4 hours ago, aleex said:

While that gateway support custom buildings... no problem for me. 

I don't like the way XP handles it. A lot of airports have custom buildings in real life that doesn't match at all with the ones in the sim. 

The problem with supporting custom buildings/assets in general is the authors could be using files made by others without their permission. The airport author can be using some assets made by Orbx or FSDT and if Microsoft add it to the base sim in an update that would most certainly cause them a problem with the original authors.

For that reason, MS would have to pay a lot of attention on that matter and it would be almost impossible to validate every texture/model/asset uploaded by the users.

Other reason custom assets/building aren't viable to be added on a gateway model is performance. Some models made by the community have high costs on performance. All default models are tested on that matter.

But just like on the X-Plane gateway, if Microsoft decides to implement something alike, there will be a half way for that: 3rd party pages/sites offering airports with custom made assets. Leaving the official gateway for the airports made 100% with Microsoft's library objects.

7 hours ago, Superdelphinus said:

I agree with this. At the risk of being screamed at, that what develops want thread worries me a bit. 

I'm glad they made that thread though...

It's a great list of things I hope MS mostly "doesn't do too much of" - lol

(plus it keeps it all out of here)

I'm not too worried about the developer thread leading to a bad result. There is no market for addons to "fix" the sim, if the sim includes everything the users are looking for. 

And if the sim doesn't include everything the users are looking for, then you're going to want those products to be available.

4 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

I'm not too worried about the developer thread leading to a bad result. There is no market for addons to "fix" the sim, if the sim includes everything the users are looking for. 

And if the sim doesn't include everything the users are looking for, then you're going to want those products to be available.

The concern is MS wasting resources trying to bend over backwards to accommodate some of those developer requests for “how they think things should work“. 

This software needs to be focused on the users/purchasers of it - not around design concessions so add-on developers can make a business around it.

That should simply be ancillary and only if necessary down the line. 

8 hours ago, Superdelphinus said:

I agree with this. At the risk of being screamed at, that what develops want thread worries me a bit. 

I most assuredly will not "scream at" you, I will point out however that most - if not all - of the suggestions being made will also enhance even the default assets as well, making for a better experience for everyone.

For example, who wouldn't like better and more realistic landing and taxi lights?

5 minutes ago, n4gix said:

For example, who wouldn't like better and more realistic landing and taxi lights?

Well - to be fair, that's not really developer specific and could just as well be a request in this thread.

Obviously everyone wants something like that.  😁

I'm more worried about the big things (like how any add-ons would work and be sold and controlled/vetted or not by MS).

Some quality control and pricing standardization (lower for most add-ons) would be most welcome.

Also, OrbX is doing a nice job with their FTX Central thing - but I basically want something like that from the platform vendor, not a random third party.

Arguably, one really big reason to want MS to handle a lot of this stuff is for the XBOX side and its potential.  The more that is first party native or integrated the better the chance the XB versions can close to feature parity with PC versions.

Edited July 28, 20196 yr by irrics

On 7/27/2019 at 7:29 AM, vortex681 said:

I disagree. Plenty of people will buy it if it has the best scenery and planes (with appropriate flight models). Not everyone wants the complexity that some here seem to be demanding. Plus, as they've now stated that it will have an SDK, it's quite possible that add-ons will be created to make up for any perceived deficiencies. The simple fact that they're having an Insider/beta program shows that they're confident that what they'll produce will be well-received. If it's just a simple, basic game with eye-candy it's likely to effectively die before being released - the Insider program will probably have plenty of flight sim enthusiasts who wouldn't be reluctant to criticise it if it didn't live up to the hype.

You make a good point, but that point is invalidated by history. DTG gave many copies of FSW away. I personally did not pay for Flight School or FSW, but just because I got to participate in the forums and got it for free does not make them successful sims. There may be 2 people in the whole world that still fly in DTG Flight School and there is little difference between the features of Flight School and FSW. To sum up, the simplicity, even though it was very inexpensive/free to many, and the aircraft were quit complex out of the box, did not suffice. DTG was confident that they would produce the next FSX, but early on, they were told that the realism features would have to exceed FSX. And to truly be a success the features would have to exceed or at least attempt to exceed FSX/P3D/XP with popular add-ons. The MS team has the same standard, because our 3PP have done a wonderful job filling the gap. The reason for this standard is not "dreamed up" or "conjured" by me, but rather what we already have (common sense). We wont go backwards, so if we are just as happy with what we already have, then there will be no need for another that does not exceed what we already have.

The insider program will be a venue to provide feedback, but if the feedback is not acted on (not just "listened" to or "responded to in word" form) it is totally useless, just like what happened to FSW.

There can be complexity and simplicity in the sim out of the box. A simple example is in FSX concerning the weather. One could choose real weather, a weather theme, or create their own weather, and it could be even be changed on the fly. This kind of realism choice can be applied to many aspects/features, so that all type of simmers can be happy. But there should be absolutes too, for example in MS Flight it was thought that keeping the planes simple, even no cockpits in several planes would be acceptable, or to just totally forget about even including ATC! Death was swift because the absolutes (present in FSX) were forsaken. The fact that it was free/cheap, multiplayer, wonderful scenery, better clouds, aero caches, or the wonderful job board concept, did not save MS Flight.    

My feedback to MS is: they can make the new sim appealing to newbies and gamers, but newbies essentially don't exist yet (no hard data), and gamers will not fully support the product. Flight simmers (who are already present with wallets - hard data) are interested in realism features, that is why the "As real as it gets" motto/intent/delivery was so successful for decades.

I really think that all of us here are in agreement about this, and I'm certainly not a foe of flight simulation success, so nobody here has to be concerned about my position unless they hate flight simulation.  

4 minutes ago, pracines said:

My feedback to MS is: they can make the new sim appealing to newbies and gamers, but newbies essentially don't exist yet (no hard data), and gamers will not fully support the product.

How on Earth do you know gamers won't support the product?

We've not had a new/modern/gorgeous MSFS yet.  A ton of current gamers you're dismissing were not even born or too young to even be interested the last time an FSX version released.

Those visuals they're showing us are groundbreaking and those alone will get the interest peaked.  Build and grow on that base and we shall see.  

I'm very optimistic here.  There's potentially a new world of untapped potential.

 

Edited July 28, 20196 yr by irrics

12 minutes ago, irrics said:

The concern is MS wasting resources trying to bend over backwards to accommodate some of those developer requests for “how they think things should work“. 

This software needs to be focused on the users/purchasers of it - not around design concessions so add-on developers can make a business around it.

That should simply be ancillary and only if necessary down the line. 

Most of the posts I read in that developer thread deal with aircraft and airport modeling. I don't see a downside in MS bending over backwards to provide support for those products from 3rd parties.

As end-users we're going to need that level of 3rd party developer involvement, unless you think MS is capable of providing all the aircraft we want, and cover the world with highly detailed airports.

For other areas like weather, sure, we should expect not to need anything outside the sim. But only if they get it right, which won't be easy. Developer support in that area could be a good thing, unless again you're assuming MS will get it right the first time. We want that to happen, but I'd feel better with a backstop where 3rd party devs have enough hooks into the sim to make improvements if needed. 

3 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Most of the posts I read in that developer thread

I'll trust you - I've only read it here and there,

Again - I want third party support, but I don't want them going too far out of their way for it (depending upon what the tradeoffs would be).

Honestly I trust MS on this completely.  The mere fact they wanted to get back into this space and did it by surprise tells me they are way ahead of us all with their thoughts and plans.

Just keep this in mind, Commercial and freeware developers have just as much right to voice their wants as anyone else. Hopefully all the suggestions will have a beneficial effect for the entire community. 

16 minutes ago, 188AHC said:

Just keep this in mind, Commercial and freeware developers have just as much right to voice their wants as anyone else.

Yes - obviously

Who is trying to silence anyone or arguing that all can't say whatever they want?

Edited July 28, 20196 yr by irrics

On 7/26/2019 at 10:06 AM, 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.

First you came in here with a bunch of "we" this and "we" that...

When someone challenged your comments, you then stated the following...

On 7/26/2019 at 1:46 PM, pracines said:

I did speak for me myself and I😂

Would you care to explain your contradiction here??

 

4 hours ago, pracines said:

I really think that all of us here are in agreement about this, and I'm certainly not a foe of flight simulation success, so nobody here has to be concerned about my position unless they hate flight simulation.  

"I" do not agree with your conclusion here. "I" think that your postion / posts antagonize and then deflect...all the while masquerading as sincere input.

MS really doesn't owe the community anything until the release date when they start seeking "money in exchange" for a product. Obviously, they are looking to gain excitement / buzz and receive community feedback beforehand. "I" think that the little that they have shown thus far has gone a long way to achieve that goal.

 

 

Gentlemen and Ladies,   We are in a unique position right now with the new MSFS. We actually have an opportunity to interject our wishes and our experienced shortfalls into the development of this new simulator. We have not really had this before.

You should all be aware by now that some of the team are reading our comments as they have mentioned them in the update.

Please be respectful to each other and to Microsoft. They really don't have to do this and I for one would be extremely disappointed in us if they tell us that due to our pie in the sky wishes or our negativity that they are no longer afford us the opportunity to participate in the development. 

I want us all to participate politely and reasonably so we can feel the joy of some partial ownership in the new sim when it's released.