Just now, TechguyMaxC said:

My problem is that people who have nothing invested in this community, nothing invested in flight simulation have come to Avsim, voted in a poll, and provided a false impression to the people who have the power to do something about the results of the poll

Again, how do you know anything at all about a person's investment in flight simming, simply because they may not have joined this particular community previously? 

Do you have any idea how many communities out there support this hobby that have nothing to do with Avsim? It's been mentioned before that the vast majority of simmers probably have little-to-nothing to do with forums, And in fact I would suspect that the various Reddit and Discord and Facebook groups together probably compare quite favorably in size at this point.

Is it your position that lack of membership (which by the way, I'm still waiting for some confirmed numbers since i myself saw only a handful) in Avsim disqualifies others with an interest in aviation from having a voice?

Or is the problem only when a person disagrees with that voice?

Just now, HiFlyer said:

Again, how do you know anything at all about a person's investment in flight simming, simply because they may not have joined this particular community previously? 

Do you have any idea how many communities out there support this hobby that have nothing to do with Avsim? It's been mentioned before that the vast majority of simmers probably have little-to-nothing to do with forums, And in fact I would suspect that the various Reddit and Discord and Facebook groups together probably compare quite favorably in size at this point.

Is it your position that lack of membership (which by the way, I'm still waiting for some confirmed numbers since i myself saw only a handful) in Avsim disqualifies others with an interest in aviation from having a voice?

Or is the problem only when a person disagrees with that voice?

n4gix confirmed that there is no requirement to make even one post on this forum before participating in a poll.  The fact that we didn't see a whole bunch of new users posting (proves lack of engagement/disingenuous motivation), in a poll that had more participation than any poll in the history of Avsim, what other possible explanation could there be?

I'll patiently await your alternate theory.  

5 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

My problem is that people who have nothing invested in this community, nothing invested in flight simulation have come to Avsim, voted in a poll, and provided a false impression to the people who have the power to do something about the results of the poll (Microsoft/Asobo).

Personally, I think that VR should be on the list of features to be included, but it should be below other features such as ATC and seasons which are essential to the experience of flight simulation.  The potential issue arises if VR is prioritized above these other, core simulation features.  

Why is that?  Seems like a very narrow way of looking at it.  It assumes that all three of those tasks can only be worked on in a serial manner.  It also doesn't take into account the investment necessary to make each one into the simulation.  The developer has already stated that they feel that to do ATC the way they want to do it would be a significant undertaking.  Your statement would imply that if VR could be completed in 1 month and ATC would take 9 months that the VR should have to wait until after the ATC was implemented and could not be worked in parallel.  The developer was likely just wanting to get a general feel for the overall pulse of the community which they got regardless of who "won" the poll.  It is not like MS is going to take marching orders from this community on how and when to allocate their development resources, though they likely listen to establish priorities where I suspect that many things get worked on at once.

I think the biggest "tragedy" of the poll was where the SDK ended up in the list, because once we get our base sim, it will likely be a short minute before people start asking for their favorite add-on.  The SDK also gives the effect of a force multiplier of the base MS development force with a whole industry with diverse developmental resources of their own

For the record, I am interested in seeing all of the selections ultimately end up in the sim, though I will likely hold my money until VR is implemented just because I know I would likely not use it until it has it

4 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

n4gix confirmed that there is no requirement to make even one post on this forum before participating in a poll.  The fact that we didn't see a whole bunch of new users posting (proves lack of engagement/disingenuous motivation), in a poll that had more participation than any poll in the history of Avsim, what other possible explanation could there be?

I'll patiently await your alternate theory.  

Wait......

First your argue that a bunch of new users skewed the poll........

Now you are saying that the lack of a bunch of new users shows lack of motivation.

A fine example of having one's cake and eating it too.

How about simply guessing that the vast majority of posters were simply existing run-of-the-mill forum members that spoke up in a way some apparently did not like.

1 hour ago, BrettT said:

For the record, I am interested in seeing all of the selections ultimately end up in the sim, though I will likely hold my money until VR is implemented just because I know I would likely not use it until it has it

My argument is simply this, as an appeal to the developers: do not sacrifice seasons/ATC/other core sim functionality to make VR work.  It is an argument of prioritization, not exclusion.

Edited October 7, 20196 yr by n4gix
Deleted excessive quote. Again!

The statistics and facts will always change to fit the argument sadly

we never suggested to prioritize VR. we just asked to include it. You are doing all the prioritization. we need to stop this silliness over an issue that never existed.

3 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

My argument is simply this, as an appeal to the developers: do not sacrifice seasons/ATC/other core sim functionality to make VR work.  It is an argument of prioritization, not exclusion.

And I would argue the opposite and ask the developers to please implement VR as soon as possible and add seasons and ATC as it is practical to do so. 

Cheers

Edited October 7, 20196 yr by irrics

2 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Wait......

First your argue that a bunch of new users skewed the poll........

Now you are saying that the lack of a bunch of new users shows lack of motivation.

A fine example of having one's cake and eating it too.

How about simply guessing that the vast majority of posters were simply existing run-of-the-mill forum members that spoke up in a way some apparently did not like.

That's not at all what I'm saying.  You've literally stated the opposite of what I have said.  

If the sudden influx of new users (as undeniably evidenced by the explosion of votes for the poll in question) were truly an honest, good-faith, grass-roots effort by people who care about flight sim to see their preferred feature make it into an upcoming simulator that they're super-excited about, then we should have also seen a corresponding increase in the number of new members making posts in that very thread.  The fact that we saw no such thing (I think there was 1, maybe 2 new members that posted in that gigantic thread) reinforces my point that these people only care about VR, and have no care for flight sim, which is what this community is about.  

I think the thing that some of you are missing in all of this is that anonymous internet polls can be turned into nothing more than a competition.  The original poster on Reddit who spammed the VR subreddits to rile up members made this a purely competitive "us vs. them" issue by framing it as he did.  I already laid out this argument previously.  

 

1 minute ago, Casualcas said:

we never suggested to prioritize VR. we just asked to include it. You are doing all the prioritization. we need to stop this silliness over an issue that never existed.

Do we not understand the meaning of the word "if" now?

As in, IF integration of VR support causes core simulator features to be delayed, they (MS/Asobo) should not do this.

6 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

The statistics and facts will always change to fit the argument sadly

I know.  Like how people keep ignoring the undeniable fact that there was a concerted effort by hundreds of people that have a combined 1-2 posts on Avsim to come here and skew the results of a poll, potentially influencing the developers to prioritize development of a single feature that, prior to this effort was running 2nd or 3rd place in said poll?  Like that?  

10 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

I know.  Like how people keep ignoring the undeniable fact that there was a concerted effort by hundreds of people that have a combined 1-2 posts on Avsim to come here and skew the results of a poll, potentially influencing the developers to prioritize development of a single feature that, prior to this effort was running 2nd or 3rd place in said poll?  Like that?  

Well, since you're the one making this claim the burden of proof is on you. The number of posts that any member has made are easily seen right to the left of the post. When you have finished totaling up all of these horrendous first time posters, let us know what you find.

I might do it myself, but I'm not quite that bored yet.

(Well, also because I don't really care what the numbers are, as I think everyone interested enough to do so had a right to vote)

My VR observations:

·         It is pertinent that the genesis of MSFS 2020 arose from HoloLens as already mentioned in this thread. ( Yes I know HoloLens is not really VR.)

·         I am sure VR will be implemented at some stage and I am sure MS realises that it must be sooner than later.

·         I have never owned or used VR.

·         I will be a buyer on day 1 with or without VR incorporated

·         If incorporated I will buy a VR set after watching all possible YouTube reviews.

·         Wonder what MS will make of this conflab! They will be watching with great interest.

A question to any VR users.

Do you use mechanical controls (yokes, joysticks, throttles) or virtual controls on screen?  Is this off topic?

Edited October 7, 20196 yr by Poppapete
Off topic

1 minute ago, Poppapete said:

Do you use mechanical controls (yokes, joysticks, throttles) or virtual controls on screen?

Mechanical as much as possible.

Remembering where a few buttons, switches and knobs are without being able to see them is easy enough.

7 minutes ago, Poppapete said:

Do you use mechanical controls (yokes, joysticks, throttles) or virtual controls on screen? 

A mixture. Yoke, pedals, throttles most switches (battery, generator, lights) come to think of it more hardware switches than cockpit switches. You do get used to knowing where the buttons are. A bit like FSBraille.

What IS the topic? Oh yes, VR in MSF...Again!