3 hours ago, pracines said:

How is FSW doing? 😂

You know the answer.  Is that what you would like to happen to MSFS?  Just curious.

Jeff

Edited July 26, 20196 yr by JNS

"Oh dear."

Really, really hoped that MSFS had a better outreach than this - "in to The Community."

BTW; what's the takeaway (from this Update - apart from a pretty terrible "look down" from CRZ at a load of LOD shimmering) once we have established that there is no takeaway from this at all - apart from the fact that we knew they were looking here?

The whole thing has just emptied my trough of hope and turned it upside-down; the contents spilled in the street of despair - and left to putrefaction on the foothills of our aspirations.

(Well, someone had to say it!)

Edited July 26, 20196 yr by Guest

Seriously? We get two updates and a couple of pics and you are emptying your trough? 

I'm not sure if the new simulator will satisfy you then. Many of us have high hopes that we will get a brand new product but it's still too early to pitch our tent in one camp or the other.

Be patient and let's see what transpires. After all its not costing you 1 cent to wait and see. You might be pleasantly surprised, 

All very well to say with your new position with MS.

But what about us little people?

1 minute ago, ganter said:

All very well to say with your new position with MS.

But what about us little people?

Now that's 😃

1 minute ago, 188AHC said:

Now that's 😃

We just wanna' fly!!!!!

Tell them we want ATC - that makes sense. Do that - for this community. Do that and we'll hold you in the utmost esteem forever more 188. Over.

Ill make sure I bring that up when Bill G. and I meet for lunch with the team next week. 😂😂

12 minutes ago, 188AHC said:

Ill make sure I bring that up when Bill G. and I meet for lunch with the team next week. 😂😂

Haha. Put a good a word in for me - I worked on Vista! - though I doubt I will be remembered for that.

In seriousness 188 - you've created an excellent ambassadorial exchange with MS - fantastic stuff - and more than well done. In fact - Top show.

Keep it going - and we're all relying on you to put our concerns and wants and needs to the big Office up on top of the Skyscraper that is MS.

Keep going. We've got your 6.

 

 

2 hours ago, JNS said:

You know the answer.  Is that what you would like to happen to MSFS?  Just curious.

Jeff

True I do know the answer, some just need a reminder. Amazing how I get bashed for being correct back then; maybe some think I alone had power over whether FSW succeeded or not. If they would only think before they type.🤷‍♂️

Negative, I do want MSFS to succeed, but MSFS will fail if it goes down the FSW type path. That is why I say what I say. DTG did the same kind of thing - focus on eye candy (game factor), but the substance lacked, and day to day use was old and boring fast. MSFS can have the best scenery and planes but if the rest is lacking it will fail.

The purpose of my post is not to discourage anybody, but to sound the alarm that we have been here before. I want to see how MSFS will not be boring for day to day simulation out of the box version 1. Then 3PP can go from there.

I don't want to see "one step forward" after all this time; there needs to be a huge long jump, amongst many aspects of the simulation, not just the scenery, PBR, and the planes.

• How is the flight planner
• How current is the Magnetic Variation
• Is the NAV database current 
• Are all airports correct or will runways still be missing
• How about time zones
• Do/can cirrocumulus clouds exist
• How about icing

Again, I know we have to wait, bla bla , but wait for what? More impressive scenery shots? We can get much better than that with Just planes or YouTube vids. There needs to be vids/SS's of practical usage and realism features that are new and make the simulation exciting every time we fly. 

Since MS is lurking here, maybe they will see/understand my point and agree. Maybe we will see a 5 minute vid with some practical aviation simulation substance that will impress even me. 

 

36 minutes ago, pracines said:

True I do know the answer, some just need a reminder. Amazing how I get bashed for being correct back then; maybe some think I alone had power over whether FSW succeeded or not. If they would only think before they type.🤷‍♂️

Negative, I do want MSFS to succeed, but MSFS will fail if it goes down the FSW type path. That is why I say what I say. DTG did the same kind of thing - focus on eye candy (game factor), but the substance lacked, and day to day use was old and boring fast. MSFS can have the best scenery and planes but if the rest is lacking it will fail.

The purpose of my post is not to discourage anybody, but to sound the alarm that we have been here before. I want to see how MSFS will not be boring for day to day simulation out of the box version 1. Then 3PP can go from there.

I don't want to see "one step forward" after all this time; there needs to be a huge long jump, amongst many aspects of the simulation, not just the scenery, PBR, and the planes.

• How is the flight planner
• How current is the Magnetic Variation
• Is the NAV database current 
• Are all airports correct or will runways still be missing
• How about time zones
• Do/can cirrocumulus clouds exist
• How about icing

Again, I know we have to wait, bla bla , but wait for what? More impressive scenery shots? We can get much better than that with Just planes or YouTube vids. There needs to be vids/SS's of practical usage and realism features that are new and make the simulation exciting every time we fly. 

Since MS is lurking here, maybe they will see/understand my point and agree. Maybe we will see a 5 minute vid with some practical aviation simulation substance that will impress even me. 

 

I'm sorry but my takeaway from all of that is that you complain too much. As others have noted, it's a little too early in the game for you to be bellyaching over that.

Edited July 27, 20196 yr by Krakin

51 minutes ago, pracines said:

True I do know the answer, some just need a reminder. Amazing how I get bashed for being correct back then; maybe some think I alone had power over whether FSW succeeded or not. If they would only think before they type.🤷‍♂️

Negative, I do want MSFS to succeed, but MSFS will fail if it goes down the FSW type path. That is why I say what I say. DTG did the same kind of thing - focus on eye candy (game factor), but the substance lacked, and day to day use was old and boring fast. MSFS can have the best scenery and planes but if the rest is lacking it will fail.

The purpose of my post is not to discourage anybody, but to sound the alarm that we have been here before. I want to see how MSFS will not be boring for day to day simulation out of the box version 1. Then 3PP can go from there.

I don't want to see "one step forward" after all this time; there needs to be a huge long jump, amongst many aspects of the simulation, not just the scenery, PBR, and the planes.

• How is the flight planner
• How current is the Magnetic Variation
• Is the NAV database current 
• Are all airports correct or will runways still be missing
• How about time zones
• Do/can cirrocumulus clouds exist
• How about icing

Again, I know we have to wait, bla bla , but wait for what? More impressive scenery shots? We can get much better than that with Just planes or YouTube vids. There needs to be vids/SS's of practical usage and realism features that are new and make the simulation exciting every time we fly. 

Since MS is lurking here, maybe they will see/understand my point and agree. Maybe we will see a 5 minute vid with some practical aviation simulation substance that will impress even me. 

 

I want i want i want?
Three months ago or so we didn't even know we'd get a brand new flightsimulator from Microsoft.
Be gratefull for what you have, for if you focus on what you don't have you'll never have enough.

Edited July 27, 20196 yr by Wildblue

4 hours ago, ganter said:

BTW; what's the takeaway (from this Update - apart from a pretty terrible "look down" from CRZ at a load of LOD shimmering) once we have established that there is no takeaway from this at all - apart from the fact that we knew they were looking here?

Watch it fullscreen and it doesn't shimmer.

Edited July 27, 20196 yr by PhilipG

2 hours ago, pracines said:

True I do know the answer, some just need a reminder. Amazing how I get bashed for being correct back then; maybe some think I alone had power over whether FSW succeeded or not. If they would only think before they type.🤷‍♂️

Negative, I do want MSFS to succeed, but MSFS will fail if it goes down the FSW type path. That is why I say what I say. DTG did the same kind of thing - focus on eye candy (game factor), but the substance lacked, and day to day use was old and boring fast. MSFS can have the best scenery and planes but if the rest is lacking it will fail.

The purpose of my post is not to discourage anybody, but to sound the alarm that we have been here before. I want to see how MSFS will not be boring for day to day simulation out of the box version 1. Then 3PP can go from there.

I don't want to see "one step forward" after all this time; there needs to be a huge long jump, amongst many aspects of the simulation, not just the scenery, PBR, and the planes.

• How is the flight planner
• How current is the Magnetic Variation
• Is the NAV database current 
• Are all airports correct or will runways still be missing
• How about time zones
• Do/can cirrocumulus clouds exist
• How about icing

Again, I know we have to wait, bla bla , but wait for what? More impressive scenery shots? We can get much better than that with Just planes or YouTube vids. There needs to be vids/SS's of practical usage and realism features that are new and make the simulation exciting every time we fly. 

Since MS is lurking here, maybe they will see/understand my point and agree. Maybe we will see a 5 minute vid with some practical aviation simulation substance that will impress even me. 

 

This comment is not necessarily directed at you because I don't know what you are willing to pay for a "complete" simulation, ...but, it seems there are some, maybe many people that think $60 should be the limit to pay and at the same time want more and more with every little detail covered.  And, at the same time they don't really expect to have to pay anything more to get that.  Programming costs money.  I'm not a programmer, but I would suspect that many of the aspects of simulation that people want provided are not that simple of a task when it comes to the programming part.  I'm not just talking about MSFS, but also any of the current third-party add-ons, too.

Jeff

Edited July 27, 20196 yr by JNS

36 minutes ago, PhilipG said:

Watch it fullscreen and it doesn't shimmer.

Exactly.  it's freaking beautiful.  Everything we've seen so far about MSFS is stunning, hopeful, promising, wonderful.

Sure I'd like more info too but release is over a year away and it hasn't even entered beta yet, so lets please be realistic folks.  Microsoft is being extremely communicative and what they have said so far sounds incredibly on point and connected to what the community wants.

I'm more excited today for the future of flight simulation than I've been for a decade now, and I honestly can't believe some of the naysayers I've been hearing here.

9 hours ago, ganter said:

"Oh dear."

Really, really hoped that MSFS had a better outreach than this - "in to The Community."

BTW; what's the takeaway (from this Update - apart from a pretty terrible "look down" from CRZ at a load of LOD shimmering) once we have established that there is no takeaway from this at all - apart from the fact that we knew they were looking here?

The whole thing has just emptied my trough of hope and turned it upside-down; the contents spilled in the street of despair - and left to putrefaction on the foothills of our aspirations.

(Well, someone had to say it!)

They really didn't.

For the record, I have a bog standard 1080p display, and that three second video didn't exhibit any obvious shimmering.