to depth, but the visuals were lackluster. One of the main complaints was that it didn't look different enough from FSX. 

If Microsoft is putting a serious push behind the new MFS and aiming for more than just the console market, it could satisfy both desires in the sim community. We'll see how it turns out.