November 27th, 2019 – Development Update

[FDEdev 955]

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Point me to any default aircraft in any sim where the quality of the flight model exceeds that of its third party equivalent.

(at least) DCS and Aerofly FS2 in a few cases.

Edited November 28, 2019 by FDEdev

[Theboot100 404]

Man there's some whiners in this thread.

We've just seen default aircraft cockpits leaps and bounds ahead of any other default aircraft in any sim (and probably payware), multi monitor support, external hardware and gauges support, innovative checklists, a great looking camera and the most amazing looking 3d scanned cockpits out with unreal lighting.

And yet we get:

The font looks bad

The video sucked compared to the other ones

They didn't show a working fms

[MagentaChild 226]

13 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You’re assuming the flight model of default aircraft will be as good or better than that of third party versions. That is still an unknown. “You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig“ as someone once said.

Point me to any default aircraft in any sim where the quality of the flight model exceeds that of its third party equivalent.

I didn't assume anything about flight models in the first place although Asobo is clearly upping the game in that regard, too. XP11s default planes have decent to good flight models thanks to how the sim handles flight dynamics by default. The difference between the default C172 and Airfoillabs C172 certainly isn't that big, for instance. That's my whole point: If payware to default is not like day to night, then spending money becomes a luxury rather than a necessity to enjoy the sim. Which is a good thing obviously.

[simtom 496]

51 minutes ago, Max50 said:

I agree with you, more pretty pictures on show, no substance. The most important thing to know is the depth of the system simulation and this was completely left out. Surprise, surprise.

What exactly do you try to accomplish, Max? On every single bit of information that we got from MSFS you have been critiquing them (weather looks bad, it's all marketing, no real examples, ...). We really don't need that kind of pessimism here. Of course, people can have their doubts and their opinion but you only list negative things that aren't even confirmed yet. It's like you wish that MSFS will be a failure. So you truly believe that the enthusiasm of the dev team is all fake, maybe they are just actors?

51 minutes ago, Max50 said:

It appears the default aircraft will be same as past FS versions. For the good stuff you will be buying payware.

And that's based on what exactly? The default aircraft from previous FS versions can't even be compared to this, it's apples to oranges.

18 minutes ago, Theboot100 said:

Man there's some whiners in this thread.

We've just seen default aircraft cockpits leaps and bounds ahead of any other default aircraft in any sim (and probably payware), multi monitor support, external hardware and gauges support, innovative checklists, a great looking camera and the most amazing looking 3d scanned cockpits out with unreal lighting.

Yep, crazy. We've been asking for this kind of simulator for years and now that it's finally happening we get people saying that X-Plane or P3D is better, smh. Fine for them I guess.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,045]

27 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

(at least) DCS and Aerofly FS2 in a few cases.

Happy to take your word on that as I have neither.

[elmar01 11]

I really hope Garmin will be another real-world manufacturer to partner with the MSFS devs. 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,045]

21 minutes ago, MagentaChild said:

I didn't assume anything about flight models in the first place although Asobo is clearly upping the game in that regard, too. XP11s default planes have decent to good flight models thanks to how the sim handles flight dynamics by default. The difference between the default C172 and Airfoillabs C172 certainly isn't that big, for instance. That's my whole point: If payware to default is not like day to night, then spending money becomes a luxury rather than a necessity to enjoy the sim. Which is a good thing obviously.

A C172 is not a complicated aircraft. I reserve judgement on how accurate a more complex aircraft such as an Airbus or Boeing would be modelled including all their systems. It would be a first in flight simulation.

[FDEdev 955]

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

A C172 is not a complicated aircraft. I reserve judgement on how accurate a more complex aircraft such as an Airbus or Boeing would be modelled including all their systems. It would be a first in flight simulation.

Flight model and systems are two entirely different things. From an aerodynamic POV the flight model of a prop driven plane is definitely more complex than that of a comparable jet.

Edited November 28, 2019 by FDEdev

[MagentaChild 226]

18 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I reserve judgement on how accurate a more complex aircraft such as an Airbus or Boeing would be modelled including all their systems. It would be a first in flight simulation.

Flight models of airliners aren't that much more complex. Considering Asobo seems to have a very good aerodynamic model in place, they will do fine. Systems modelling, however, will be another thing. To replicate all systems including failures up to realistic standards it will almost certainly require payware products. But this will be the only area where payware devs can clearly set themselves apart. To spend 150$ for that will be a tough decision, at least for me.

Edited November 28, 2019 by MagentaChild

[RALF9636 1,999]

1 hour ago, domkle said:

I understand your disappointment but find your words a bit on the strong side. We've indirectly learned a most important thing for liners : assisted checklist management.  We also see that they attach a high importance to cockpit details and that does bode well for the 747 & 320.

What is missing ? The FMS which is an item worthy of an EP in itself though. I suspect that it was a WIP when the vid was made.

I am also confident that they will go all the way for the airliners. Most likely those are still very much work in progress so they could not show them in this episode. What we have seen from the A320 cockpit so far it could easily be seen that all the displays are still some kind of placeholders and far from the real thing. So the systems of the airliners are not ready yet obviously.

Nevertheless I expect the airliner's systems to have an impressive depth on release. We've seen from the "Icon - partnership visit" that their partnerships go beyond just licensing the brand. And looking at their perfectionist approach to all they do, I am quite confident that this will also be true for Boeing and Airbus. They won't produce "arcade airliners" when all the others are highly professional.

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by RALF9636

[Ray Proudfoot 9,045]

10 minutes ago, MagentaChild said:

Flight models of airliners aren't that much more complex. Considering Asobo seems to have a very good aerodynamic model in place, they will do fine. Systems modelling, however, will be another thing. To replicate all systems including failures up to realistic standards it will almost certainly require payware products. But this will be the only area where payware devs can clearly set themselves apart. To spend 150$ for that will be a tough decision, at least for me.

Try modelling a supersonic aircraft such as Concorde. I think you'll find that is considerably more complex than other aircraft. FS Labs - if they do decide to work on a model for MFS - will require all their expertise. What's the point of a 737 that may fly well but doesn't have the systems to back it up? Suitable for the casual flyer but perhaps that's who Microsoft are aiming this sim at.

[Reader 2,035]

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Suitable for the casual flyer but perhaps that's who Microsoft are aiming this sim at.

I think that all the provided information so far makes it pretty clear MS isn't aiming at casual flyers. Yes, they (obviously) also want them to use MSFS but most of what I've seen so far wouldn't be of any importance to casual flyers and has the (more) serious simmer in mind. In fact, I find it odd how someone who (I presume) has seen and read all available information might even question this.

[virtuali 4,446]

1 hour ago, azulkb said:

but they put the bar very high, it's not only a challenge for another sim, but a challenge for all third party dev. 

A challenge is a good thing. If you are good...

We are at a point in which our tools are far more advanced than the target engine, because they are designed to be used with modern game engines like Unreal/Unity, so most of the time we spend today, is to fight against the old FSX engine LIMITATIONS!

People complaining the GSX animated passengers move a bit awkwardly ? Of COURSE they do, because we animated using a modern human animation software that uses 100+ bones for a human skeleton, but when we export them to FSX, we had to reduce it to 22, which not only makes the animation much worse, it's a big waste of time. Funny fact, the Unreal engine use 75 bones for its "mobile" profile, because the "PC" profile can go much higher. So, basically, a modern mobile game can do human animations 3x more detailed than FSX!!

You don't have any idea how frustrating is seeing how much your work will be downgraded, when moving from the editing program to the sim, and how you cannot really rely on previewing things in the editor, because they will always look different in the end.

So yes, a challenge is very welcome, especially considering we have been spending the last years learning and releasing PBR-only stuff, waiting for the big coming...

[Dominique_K 10,152]

28 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

A C172 is not a complicated aircraft. I reserve judgement on how accurate a more complex aircraft such as an Airbus or Boeing would be modelled including all their systems. It would be a first in flight simulation.

I would intuitively say that the behaviour of a light aircraft in the airflow (including prop wash)  is very complex to model maybe more that a heavy subsonic jetliner. 

 

[MagentaChild 226]

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Try modelling a supersonic aircraft such as Concorde. I think you'll find that is considerably more complex than other aircraft. FS Labs - if they do decide to work on a model for MFS - will require all their expertise. What's the point of a 737 that may fly well but doesn't have the systems to back it up? Suitable for the casual flyer but perhaps that's who Microsoft are aiming this sim at.

I wasn't talking supersonic flight considering it ain't exactly standard for airliner flying. You are of course right though, that supersonic flying requires an advanced flight model compared to subsonic fyling. But again, it's a niche case. 

With the 737 or - more likely A320 - I highly doubt it will be a barebones model that can "fly" without systems. It most likely won't be up to par to FSLabs standards systems wise, but are for instance simulated failures worth spending 150$ on? Do I need direct law to be simulated up to perfection? For me, definitely no, I have never used failure simulation on any payware aircraft bc for me it's about succesfully completing a normal flight from a to b. Let's see what the gap between default and payware will be. But as far as I can judge it will be a lot smaller than in previous sims and will thus require careful assessment of how valuable added features are.