Just because an amateur is in the alpha doesn't mean the alpha is empty of real pilots. 
But they know how to respect an NDA
 

And they know how fly a plane...

To be honest, those videos show a product that is polished beyond what I expected. The cockpits looked great. The lighting in general and especially the way the lightning reflected off the dash and instrument bezels...just great. As far a the scenery, I have seen similar in existing sims using ortho. The quality of the autogen, though, is the differentiator. No billboard trees! And objects were well placed! I honestly found these videos very informative, even though the video was marginal quality and the flying skill were...well...um....hey it shows that anybody can at least jump in an get off the ground.

47 minutes ago, tonywob said:

but to claim he shouldn't be alpha testing the sim because he can't pilot a virtual aircraft just shows the elitist attitude some simmers have. For some people (likely the majority) it's a game, a bit of fun

Not only that, but you *want* people who don't know what they're doing to test a new product.

A really good way to find out all the ways something can break is to hand it to someone who doesn't know how to use it. The "real sim-pilots" may never deviate from proper flight procedures, and so they won't discover if there's a game-breaking bug that causes a hard system crash if you take the 747 out for a spin and try to activate reverse thrust in the air.

I remember talking with a product developer at a big chemical company years ago, and she told me one of the hardest parts of her job was figuring out all the ways a dope would kill himself with their products and preventing it absent pre-release testing data, because unlike with less dangerous products you can't just give toxic chemicals to someone who's clueless to see what he does with them.

 

Edited February 7, 20206 yr by eslader

I'm having my chef peruse my hat collection to determine which if any can be prepar3D into a palatable meal. Although, I hope for the sake of the groom of stool, it doesn't come to that!😒

Edited February 7, 20206 yr by Avidean

I didn't like what I saw in the video.

1 hour ago, Avidean said:

next time you are in McDonald's Take a look at your BigMac then take a look at the picture of the BigMac and then take a look at the your BigMac again. You see that? That's what we are dealing with here. That's what we are dealing with all the time.....

A common refrain that used to be used to describe P3D in the earlier days was "a pig with lipstick". Perhaps not so much in this forum but in another. Intended to indicate that is was still FSX but looked a bit better.

So you'll admit that there is a currently available option that comes close to what's in that video? And that turns out to be P3D?

Look I'm not saying that's its not visually better than P3D V4.5. For a lot of reasons it is and it will certainly have better performance.

But its definitely FSX reworked. looking at the scenery it looks like satellite scenery with autogen. Something that is already available. Granted the autogen is generated a different way.

I'll reiterate: I would anticipate that the competition between Prepar3D V5, X-Plane 12 and Microsoft Flight Simulator will not be the slam dunk that everyone thinks its going to be.

The performance of P3d with Ortho scenery with autogen is pretty awful, so for MSFS to be able to run a new weather engine, a far superior rendering engine along with things like sloped runways as standard as well as other things that we are not aware off at the minute, are not deserving of being called a pig with lipstick, plus it's still in alpha for goodness sake. I fly with P3D and Xplane 11, and will also buy MSFS so I've got no favourites.

20 minutes ago, eslader said:

Not only that, but you *want* people who don't know what they're doing to test a new product.

A really good way to find out all the ways something can break is to hand it to someone who doesn't know how to use it. The "real sim-pilots" may never deviate from proper flight procedures, and so they won't discover if there's a game-breaking bug that causes a hard system crash if you take the 747 out for a spin and try to activate reverse thrust in the air.

I remember talking with a product developer at a big chemical company years ago, and she told me one of the hardest parts of her job was figuring out all the ways a dope would kill himself with their products and preventing it absent pre-release testing data, because unlike with less dangerous products you can't just give toxic chemicals to someone who's clueless to see what he does with them.

 

Relax, as others have pointed out. The Alpha most likely includes many types of testers including YES real world pilots and hard core simmers. No one knows the selection criteria but it must be working or they would be changing who is accepted into the testing.

 

 

Am I blind or something? I thought the graphics in the vid were really good. The PBR and lighting were standouts for me.

Edited February 7, 20206 yr by Krakin

It seems to me that the debate about whether or not this is "just" FSX with lipstick is centering around the idea that there are features in this sim that were in the old one, not so much how those features are implemented.

That argument seems to me like saying that a 2020 Tesla Model S is "just" a 1899 Baker Electric Vehicle. They both have wheels. They both use battery-powered electric motors to run. They both have seats, and windows, and they both get "fueled" by external electric chargers.  But the comparisons are only viable when you limit your consideration to only the rudimentary classifications of the systems. Everything about the Model S is far and away better than the Baker, because the technology underlying the components in the Model S is orders of magnitude more advanced.

So, sure, 2020 has autogen, as did FSX, but the method by which the autogen is.. er.. Genned is what's different. After all, I'm writing this post in English, but that does not mean that what I wrote is the same thing as a Shakespeare play despite the commonality of language elements.

 

 

I thought the outside view of the twin flying over the fields at low level was stunning! If that isn't graphics on high level, then we are in for a treat. It LOOKEdD for the first time actual flying over real ground, with small trees, shrubs and fields representing the real world and not repeatable tiles. 

 

Also funny how the 'others' are giving their viewpoint on the vids somehow knowing (assuming) that it must be the final version, while previously mentioning to the rest of us that we are making statements that are un-called for because we don't know the final version. Confused and bemused and amused. 

 

Also they wen't the only 2 videos available with one showing the 'forum' and what they are testing. Interesting. Very interesting. 

33 minutes ago, eslader said:

Not only that, but you *want* people who don't know what they're doing to test a new product.

A really good way to find out all the ways something can break is to hand it to someone who doesn't know how to use it. The "real sim-pilots" may never deviate from proper flight procedures, and so they won't discover if there's a game-breaking bug that causes a hard system crash if you take the 747 out for a spin and try to activate reverse thrust in the air.

 

 

Exactly. I'm a software tester by profession. I can test our software up one side and down the other for days and not find a bug. Put that same piece of software in front of someone who has never used it and they can find a bug not even knowing they found one. It usually becomes apparent with usability. One person uses it differently from someone else.

As for the videos posted, I don't see somebody trying to be a pilot. I see somebody "fiddling" with what is in front of him. And "fiddling" is what usually finds the "odd" bug not found by professionals.

Edited February 7, 20206 yr by dfanucci

The environment looks good to me considering it is Alpha. I liked the transition into the storm.

 In all likelihood, the tester probably doesn’t care if he/she gets cut off. 

1 hour ago, irrics said:

So true and a great point about the target audience...

Many in this niche are going to lose their minds when they see some of the inexperience and different ways of enjoying MSFS from users on Xbox hardware..

We must all try to remember that at one point we ALL were “new” and “young” and “learning”..

Microsoft/Asobo have repeatedly said that the sim will be for the serious flight simmer, but also accessible for the beginner/casual simmer. So it's fairly obvious they will want a broad church of simmers to test the sim, even though that annoys the hell out of us serious, dedicated flight simmers, it's understandable from Microsoft/Asobo's view point.

I suppose the best way to report NDA breach at the moment is to send it directly to Microsoft Flight Simulator support https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/ and the guys will take it from there.

As we all gathered here, I just wanted to take a moment and kindly ask Microsoft and Asobo to not only release official screenshots from Alpha but gameplay videos as well. Lionel your new Microsoft Flight Sim already looks so beautiful, don't be shy! 😉 

Edited February 7, 20206 yr by gtaboncer

2 hours ago, tonywob said:

 

A bit of snobbery here, don't you think? Yes he was stupid for leaking it and showing his face, but to claim he shouldn't be alpha testing the sim because he can't pilot a virtual aircraft just shows the elitist attitude some simmers have. For some people (likely the majority) it's a game, a bit of fun, for others it's a serious simulator. Microsoft want to sell this to both, so to limit alpha testing to hardcore checklist simmers is just silly. They need feedback from everyone.

So he was what you call "testing?" 

Testing in 2020 folks.