3 hours ago, dtrjones said:

Dovetail's Flight Sim World had a clear performance hit switching between 2D and 3D clouds

That wasn't my experience at all. I saw very little (if any) change in performance using trueSKY with FSW. That was one of the things that impressed me most about it.

11 hours ago, domkle said:

Sorry but my ambitions are low. What I look forward is not Hollywoodian sunsets but a sun which blinds me when I look at it. 

You could stare at the real Sun and then sit down at your sim.

1 hour ago, NotASenator said:

You could stare at the real Sun and then sit down at your sim.

Duct tape a laser pointer to your monitor. Sometimes the old ways are best.😍

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I love these discussions, see, no one can agree on a sunset, not even real ones ... 

😂😂😂😂

This is true, even real life photos are still not as real as they should be in the eyes of some.

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I love these discussions, see, no one can agree on a sunset, not even real ones ... and this is where, how, and why 3rd party Add-Ons are born 🙂 ... Microsoft's interpretation/simulation may not be the same as what other's want to see ... viola, enter REX, TOGA Projects, AS, PTA, etc. are all back in business with MFS.

And that's just sunsets ... then we have trees, grass, weeds, cloud types, etc. etc. ...  

 

Everyone's taste / tolerance will vary.

To me, the current 3rd party addon demand is about filling in gaps as opposed to offering additional flavors.

I am not looking for perfection (like the sunset) in a sim, I am just looking for something that represents what I would expect to see in real life.

From what I have seen thus far with MSFS, I will not have a need for any cloud. sky, ground texture addons. Sure, these products may exists in the future for MSFS, but I am not willing to spend more $$$ for additional flavors when the core product offers a "good enough" representation of the sky, clouds, sunset etc.

I just don't see where there would be "as much of a need / demand" with MSFS for the current suite of 3rd party addons that exist for XP and P3D. You definitely would not see me paying $50+ dollars for a more detailed state, or night lighting enhancements, clouds, almost anything Orbx, etc.

I would only pay for something that did not come with the core sim, like additional aircraft, a special view utility etc.
 

 

18 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

From what I have seen thus far with MSFS, I will not have a need for any cloud. sky, ground texture addons. Sure, these products may exists in the future for MSFS, but I am not willing to spend more $$$ for additional flavors when the core product offers a "good enough" representation of the sky, clouds, sunset etc.

I just don't see where there would be "as much of a need / demand" with MSFS for the current suite of 3rd party addons that exist for XP and P3D. You definitely would not see me paying $50+ dollars for a more detailed state, or night lighting enhancements, clouds, almost anything Orbx, etc.

I would only pay for something that did not come with the core sim, like additional aircraft, a special view utility etc.

I have the same basic perspective, and don't use any shader enhancements or "art settings" in XP11 (with one exception, see below). But people are different, and some really enjoy fooling around with that stuff. I can't believe how some people like to boost saturation, for example. That doesn't look at all realistic to me, but it's a popular setting change. So it's probably a good thing if the new MSFS allows that on some level, either internally or with add-ons 

The other reason why it might be a good idea, is if MS doesn't quite get it "right" in for accuracy, or just what you're used to seeing when flying IRL.

For example, I think the haze effect in XP11 is a little overdone, possibly because that's what Austin is used to seeing in the humid areas he flies IRL. So at first I reduced it with one of the config file settings. Lately I've just been using ActiveSkyX where the default haze is slightly reduced. 

As I said in the other thread about the flight model, I don't expect MSFS to be perfect right out of the box, so it would be a good idea to have a bit of adjustment if we want it. And those who do think it's perfect, won't have to do anything at all.

4 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

To me, the current 3rd party addon demand is about filling in gaps as opposed to offering additional flavors.

 I am not looking for perfection

I’m personally mainly looking for a beautiful, performant, feature filled Sim that requires as few Add-ons as possible (if any). 

I honestly want third party add-ons to be purely additive and 100% optional for a first class experience. 

Edited September 2, 20196 yr by irrics

5 hours ago, rhumbaflappy said:

Duct tape a laser pointer to your monitor. Sometimes the old ways are best.

"With your remaining eye, do not look BACK into the laser..."

 

4 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

I would only pay for something that did not come with the core sim, like additional aircraft, a special view utility etc.

One of the first add on programs I bought was Active Sky to replace the problematic Jeppesen weather.

No matter what comes in the box there will always be room for improvement.

Hook

Whatever it looks like out of the box, the graphics shaders should be in a folder and changeable by 3rd party developers. The X-vision guy (in X Plane)  tweaked the shaders which can give a whole new custom look to the sim (depending on which preset you choose). Microsoft have to make it so.

58 minutes ago, Greazer said:

Whatever it looks like out of the box, the graphics shaders should be in a folder and changeable by 3rd party developers. The X-vision guy (in X Plane)  tweaked the shaders which can give a whole new custom look to the sim (depending on which preset you choose). Microsoft have to make it so.

I just subscribed to your YouTube channel. I had enjoyed your videos in the past. But I didn't connect you (in this forum) to the great flight videos on YouTube.

On 8/30/2019 at 2:01 AM, Turpentine said:

Wow, I mean seriously, given what I see in the videos and how they are in tune with the community, how could I be disappointed? This is amazing.

Ooh, just wait... one can always find something...

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

There never will be a perfect flight model with today's or tomorrow's processing power limits, air flow analysis alone would be calculated in mins per frame ... best we can hope for is a close approximation to flight envelopes based on simulated environment variables.  I think it would be important to allow for external flight models, XP11 and P3D can accomplish this but I think it would be better to ask why the need to go thru the rather extensive work to get a flight model that at least follows the parameters of the aircraft.  Flight dynamics are typically restricted to 10% or less of CPU time ... adding the desired environment variables to establish higher fidelity can encroach of allocated CPU processing time ... so with the CPU doing so much flight dynamic calcs the FPS drops resulting in controller lag/disconnect which is a worse situation.  Lots of give an take, but perhaps the hooks could be provided and enabled for those more serious about flight dynamics than graphical stimulation (turn DOWN the graphics sliders) ... that would open some interesting possibilities for 3rd party market (not sure the XBOX market would care).  But at the end of the day it's still ultimately a 2D coordinate system even VR ... maybe when holographic projections become mainstream ... the march of progress.

I wonder if Azure AI or Machine learning can play a part here, perhaps the aircrafts 3D model can have fluid dynamics simulated in the cloud to generate a unique flight model for each aircraft submitted to the ‘marketplace’, assuming there will be a centralised location to obtain aircraft. Dynamics could be simulated for various stages of flight/configurations/failures/weather etc etc this processing could take advantage of the hyper scale processing power of the cloud to generate bespoke and reasonably accurate flight models for aircraft, and essentially offloading the processing required by our pc’s Azure. MSFS could then use this pre-modelled a flight envelope to determine aircraft dynamics without having to simulate these dynamics in real time. 
 

Azure does have the foundations for computational fluid dynamics service, so it’s not out of the realms of possibility?

Doesn't make sense to have a 'cloud based' FDE when you don't need the internet to use MSFS. 

2 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Doesn't make sense to have a 'cloud based' FDE when you don't need the internet to use MSFS. 

I’m not suggesting the flight dynamics would be streamed from Azure, just theorising detailed CFD simulations could be offloaded to the cloud when an aircraft is submitted to the marketplace to generate a more accurate flight model. No internet connection required once the flight model has been through CFD simulations and bundled with the aircraft. Just a thought. 

Fluid dynamics is a slow process to do justice to it. For a high speed simulation of an object, that lengthy process of fluid dynamics and other things, perhaps stress deformation, is used to create a set of tables that allow a fast simulation to be rendered without the lengthy process of the fluid and physics computations in real time.