Important for success at the beginning

[Krakin 5,914]

Microsoft Team, hi there :). Just want to encourage you guys to do whatever you have to, to move the franchise forward in a meaningful way. If that means having to cut out the add-ons that have come before, so be it. I'll happily buy new add-ons that reflect what your new engine can do and I KNOW even though we have to start over, as long as you make the core sim as fantastic as it can be, we will buy it in droves. You've already promised that 3rd party and user generated content will be supported so just give me great physics and systems and go crazy melting my eyeballs! Can't wait for 2020!

[Krakin 5,914]

34 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

It's easy to look at the default scenery in FSX (now that we have very good add-on scenery to compare it to) and say that it was bad when it was released. The reviews which are still available talk about an "amazingly detailed world" and "the world is modelled in exquisite detail". There's no doubt that the likes of Orbx made it better, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as bad out-of-the-box. The problem is that what we now consider to be realistic is a very different thing to what was considered realistic in 2006.

I think that depends on where you fly. I'm from the Caribbean and so I'd spend a lot of time doing island hops in the Baron 58. Out of the box, the Caribbean is not very good at all. The geometry detail is lacking, airports look nothing like the real thing, the Pitons from my country are just not there. Back in 2006 I was not happy with it and it eventually led to me getting Taxi2Gate's scenery.

[HighTowers 1,439]

Seems very presumptuous to expect high fidelity aircraft at launch. These things take time, and especially if the core and everything else that goes along with it has fundamentally changed.  The visuals will come and so will features, but to expect everything to be absolutely wow at launch just doesnt seem realistic.  Would make sense that the core of the sim, is strong and relatively bug free, and that performance is top notch.  Once these things are cemented, its only then that enhancements can be added, be it the aircraft, wx, AI, or further enhanced scenery. Success is really about having a balanced view on what to expect during beta and at launch.  Expecting everything we have today be it P3D XP or even FSX who have had years of being built up, is setting up for disappointment.  Have no doubt that with Microsofts history, and lessons learnt of the past, these things will certainly be discussed and implemented properly at many developer meetings. 

All IMHO. Im no developer, but even with technological advances, I dont see that suddenly we have a full fledged sim to everyone's hearts content at launch.  But I do expect great things and really look forward to the years ahead.   

[Kevin_28 176]

Personally, I don't expect the likes of PMDG to be available at launch of MSFS. I don't quite understand why people think that is even a possibility. It would take a bit of a leap of faith, on the 3rd party dev's part, to invest in making a plane for a new sim that MIGHT not have the numbers to show that it would be profitable for them to do so. If anything, I can see them looking into making a plane maybe a half a year or more down the road if they have solid data that it has enough demand to make it financially feasible to them. How long has it taken for X-Plane to get a PMDG? All I feel MSFS should to do is provide a nice comprehensive SDK and give freedom to 3rd party devs (freeware/payware) and not try to force them into scenarios where MS can cuts into the dev's profits.

As for me, I'll likely purchase at launch because I want to support the effort.

Edited August 12, 2019 by Kevin_28

[Rimshot 1,187]

4 hours ago, vortex681 said:

It's easy to look at the default scenery in FSX (now that we have very good add-on scenery to compare it to) and say that it was bad when it was released. The reviews which are still available talk about an "amazingly detailed world" and "the world is modelled in exquisite detail". There's no doubt that the likes of Orbx made it better, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as bad out-of-the-box. The problem is that what we now consider to be realistic is a very different thing to what was considered realistic in 2006.

The default FSX scenery wasn't bad indeed, but I remember an amazing flaw that really put me of the first time I did a flight over the Netherlands; the Dutch green meadows all looked awful, like desert. Just google 'desert like textures fsx' and you'll find that trip down memory lane too. Back then we needed the likes of GEX and Orbx Global to make the sim look good.

[MikeT707 1,181]

12 hours ago, vortex681 said:

It's easy to look at the default scenery in FSX (now that we have very good add-on scenery to compare it to) and say that it was bad when it was released. The reviews which are still available talk about an "amazingly detailed world" and "the world is modelled in exquisite detail". There's no doubt that the likes of Orbx made it better, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as bad out-of-the-box. The problem is that what we now consider to be realistic is a very different thing to what was considered realistic in 2006.

For me, the default scenery looked bad in 2006. I remember the strange deserts surrounding airports, the repetitive and bland autogen boxes, crummy trees, poorly scaled houses and trees, ugly water, etc., etc., etc. Oh yeah, and it performed l very badly too. Many people either stuck with FS9 or waited it out for Orbx to transform the sim. 

[LHookins 3,117]

9 hours ago, Kevin_28 said:

I don't expect the likes of PMDG to be available at launch of MSFS. I don't quite understand why people think that is even a possibility.

While there won't be any PMDG aircraft as default, it wouldn't surprise me to find a PMDG aircraft available at launch.  

For this to happen, Microsoft would have had to approach PMDG early in the design process of MSFS.  PMDG originally did not consider making aircraft for P3D or XPlane, so they're open to new platforms now.  

Having a PMDG plane available at launch would go a long way toward making the serious simmers happy.

I have no interest in PMDG aircraft myself, but a new flight sim needs a few aircraft made to PMDG standards.

Hook

[Ray Proudfoot 9,064]

12 hours ago, Rimshot said:

The default FSX scenery wasn't bad indeed, but I remember an amazing flaw that really put me of the first time I did a flight over the Netherlands; the Dutch green meadows all looked awful, like desert. Just google 'desert like textures fsx' and you'll find that trip down memory lane too. Back then we needed the likes of GEX and Orbx Global to make the sim look good.

And if my memory serves me correctly England also looked like a desert and not the green and pleasant land it is. FSX needed Orbx to make it look like the country I recognise.

[MaDDogz 242]

Would acceleration change that? As my default England in Fsx is very green 😐 🤷‍♂️

[Christopher Low 5,425]

In my opinion, default scenery in Microsoft Flight Simulator has not been good in every version since FS5 (and that was the worst of all). I remember thinking that I would have preferred to see the mesh terrain with FS4 style colour vector graphics than the awful shimmering low resolution texture garbage that I got with FS5.

Edited August 13, 2019 by Christopher Low

[G-RFRY 1,744]

In FSW the default scenery was done by ORBX.

They never said anything before the release.

Edited August 13, 2019 by rjfry

[Deleted 250]

I do not think we have to talk about the scenery. Microsoft knows that's an important point.

The question is how realistic they can make aircrafts, and when external developers may work on it.

 

Maybe they do better than pmdg? Although I believe that Microsoft lacks the experience. But who knows?

Edited August 13, 2019 by Pitbull2504

[Wobbie 938]

It should be obvious to all, that default scenery in all the MS sims were pretty basic, as MS just gave us a sim engine at the time, and it was both payware and freeware developers that fleshed the sim out, and gave us many options of planes and scenery for us to add to the basic sim engine, to make it as immersive to us, as we wanted. 

Any thoughts that the new sim will be complete, as so many posts have said what is wanted, out the box, are pipe dreams. It is up to developers to offer addons for us to decide upon. An example, would a simmer that only flies in Alaska, for instance, would he or she really want finely detailed African scenery, if he is never going to fly there? 

A brand new sim most certainly does not need, initially, all the serious simmers detail to be able to be attractive to the millions of newbies, that would obviously be MS's target market within the Xbox 'world'. 

So, to be successful, Microsoft has to open the doors to newbies, with an accessable product, and open the sim to the developers to add immersion that's accessible to the more serious simmer. 

[Deleted 250]

https://www.pcinvasion.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-2020-will-it-be-a-comeback-or-a-crash/