19 minutes ago, stephenbgs said:

It needs to be split into two categories immersion/simulation 

A couple of years ago i would have agreed with the OP but this last week since my scenery library got all messed up i can't bring myself to complete a flight because of lack of immersion no point in flying a PMDG,FSL,Majestic complex aircraft with full systems when you look out the window to poor surroundings, so my hope for the new MSFS is focus on in depth immersion, graphic engine etc...  and get an SDK to 3rd parties as soon as possible to work on high end simulation

Nailed it.

Deep simulation will always be with the third party developers. When they will be enabled to push these simulations out is unclear but hopefully in the spirit of Microsoft Flight Simulator that should happen at some point during or after the release of the new platform.

Microsoft themselves will need to strike a balance between system modelling and being accessible to a wide number of users - not a trivial task as you really don't want to put new flyers off so I suspect some of that will be accomplished by the types of aircraft they choose but also the number and fidelity of systems they implement which some people will not like but hey ho.

Edited August 11, 20196 yr by dtrjones

Dear Microsoft and flight simmers, 

I agree with the OP, but I do not want it limited to Aircraft - I want it all - Aircraft, Scenery, WX, etc.

All categories of flight simmers need to be happy. Just like previous versions of MSFS did.

There is no way the new MSFS will be a success unless it exceeds all we currently have already. And no, I'm not talking about unreasonable impossibilities for free.

Throughout history, this progression has been why MSFS has succeeded in the past. This community is not going to allow for all the time missed, and simply forget all the add-on (developers) technology that has kept us progressing all this time. In other words, redemption is not just an emotional thing, there has to be a tangible reason for redemption. Forgiveness is not free to just squander to those who keep doing the wrong thing (missteps), that is why there is such thing as not forgiven, or punishment, or consequences. This community will not go backwards for the sake of a new sim that will take us there, or for any reason. If stagnation is the only option then so be it, but this community will not stand for going backwards. Proof is obvious (this very forum and the misstep announcements from MS). I think even the developers will forgive quickly if the new MSFS (reasonably) exceeds all we have now. IF developers see potential for a wonderful long term future, they will join the redemption bandwagon very fast. 

I want MSFS to succeed. I even look forward to it, because I currently trust that MS is sincere and I believe they have the ability to exceed what we currently have.

My arms are wide open, ready to forgive.😊

I will go out on a limb and say a slow roll(outs) business model will fail, just like MS Flight and DTG FSW failed. This new sim must BURST onto the scene full of jaw dropping features or it will be ignored by the majority who already have awesome sim setups (add-ons).

*** I know of 9 people who will attack this post, but I tell you all, I did not attack their posts, and I'm giving my feedback. If they have any truthful factual proof that makes my feedback totally wrong, I would be willing to adjust my thinking with respectful dialog. If there is going to be attacks with a lack of respect, I will simply ignore.***

My main thing is: everybody is reasonably (we have good reason to be) happy/pleased with MSFS, who can argue with that?

2 hours ago, skully said:

You can't have realistic aircraft if the world in which we fly in is not realistic.

It depends upon your definition of "realistic". Was the world in FSX realistic? That seemed to work well enough for many years with study level aircraft. As much as I want high-quality graphics in the new sim, not having them doesn't change the realism of the aircraft.

1 hour ago, vortex681 said:

It depends upon your definition of "realistic". Was the world in FSX realistic? That seemed to work well enough for many years with study level aircraft. As much as I want high-quality graphics in the new sim, not having them doesn't change the realism of the aircraft.

I understand what you mean vortex and you are correct.

I think skully refers to a balance of features progressing. That has been the reality since MSFS began until FSX. About 40 years later and its ok to expect the same. 

4 hours ago, Pitbull2504 said:

just for your understanding, I'm synonymous for top graphics. I think we'll get that too, as we've seen. I just think external developers should have access as early as possible.

This whole topic is sidestepping the "What we want" topic and as such doesn't add anything to the discussion.

You need to understand the nobody outside selected vendors and Microsoft know anything about who or if 3rd party developers are already included in development or not. This has been expressed several times and some by me. So again I unequivocally state that NO One KNows.

I'm sure Microsoft will let us know when it's time for us to know.  Be patient.

 

2 hours ago, vortex681 said:

Was the world in FSX realistic?

13 years ago, sure!

I am ready for a realistic world set with expectations from technology in 2020 and beyond

“I want it all. I want it all. I want it all, and I want it NOW!”

- The internet

6 hours ago, vortex681 said:

It depends upon your definition of "realistic". Was the world in FSX realistic?

Yes, back in 2006 it was incredibly awesome.  BUT, simulation tech has moved forward while Microsoft Flight Simulator has stood still.  Third parties have helped it over the past decade but other sims have put FSX out to pasture with regards to "realism".

FS2020 does indeed need to up the graphics game considerably right out of the gate in order to be more appealing than the current sim offerings like P3D, Xplane, and Aerofly.  Luckily from what MS has showed us so far it does look like they fully understand this and plan to succeed in this category.

I personally feel like the realism of the simulated world is more important to the success of FS2020 out of the gate than having study level aircraft at launch.  Planes can be added later on easily (as long as MS allows for it) but a simulate Earth which isn't convincing will be a much higher bar to surpass after the fact.

I would not define the default world of FSX in 2006 as "awesome". Even back then, I was disappointed (yet again) with the default terrain graphics and textures in the MSFS world.

It does not cost any resources for development if external developers are involved at an early stage. Who knows, maybe they are already developing? I just wanted to point out to Microsoft that I can not start with the new MSFS until deep simulation is available. If I have to wait another year it is ok. It's just a hint.

Please, please Microsoft just concentrate on giving us a breathtaking and fully simulated Earth to fly within. Oh yeah, good ATC would also be nice 🙂

Let the experts (PMDG, Aerosoft, FSL Labs ect.) take care of the advanced planes and systems simulation. 

P.S. Great night lighting would also be appreciated.

22 hours ago, vortex681 said:

Was the world in FSX realistic?

No. Not even for 2006.

A huge number of people needed Orbx to improve the look of things because the scenery was so bad.

On 8/11/2019 at 6:14 AM, Pitbull2504 said:

Dear Microsoft,

I think it's important to know that success at the beginning depends on a single point. 

In the trailer we have seen super nice pictures. I'm thankfull. But, if there are no deep simulation aircrafts (like pmdg, aerosoft, ...) at the beginning, it will be useless for many.

If we will not have to wait for a year or more, it will not do much sense for many people. A lot of us simmers consider realistic aircrafts as more important than great graphics.

Therefore, I hope that external developers are already involved. 

(That's my opinion, but I'm sure that many agree with me here)

Why would any developer bother with a community that takes it upon themselves to “dictate” the course and direction of a product?

Yes, a Dev will certainly want to create a product that the community wants (supply the demand) and realize an acceptable profit. However, when “what we want” becomes “what you better do you or else” from folks who really don’t understand “what it takes” and don't have the know how / resources to do it themselves, then the community needs a reality check.

Yes, both Flight and FSW failed to win over the community, but DTG and MS are “still” going strong as they have many other successful products to keep the lights on. Even when FSW failed, DTG had success with the FSX steam license with over 5k in available dlc, and other simulator products. And well, I just renewed my Office 365 subscription, so I am sure that MS will be around for some time regardless of what happens with MSFS.

So, “who has been losing” in the past 5 - 10 years with poor performing, inefficient sims that can’t really harness the latest CPU / GPU technology?

So, “who has to spend” extra $$$ for weather, clouds texture, ground enhancements (Orbx high price piece meal pricing strategy) etc.

So, “who has to wait” for small incremental updates and then have to reinstall everything, wait even longer for the addons to catch up….or pay for so called enhancements/fixes…because I am sure that P3Ds avatar really bridged that realism gap to warrant an additional charge.

So yeah, keep up with the demands about what must exist on day one….you don’t have it yet, and you then you try to threaten the very Devs who has any chance of delivering it in the future.

If the folks at PMDG etc. were all that, then they would have “created” their own sim platform by now to fly their “awesome” planes in. So why aren’t you demanding that they “build” a sim (not piggyback off of Microsoft).

Edited August 12, 20196 yr by FlyBaby

29 minutes ago, MikeT707 said:

No. Not even for 2006.

A huge number of people needed Orbx to improve the look of things because the scenery was so bad.

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.

36 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

Why would any developer bother with a community that takes it upon themselves to “dictate” the course and direction of a product?

 

please read my text again. I think you have misunderstood a lot here.