November 27th, 2019 – Development Update

[Ray Proudfoot 8,928]

7 minutes ago, Flamingpie said:

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.

I'm going off 20+ years of experience with Microsoft flight simulators. The default aircraft have always left a lot to be desired. Yes, the scenery in this version is obviously much better and the visual side of the aircraft look good. I'll be convinced when a real-world Airbus / Boeing pilot gives the aircraft the thumbs-up. We still don't know how much this is going to cost. The quality might be reflected in the price.

4 minutes ago, MagentaChild said:

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.

There are lots of people who spend fortunes on home cockpits and who want the maximum accuracy in all aspects of the aircraft. Even those like me who don't have those I'm used to PMDG / FS Labs quality with 3rd party versions and will happily pay for them. I agree the gap is closing. Time will tell how big it remains.

[Reader 2,009]

7 minutes ago, MagentaChild said:

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

I think so too. In fact, I am confident this will be the case. And I think the default MSFS planes will be good enough for most of the MSFS users. The PMDG's and FSLabs's of this world will probably still have a market, even if they duplicate default models, but they are already catering a niche market and that market will become even more niche. The Carenado's and JustFlights's of this world are heading for bad weather though... They'd better check first if a certain model will be default in MSFS or not before they start developing for it. They might have a change if they don't focus on features but models (which aren't available by default). But even their features will obviously have to be at least be on par with MSFS features and that might be hard to get done for some developers.

[FDEdev 955]

26 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.

Concorde isn't a complex aircraft concerning aerodynamics. No horizontal tail, no flaps, no slats, no spoilers, no vortex generators etc...

Nevertheless no simulator is able or will be able to correctly simulate the Concorde wing without serious cheating, simply because no simulator can or will be able to e.g. simulate vortex lift. 

[siggy 154]

Fantastic, how crisp everything looks in these cockpit. In the past, even in some payware, knobs sometimes looked like worn rubbers/erasers.

I like the automatic checklist system, but hope that it can be stepped through slowly instead of it running through it at a fixed speed.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,928]

13 minutes ago, Flamingpie said:

My point was that I find it a bit odd that you can still doubt the quality of MSFS default aircraft after checking the provided information. The fact that previous versions of MSFS left a lot to be desired says nothing. This is a totally new 'game'. I am a 100% sure that MSFS default aircraft will have a LOT less to be desired (if anything!) and I can't understand anyone still questioning this after seeing all the video's. But well, yes, indeed, time will tell. We can't be really sure until we have tried the sim ourselves. So I am 99.9% sure. 😉 

I'm a natural sceptic. I find it easier to take that attitude that to be a optimist. Less chance of being disappointed.

12 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Concorde isn't a complex aircraft concerning aerodynamics. No horizontal tail, no flaps, no slats, no spoilers, no vortex generators etc...

Nevertheless no simulator is able or will be able to correctly simulate the Concorde wing without serious cheating, simply because no simulator can or will be able to e.g. simulate vortex lift. 

It has elevons but I guess you knew that. Mixture of elevators and ailerons. Unique aircraft and hopefully FSL will not have to 'cheat' to make an accurate flight model. Maybe Microsoft will give them the tools to create vortex lift without them having to jumpp through hoops.

After that there's just the 'simple' task of modelling the Flight Engineer's panel and moving fuel around 13 fuel tanks.

[FDEdev 955]

5 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It has elevons 

Contrary to elevators, elevons aren't e.g. affected by wing and/or flaps downwash, they don't get into ground effect etc.. that's why I said from an aerodynamic POV Concorde is less complex.

 

[Claviateur 789]

I am continously amazed when I read posts seriouly complaining about a video describing a feature of an upcoming software recorded during the development process 🙄 Oh well!

Of course, I too suppose when this episode was recorded, they picked the cockpits / systems they completed or almost... 

I just think the attention to details at Asobo is simply amazing... 

And this lovely dynamic checklist, is one more cherry (among so many cherries 🙂 )  on this huge cake... I mean how much does a similar tool costs if it was a 3rd party add-on? And I bet it would not look and work that nicely...

So many great value in this upcoming MSFS.

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,928]

34 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Contrary to elevators, elevons aren't e.g. affected by wing and/or flaps downwash, they don't get into ground effect etc.. that's why I said from an aerodynamic POV Concorde is less complex.

You’re clearly speaking with far more knowledge than I. I hope you’re right in that an accurate flight model for a supersonic aircraft can be developed by FSL. Speaking to them at Cosford last month their greatest concern was how the aircraft would perform beyond Mach 1.

Maybe if Microsoft could include some aircraft capable of supersonic flight in a future presentation that would give them the answers they seek. Otherwise perhaps the SDK will.

[Wood4591 52]

just amazing, can't wait

[Bushido5 60]

Wicked video, I'm very happy with all the info we have been provided so far. And the fact they consider cockpit builder is a good news, not that I'm a builder myself, but I think it is a clear indication they are considering simer and not gamer.

And it look bloody gorgeous

[FDEdev 955]

24 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I hope you’re right in that an accurate flight model for a supersonic aircraft can be developed by FSL. 

High quality supersonic aircraft aren't even a problem in FSX/P3D. It's just the unique vortex lift that needs to considered, but that's the beauty of a simulation.

It shouldn't be a problem to 'simulate' 😉

Edited November 28, 2019 by FDEdev

[Claviateur 789]

23 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Maybe if Microsoft could include some aircraft capable of supersonic flight in a future presentation that would give them the answers they seek. Otherwise perhaps the SDK will.

I believe that if MS continues with its actual plan and budget for this version of MSFS and if they keep Asobo as the developer of this simulator after its release to work on updates, features and improvements, then I am pretty confident that we will see so many refinements, goodies and extra values added to every side of the simulator during the upcoming months/years after its release.

This could include extra aircraft types and aerodynamic refinement and sophistication...

X-Plane 11.40 got more and more refinement in the aerodynamic simulation of fixed wings, props, rotors etc that was already great... So if MS/Asobo get their flight model to a similar sophisticated level for a wide range of aircrat types in a year or two after the release then this simulator will be an iconic software for years to come...

 

[Theboot100 404]

3 minutes ago, Claviateur said:

I believe that if MS continues with its actual plan and budget for this version of MSFS and if they keep Asobo as the developer of this simulator after its release to work on updates, features and improvements, then I am pretty confident that we will see so many refinements, goodies and extra values added to every side of the simulator during the upcoming months/years after its release.

This could include extra aircraft types and aerodynamic refinement and sophistication...

X-Plane 11.40 got more and more refinement in the aerodynamic simulation of fixed wings, props, rotors etc that was already great... So if MS/Asobo get their flight model to a similar sophisticated level for a wide range of aircrat types in a year or two after the release then this simulator will be an iconic software for years to come...

 

Microsoft have stated it's a 10 year project

I think the big difference between xplane and fs2020, is microsoft won't be constantly having to tweak the flight model and engine constantly breaking 3rd party add-ons.

They have a modern multi core, clean well performing engine, and after the initial release the development cycle will be focusing on adding new content and features.

[Noooch 1,084]

3 hours 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.

And yet we get:

The font looks bad

 

You really don't get it, tone is everything.

If I don't like the font, am I restricted in my comments? Shouldn't they know everyone is not font of it?

I thank Asobo and Microsoft for the tremendous work they are doing and I am one of their most supportive fans. But one day I choose to say what I don't like about something and I get this kind of comments. 

I really don't need you to paternalize me, thank you.

[Claviateur 789]

4 minutes ago, Theboot100 said:

Microsoft have stated it's a 10 year project

Yes that's what they mentioned. But I hope it's Asobo that will keep the contract for this simulator during the next decade...

Even if there are great gaming studios here in North America, I doubt a studio here would have had the same vision and attention to details as they do... 

Asobo understand what Immersion means... Is this the first first civilian simulator title developed in Europe? 😉