Key things MS Should Not do

[Greazer 1,368]

1. Flight Planner - there's plenty of good flight planners, they should not spend resources on this. Same goes for sim data and moving maps etc (got Navigraph). Stay focused on the Core Sim features.

2. Super advanced default planes.  Default planes should be decent enough. Don't go all out for instance and attempt to destroy the Hotstart TBM 900 in XP!

3. Release one patch like FSX then disappear. It's called proper product support. 

4. Skip people like FSX did. There is some evidence of walking people in the trailer. We also need a first person walk mode for instance when inside the terminal or to do the walk around etc. 

5. Turn this into the sims. No choosing shirts and sneakers, however, it would be ok to have a house location to start from there (if you want), and drive to the airport etc.

6. Space sim. This is not a space simulator, don't take this thing too far!

7. Build it for 10 year old computers. Code it for multi-core CPU's. Code the graphics engine for instance to take advantage of modern GPU's, i.e. minimum: GTX 1060.    RTX/DLSS --> Big Thumbs up.

8. Forget LOD.  The graphics engine should be optimized to render nice detailed trees, grass, bears etc at gound level. Once in the air it should render less ground objects detail and more cloud detail etc. 

9. Poor hardware support.  Hint: Learn from XP here especially in term of the configuration.

10. Flat runways. Got to have those smooth slopes in FS2020.

[irrics 1,523]

#7 in particular!

Edited July 28, 2019 by irrics

[Paraffin 2,197]

54 minutes ago, Greazer said:

8. Forget LOD.  The graphics engine should be optimized to render nice detailed trees, grass, bears etc at gound level. Once in the air it should render less ground objects detail and more cloud detail etc. 

It's a good list for the rest, but I disagree with this one.

One of the things I really like about X-Plane is the way I can be approaching a small grass or dirt strip in bush country that I've never flown to before, and put on my pretend "Chuck Yeager Eagle Vision" by zooming way out from the cockpit to pick it up at a distance. I don't feel this is cheating, because a computer monitor isn't the real world. The detail is always less to begin with, and good pilots do have excellent vision for picking up details in the distance.

XP11 manages to show this high level detail in the distance without harming performance, so I don't believe it's necessary to compromise LOD if the scenery engine is well-optimized.

Monkeying around with dynamic LOD changes is how you get artifacts like scenery pop-in for distant objects, and I never want to see that in a flight sim. The right way to limit visible detail on the ground in the distance at high altitudes is with atmospheric haze, just like the real world.

I also disagree about changing the level of detail in clouds depending on how close you are to the ground. If I'm "scud running" by dipping in and out of a low ceiling to stay VFR near the ground, or looking for that final breakout to decision height for an IFR landing, I want the clouds to look just as realistic and detailed as they do up in the flight levels.

[fs4fun 366]

1 hour ago, Greazer said:

1. Flight Planner - there's plenty of good flight planners, they should not spend resources on this. Same goes for sim data and moving maps etc (got Navigraph). Stay focused on the Core Sim features.

Note that MSFS needs to load flight plan files so I'd add to this to make MSFS use a standardized flight plan format, not make up a proprietary undocumented format as they have done in the past. Perhaps .GPX or Foreflight formats, which are supported by Skyvector for example.

In addition it would be nice if their GPS or FMC gauges accepted flight plan entry including airways and published procedures.

I don't really object to MS making a basic flight planner for people who don't want the added complexity but then leave the hardcore flight planning features for external applications.

Edited July 28, 2019 by fs4fun

[nonflyingdutchman 40]

Bad news, new flightsim never ran on latest hardware, let alone.....😄

[Mihai Eu 10]

Actually #1 is a must for MS if they are to stream texture and what else from Azure. Or at least capture external data from 3rd party Flight Planner (but if I was a manager in MS I wouldn't accept that for the world). 

 

[Paraffin 2,197]

1 minute ago, nonflyingdutchman said:

Bad news, new flightsim never ran on latest hardware, let alone.....😄

All you have to do is make sure your PC matches the specs of the new "Scarlett" Xbox coming out in late 2020.  😉 

They're not going to release an Xbox game that doesn't run well on that system. Of course the early specs on that system sound much better than my current PC rig, so I've got some upgrading to think about in the next year. 

[188AHC 2,141]

#1 - No Bueno. Not everyone has Navigraph nor do we want it.

#8 - Again, No Bueno.

 

 

[Pastaiolo 1,690]

I feel like listening to a good chunk of the suggestions from the so called "simmers" would be a good thing for Microsoft to not do 😄

Edited July 28, 2019 by france89

[simmerhead 885]

Sounds reasonable, but no way they should skip a good flight planner. 

[ckyliu 1,749]

I can only agree with about half of the OPs points.

Edited July 28, 2019 by ckyliu

[Paraffin 2,197]

The flight planner issue is moot, because the official xbox/MSFS page says it will have one:

"Create your flight plan and fly anywhere on the planet."

It may not be as comprehensive as offline planners like LittleNavMap that I use, but if the data format is open and documented, then converting offline plans to the MSFS format should be possible for loading into GPS and FMS in the sim.

What I wouldn't want to see, is being locked into only using the internal flight planner. 

[rocketlaunch 637]

#6 - Flying into orbit is always fun 😞

[Krakin 5,977]

Hey, Microsoft Team, feel free to ignore points one and two.

[dtrjones 356]

2 hours ago, Greazer said:

1. Flight Planner - there's plenty of good flight planners, they should not spend resources on this. Same goes for sim data and moving maps etc (got Navigraph). Stay focused on the Core Sim features.

2. Super advanced default planes.  Default planes should be decent enough. Don't go all out for instance and attempt to destroy the Hotstart TBM 900 in XP!

3. Release one patch like FSX then disappear. It's called proper product support. 

4. Skip people like FSX did. There is some evidence of walking people in the trailer. We also need a first person walk mode for instance when inside the terminal or to do the walk around etc. 

5. Turn this into the sims. No choosing shirts and sneakers, however, it would be ok to have a house location to start from there (if you want), and drive to the airport etc.

6. Space sim. This is not a space simulator, don't take this thing too far!

7. Build it for 10 year old computers. Code it for multi-core CPU's. Code the graphics engine for instance to take advantage of modern GPU's, i.e. minimum: GTX 1060.    RTX/DLSS --> Big Thumbs up.

8. Forget LOD.  The graphics engine should be optimized to render nice detailed trees, grass, bears etc at gound level. Once in the air it should render less ground objects detail and more cloud detail etc. 

9. Poor hardware support.  Hint: Learn from XP here especially in term of the configuration.

10. Flat runways. Got to have those smooth slopes in FS2020.

Not wishing to be negative (thats a bad start LOL!) I think you mean well Greazer but I think many of these are a bit patronising to Microsoft, they know whats worked in the past and what hasn't.

I would also question removing game mechanics which improve the base sim experience for everybody. We need to continue developing the likes of flight planning so that third parties can provide a more seemless experience - for me that starts with getting basics right in the sim first, same for ATC, you can't leave that entirely to third party developers because the base experience would suffer.

Microsoft has always been about creating the most rounded accessible experience for people of all skills and age groups so I'm sure thats what they'll want to continue to do.

Edited July 28, 2019 by dtrjones