Never understood deal breakers. If it can't be our first sim whats wrong with making it our second or third sim?

Pragmatically the only deal breakers you should apply is the deal breaker that we all apply to all software, will it run well on my system and will I enjoy it.

Sure if we are bored then we can return to our main sim, but for some I would say it could replace there primary sim but that's not absolutely necessary for a day one purchase.

2 hours ago, skiamakia said:

Crappy performance, not using modern power of CPU threads and etc. to deliver smooth 60+ FPS gameplay 

Owwww bless, It's nice to see we have some AMD users among us LOL!

6 hours ago, sightseer said:

I think the DA42 hangar shot is a cut scene that everyone would see upon selecting the DA42 to fly. Its a movie.  No one will need ray tracing to run it (that part).

I'm not sure about that.

I do think there could be more emphasis on work outside the cockpit, like a walk around feature which could be a reason for the hanger.

I would completely dismiss ray tracing as being part of a cut scene - ray tracing (or lets say dynamic reflections) is already used everywhere so it seems to be baked into the graphics engine.

Depth of field effects are different and I think thats just added to sell the shots a little more and not something that would necessirly make it in-game.

I think Microsoft should deliver the solid basement from lunch, which runs smoothly and has all major features which are most requested here. rest will do the community 🙂

16 hours ago, dtrjones said:

Never understood deal breakers. If it can't be our first sim whats wrong with making it our second or third sim?

 

This really depends on the person. I don't want to run 2 or 3 sims...ideally (due to time etc.), I want just 1 civil flight sim and 1 military flight sim (DCS).

For me, it is the same dynamic with car racing sims....at one point, i had several of them (F1 series, AC, Pcars, GSC RaceRoom, etc.) on my PC, Managing car setups. hardware profiles etc became too time consuming. Eventually, I settled on PCARs as the best "overall" fit for my needs, and I haven't looked back although other sims may do 1 or 2 things better. 

All of the top civil flight sims have performance issues. I am hoping that MSFS becomes that 1 civil flight sim, but not if I cant run max settings (even with the best hardware) to have the visual experience that we see in the trailers.

Therefore, even if MSFS doesn't have "everything" on day 1, smooth performance is a must for me...as it will be something that no one else has been able to do thus far.

 

 

Edited August 19, 20196 yr by FlyBaby

6 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

This really depends on the person. I don't want to run 2 or 3 sims...ideally (due to time etc.), I want just 1 civil flight sim and 1 military flight sim (DCS).

For me, it is the same dynamic with car racing sims....at one point, i had several of them (F1 series, AC, Pcars, GSC RaceRoom, etc.) on my PC, Managing car setups. hardware profiles etc became too time consuming. Eventually, I settled on PCARs as the best "overall" fit for my needs, and I haven't looked back although other sims may do 1 or 2 things better. 

All of the top civil flight sims have performance issues. I am hoping that MSFS becomes that 1 civil flight sim, but not if I cant run max settings (even with the best hardware) to have the visual experience that we see in the trailers.

Therefore, even if MSFS doesn't have "everything" on day 1, smooth performance is a must for me...as it will be something that no one else has been able to do thus far.

 

 

Thats a fair comment. I would caution the performance though. Personally if Microsoft Flight Simulator could let you run smooth on max settings I would be hugely disappointed. I hope they leverage the hardware but there will always be a cost with cutting edge graphics, thats not to say you can't get good frames and still have it looking better than anything else out there, just don't expect miracles!

I bought both Flight and FSW, so my deal-breaker ceiling is pretty low.  Size of subscription price would be the biggest hurdle.  One-time fixed price not so much.

I have no "deal breakers".  I supported every version of Microsoft Flight Simulator since the beginning, (also Bruce Artwicks version), Microsoft Flight, and DTG FSW. I will purchase MSFS regardless of what is posted here whether I fly it regularly or not. However, ray tracing or not, I will not spend over 1,000 dollars on a new video card to run it. I will run it with what I have which based on what I know at present that will be possible.

 

Heck, I even have Xplane and haven't installed it. I want the flight simming community to continue long after I'm dust so I try to support it. I hope young people get  the fever and keep it going. This is going to be up to us old simmers

2 hours ago, 188AHC said:

I have no "deal breakers".  I supported every version of Microsoft Flight Simulator since the beginning, (also Bruce Artwicks version), Microsoft Flight, and DTG FSW. I will purchase MSFS regardless of what is posted here whether I fly it regularly or not. However, ray tracing or not, I will not spend over 1,000 dollars on a new video card to run it. I will run it with what I have which based on what I know at present that will be possible.

 

I get that outlook, I also bought FSW (although I really did not fly it waiting for more updates) because I wanted to fund further development.

But at the end of the day, when Flight and FSW went under, MS and DTG were still making money on other products....so, they really didn't need my funds.

Going forward, i would only have a "support the cause" attitude towards a smaller new Dev team.

With all of that said, if MSFS stated that they could guarantee max settings & smooth performance with the latest CPU, and 2 GTX 2080 TIs running SLI, I would be willing to upgrade to experience it.

I just don't see a reason to buy another sim showing pretty pictures / videos if the reality is that no one, absolutely no one will ever experience it personally because no hardware exists that can run it.

 

 

11 hours ago, 188AHC said:

I have no "deal breakers".  I supported every version of Microsoft Flight Simulator since the beginning, (also Bruce Artwicks version), Microsoft Flight, and DTG FSW. I will purchase MSFS regardless of what is posted here whether I fly it regularly or not. 

8 hours ago, 188AHC said:

Heck, I even have Xplane and haven't installed it. I want the flight simming community to continue long after I'm dust so I try to support it. I hope young people get  the fever and keep it going. This is going to be up to us old simmers

Just the contrary here.  

I began simmming with Airsim-1 from Mind Systems in 1981 (who remembers that one ?) then went to FS1 because it was better.  

I am not in the business of supporting anybody. I am in the business of having fun in learning how to fly and flying . This is a market not a charity or a cause or a church.  When MSFS was not the best (FS95 & 98), I didn't buy it and flew a better competition (Fly! and FU). I would go as far as saying that "supporting" a sim is a disservice as it doesn't encourage the developers to get their act together.  I think that MS felt the heat as we saw a significant improvement of the franchise with FS2k2. I came back then.

That a reason why a deal breaker thread is a good idea. The FS20 team shouldn't take our purchase as granted. 

Educate the youngsters ? I have not the ambition to organize a world to which I will not belong.

 

Edited August 20, 20196 yr by domkle

9 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

With all of that said, if MSFS stated that they could guarantee max settings & smooth performance with the latest CPU, and 2 GTX 2080 TIs running SLI

There isn't a snowball in hell's chance of that! The software/firmware variability between PCs, even with the same hardware, is so great that you could never guarantee performance. In another game I play, I'm getting better performance at the same settings than some people who have much better and more modern hardware than me. It's probably more about how the hardware and software are optimized and harmonised than it is about just the hardware.

2 hours ago, vortex681 said:

There isn't a snowball in hell's chance of that! The software/firmware variability between PCs, even with the same hardware, is so great that you could never guarantee performance. In another game I play, I'm getting better performance at the same settings than some people who have much better and more modern hardware than me. It's probably more about how the hardware and software are optimized and harmonised than it is about just the hardware.

I am not sure where you are going here...

However, you missed my point by clipping off my quote and losing the overall context. My point is that I would make any upgrade necessary for performance sake (to reach the visual levels of the trailer)....given that performance is my only deal breaker. 

 

 

 

 

 

Subscription and streaming would be my deal-breaker.... .

 

All the best,

Konrad

6 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

I am not sure where you are going here...

However, you missed my point by clipping off my quote and losing the overall context. My point is that I would make any upgrade necessary for performance sake (to reach the visual levels of the trailer)....given that performance is my only deal breaker. 

You're correct, and I apologise. The point I was trying to make was that even having the best hardware doesn't guarantee the best performance. So many other factors can spoil things.