10 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Cool! Do you remember the Fly-Ins we used to do? We'd choose a destination airport everyone would fly to from their home area using Flight Simulator. Someone would log in to the forum and act as the "tower", with a FS multiplayer connection on another phone line to people one by one as they landed. They would watch and describe the landing to the forum. Some embarrassing moments there. I remember running a contest in the air combat forum to see how long people could survive without being shot down in Red Baron. Fun times!

I was around then so we must have crossed paths, the fly-ins were a blast! Do you remember a guy named Rick Lee from West Virginia? He used to do Tower for a lot of my fly-ins. Great guy.

21 hours ago, Noooch said:

What does he say?!

Well, the video is long, he says a lot of things. I'll summarize the ones who most caught my attention:

• When talking about the night environment, the guy was literally choking. He could not speak properly. The clouds reflect the lights from the cities below. There's no lights burned into the textures like in other sims, the lights simply extend as far as the eye can see. He was just completely blown away.
• On a modest machine, the sim was running at 20 fps, on ultra settings, at a very heavy area (São Paulo). Sounds good to me.
• He mentioned the cockpits don't look as realistic as on other sims. They "feel" like plastic.

At the end of the day, feedback was extremely positive and it really just makes waiting ever so more unbearable 🙂

 

PS: What's wrong with people and all this discussion about the NDA? Even if some jack*ss will "try" to talk "word not allowed" about MFS, we're all super hyped and pretty much everyone wants to get their hands on it, so do we really care? I don't, and I'm genuinely amazed at all this polarization about this topic...

2 hours ago, bashope said:

On a modest machine, the sim was running at 20 fps, on ultra settings, at a very heavy area (São Paulo). Sounds good to me.

Something to add from the description: Ambas as máquinas com excelente resultado em FPS: entre 90fps e 20fps (não se nota).

Translation: Both machines with excellent FPS results: between 90fps & 20fps(isn't noticeable).

Well, a difference between 20 and 90 fps is noticeable unless you are completely blind.

I’m not going to complain about something that is not out yet. But who said that 70 FPS difference is not noticeable, or is lying or has never played a game on all his life. 

This is like those who said that human eye can’t see more than 30 FPS. 

I wouldn’t believe on those reviews. The only trustable leaks so far, in my opinion, were a couple of screenshots showing the default airport buildings.

15 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

I wouldn’t believe on those reviews. The only trustable leaks so far, in my opinion, were a couple of screenshots showing the default airport buildings.

Well... were they good or bad?

they were alpha in a alpha build (no need to be in alpha to say that)

14 minutes ago, ual763 said:

Well... were they good or bad?

Well... better than FSX/P3D/X-Plane, but the airport terminals were just square boxes.

The runways, taxiways etc looked awesome, just that default autogenerated terminals won’t match custom made buildings when we talk about architectural accuracy. At least the shapes, gates, remote positions etc seemed very accurate. Also the autogenerated terminals seemed to have high resolution textures and besides not having accurate architecture, they seemed good enough.

But it’s a bit hard to get into conclusions, first screenshots not always accomplish to pass the real feeling one would have running it in real-time. Second, it’s Alpha phase, we still don’t know which features are already on final phase or still on the initial works.

And don’t get me wrong, I would chose the default airports I saw on the pics over the default airports we have on the current sims any time.

12 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Well... better than FSX/P3D/X-Plane, but the airport terminals were just square boxes.

The runways, taxiways etc looked awesome, just that default autogenerated terminals won’t match custom made buildings when we talk about architectural accuracy. At least the shapes, gates, remote positions etc seemed very accurate. Also the autogenerated terminals seemed to have high resolution textures and besides not having accurate architecture, they seemed good enough.

But it’s a bit hard to get into conclusions, first screenshots not always accomplish to pass the real feeling one would have running it in real-time. Second, it’s Alpha phase, we still don’t know which features are already on final phase or still on the initial works.

And don’t get me wrong, I would chose the default airports I saw on the pics over the default airports we have on the current sims any time.

Awesome! Thanks for the info!  Sounds good enough to me!  

58 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

I wouldn’t believe on those reviews. The only trustable leaks so far, in my opinion, were a couple of screenshots showing the default airport buildings.

I’m all day on reddit looking for some leaks and I miss those ones :( but sound good. 

I imagine photogrammetry airports will looks different to autogen ones, but discovery series will clarify that. 

1 hour ago, ca_metal said:

I wouldn’t believe on those reviews. The only trustable leaks so far, in my opinion, were a couple of screenshots showing the default airport buildings.

I think I may have seen one of those screen shots on a Facebook page and indeed it looked excellent. It was funny to see people criticise it in the comments as looking like Minecraft because the runway bends were jagged block curves. Then they were schooled on how real world runways are constructed and that the image was completely true to life. It was odd how an illicit image was far more exciting than the officially released screenshots. Kind of how stealing food off your friend's plate tastes better 😈

7 minutes ago, Bottle said:

It was odd how an illicit image was far more exciting than the officially released screenshots. Kind of how stealing food off your friend's plate tastes better 😈

This is exactly why I'm so surprised at the anal retentiveness of some people around here regarding the NDA. Come on guys, live a little 🤣

1 hour ago, aleex said:

Well, a difference between 20 and 90 fps is noticeable unless you are completely blind.

I’m not going to complain about something that is not out yet. But who said that 70 FPS difference is not noticeable, or is lying or has never played a game on all his life. 

This is like those who said that human eye can’t see more than 30 FPS. 

Agreed, of course. However, I will also definitely say that 20 fps on X-Plane feels a lot better than 20 fps on FSX/P3D. It must be something to do with how stable and evenly spaced (in time) those frames are. And I think that's what the guy meant. At least, in context, it felt like that's what he meant, that those 20 fps, even if it sounds low (in FSX/P3D context), they are still quite flyable.

In any case, trying to pull off ultra settings with an i7 7700 and a GTX1070 and getting 20 fps in a very dense area... I can tell you I get a lot less if I max X-Plane out in a dense area. And the guy did mention that MFS in the lowest settings looks still better than X-Plane maxed out... he might be exaggerating but we get the picture 😄

Let's remember that the video's comments (if true) are referencing an un-optimised alpha build. It can only get better from here.

I can't comment on Alpha testing. But I can say I'm liking XP less and less. Especially for world wide VFR flying 🙂