2 hours ago, skully said:

Would there be reason we couldn't have backwards compatibility with aircraft visual models from previous generations of FS?

Sure there may be coding differences but being able to at least port the model over to the new sim would be a huge time saver for the developers.

It might work that way because a 3D model and textures in Blender or Max is "agnostic" with regard to the final application. It's how Carenado does conversions of aircraft released first for FSX/P3D and then later for X-Plane. They use the 3D model, textures, and sound files only. The flight model, engine and systems modeling all have to be coded from scratch for the very different underlying flight simulator.

Scenery might be more easily imported because there is no coding involved, just a set of 3D models, but there will likely be differences in how terrain mesh is handled. I see some glitches here and there in the Orbx TE Washington scenery where it doesn't quite line up with the XP11 mesh. Ideally, you would also want to take advantage of any new features like individual light sources at night, higher-res textures, AI taxi and airport vehicle paths, PBR textures, and however the buildings interact with the weather system (snow cover vs. rain vs. dry).

You would want to avoid what I've seen in some legacy or converted airports that stick out like a sore thumb when seen from the air, because they don't blend smoothly into the surrounding default scenery system. But an imported legacy airport could fill in the gaps worldwide until enough newer airports are created  (assuming no copyright conflicts). 

3 hours ago, sightseer said:

about the clouds:

does anyone else think the top layer may be casting a shadow on the lower level?  (which I believe would be a first)

Yes, I do think the clouds are casting shadows on each other.

2 hours ago, pracines said:

I hope we don't just accept just nice planes, and pretty scenery and clouds as an awesome flight sim.

• We need to see real time airport operations
• We need to see different seasons 
• We need to know if polar operations are possible and accurate 
• We need to know how weather affects a flight and ATC
• We need to know the extent of the AI air traffic and how smart that AI/ATC will be

I know, I know, 'all in good time' - but why the 3 sec vid - been there done that - we are wasting time with pretty scenery/clouds - lets move on to other very important things.

Yeah, the info has been a thin trickle other than eye candy, but I'll give MS some slack for this being early days yet. 

All of the above would be nice to know, but it's still just a start. I won't know whether I'd actually like to spend much time flying the thing until I have hands-on-stick to evaluate it.

The flight model is #1 for me. I don't care how good the eye candy is, if the fixed wing and helicopter flight models aren't accurate, "fluid in the air," and smooth. It looks like we won't have any hands-on beta testing for a while yet.

Edited July 26, 20196 yr by Paraffin

3 hours ago, pracines said:

Ok, so it has been confirmed that the MSFS team is lurking the (specifically) "what we want" thread. For the last decade +, we have had pretty screenshots of FSX XP P3D AF ect., and yes the new scenery and clouds are nice; we already knew that from the trailer.

We did not need another screenshot (vid) of pretty scenery and clouds. What would be welcome is a video of the new ATC in action and how it handles a massive amount of traffic (without constant go arounds and clogging of taxiways!!) at KSAN. We need practical features not eye candy.  

Just something new, and vastly (needing) improved, then I will be impressed.

I hope we don't just accept just nice planes, and pretty scenery and clouds as an awesome flight sim.

• We need to see real time airport operations
• We need to see different seasons 
• We need to know if polar operations are possible and accurate 
• We need to know how weather affects a flight and ATC
• We need to know the extent of the AI air traffic and how smart that AI/ATC will be

I know, I know, 'all in good time' - but why the 3 sec vid - been there done that - we are wasting time with pretty scenery/clouds - lets move on to other very important things.

Posts like yours just suck the life out of this thread. Speak for yourself. I rather enjoyed those three seconds. *Lights up cigarette*

Edited July 26, 20196 yr by Krakin

A major sim developer that is already listening to us before they even release the product?

This is a dream come true. Let's have some patience, the future is looking bright for the Flight Sim community 🙂

2 minutes ago, Mir // Flightbeam said:

A major sim developer that is already listening to us before they even release the product?

This is a dream come true. Let's have some patience, the future is looking bright for the Flight Sim community 🙂

Listen to this man! the voice of reason!

Btw, yesterday's update (monitoring community, roadmaps, insider program, open beta) has shown that MS takes this serious and we will get far more than "just a plane game for xbox kiddies who cant wait to land a 747 on a carrier".

Just the fact that there's an open beta shows how convinced they are (or stupidly brave;) that we are going to embrace the new platform. If they would go for a quick cashgrab all we would see are trailers and screenshots until release...

2 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

I recall your rants and demands when FSW was in development, and now a similar tone with MSFS regarding "your" needs vs. what they have shown thus far.

To me, It seems that no developer can get it right for "your" laundry list of demands.

And as they say...If you want something done right, then best do it yourself...

So...when can "we" expect to see your attempt at delivering 1% of what you demand in these threads? I mean something like a sketch design of what that interactive ATC algorithm would look like...

I know, I know, I know....it is much easier to criticize than to empathize...

 

 

 

 

 

How is FSW doing? 😂

37 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Posts like yours just suck the life out of this thread. Speak for yourself. I rather enjoyed those three seconds. *Lights up cigarette*

I did speak for me myself and I😂

Edited July 26, 20196 yr by pracines

20 hours ago, mazex said:

Well - if you refer to Earthview that is not a Microsoft app?

Looking in Bing maps on the web it seems like they have the basic 3D shapes of buildings in London:

And the "Birdseye view from Bing":

And looking at the small town (80.000 people living here) in Sweden where I live they have the 3D shape rather right for our small Cathedral...

Sure - you don't see them render in 3D in the native Windows 10 app that is now simply called "Maps" like Barcelona does, but they do have 45 degree aerial photos of even our small town, and the 2D high res satelite photos and the 3D shapes of the buildings - so that is what you feed to Azure 😉

Sorry this has nothing to do with photogrammetry, the Birds eye view in Bing maps is just bascially a photo not 3D objects and photos stiched together. There is nothing here you can 'feed in azure' to get a photogrammetry '3D' city.

I'm intriged though because we know there are locations in the trailer which look 'photogrammetry(ish)', Dubi and Giza that are not represented in Maps / Earth View - what does that mean, I'm not sure - I hope we find out in the next few months.

Guys, you need to throttle back. No more personal attacks or someone will get a rest. 

Its perfectly fine to disagree but do it respectfully.

This is your only notice. 

Thank you. 

19 hours ago, Skywolf said:

Wow - Look at all that autogen.  Wow!!!

I think the term 'autogen' wasn't defined for photogrammetry created 3D cities which Barcelona most definately is, so probably not a suitable term.

Correct me if I'm wrong poeple but the term autogen was used to place generic objects like trees and buildings at suitable locations given the terrain 'landclass' derived from a database of values.

3 minutes ago, dtrjones said:

I think the term 'autogen' wasn't defined for photogrammetry created 3D cities which Barcelona most definately is, so probably not a suitable term.

Correct me if I'm wrong poeple but the term autogen was used to place generic objects like trees and buildings at suitable locations given the terrain 'landclass' derived from a database of values.

Right, and autogen could also include OSM (Open Street Map) data for building shapes, sizes, and heights where available.

Photogrammetry is different, and it might technically be "Close-range Photogrammetry" when the data is from lower height than satellite or traditional aerial imaging. I guess we could use the acronym CRP for that, but maybe Microsoft has a term for it. 

57 minutes ago, dtrjones said:

Sorry this has nothing to do with photogrammetry, the Birds eye view in Bing maps is just bascially a photo not 3D objects and photos stiched together. There is nothing here you can 'feed in azure' to get a photogrammetry '3D' city.

I'm intriged though because we know there are locations in the trailer which look 'photogrammetry(ish)', Dubi and Giza that are not represented in Maps / Earth View - what does that mean, I'm not sure - I hope we find out in the next few months.

No, I am fully aware that the birdseye from London and Lund in Sweden is just 45 degree aerial photos and not 3D. But they have them from four different angles (you can click the compass and get aerial photos from all different angles). And they have the 2D high res satellite data. To my understanding that is what you need to feed into the photogrammetry algorithm that they have done for Barcelona etc (using Azure resources)? If you can get some more data from GIS db:s about buildings etc that is naturally also poured into the mix ;)

I guess MS poured a lot of money to take the fight with Google 5-10 years ago when they did their first 3D cities and started to pile up 45 degree aerial photos of other cities, but as Bing has lost market shares they might have considered the "battle lost" somewhere in 2014? Not many added after that while Google has a 3D photogrammetry version on my small 80.000 people town in Sweden since 2017 or so.

2 hours ago, Flamingpie said:

O, wait! Another thing that the update made clear, and this may be of great importance to some around here: the correct abbreviation of Microsoft Flight Simulator apparently is MSFS! I used MFS up to now but stand corrected and will use MSFS from now. If the devs themselves use MSFS then so will I! Spread the news! Every other abbreviation is prohibited! 😎

MSFS it is then. The only problem is that MSFS is also how people traditionally refer to the entire series of Microsoft Flight Simulators so now depending on context it might be hard to know if someone is talking about the series in general or specifically the 2020 version.