February 20th, 2020 – Development/Insider Update

[Amon1973 1,421]

3 hours ago, Jim Young said:

If a member updates an airport, can he zip up the airport, add it to the AVSIM Library for anyone to download and try themselves?  Think it might be good to have a MSFS2020 Airport section in the Library.  We could have several variations from different members and members could download the one they really like.  We have a lot of talented members who could really show off their expertise and a great contribution to the community.

Jim

That would be great Jim, but MS might be thinking along the lines of the Airport Gateway like in Xplane, maybe we could have both?

[Chock 17,769]

14 minutes ago, eaim said:

I think that I'm going to have to learn how to do 3d modelling to a fairly high standard.

For most stuff it is not really essential to be massively brilliant at 3D modeling something with tons of complex polygons unless you're going to be getting up real close and personal to an object with a complex shape. Yes you can start going mad with a 3D models and making every door handle on a building be a 3D object, but a lot of the time you can simply have the textures do the work for things which will be seen from a few feet away. Most buildings can fairly easily be replicated to a good appearance with a few simple box shapes and generally speaking, that is something to aim for doing much of the time, in order to keep the polygon count down. Well, that and using arrays too, which also helps in not having the sim draw tons of individual objects (I'm looking at you, Aerosoft add-on airport with your 3 FPS because of using individual trees and bushes instead of having used arrays).

If you are considering learning a 3D program, having taught a lot of professional 3D courses over the years, and being familiar with the rate at which people are able to learn and assimilate information, I can tell you that -  for most people who teach themselves something such as 3DS Max or whatever - if you locked yourself in a room with a big pot of everlasting coffee, a computer and a determination to 'get pretty good' with a 3D program, you could probably reach a fairly good standard after about two weeks of doing that. Conceptually it is not that hard; you make basic shapes and project textures onto their surfaces and a good understanding of that and a bit of practice will get you a long way.

So with this in mind, it is as well to be aware that a big part of what makes a 3D model good, is actually one's ability with the 2D textures it uses to bring it to life. Thus keep in mind that you're probably going to have to get good with something like Photoshop and Illustrator as well in order to complete the necessary skill set for good 3D modeling. It's just as important a skill to have for that kind of thing.

[tweekz 2,165]

Positives:

• 37K manually edited airports. I was scared of the quality when done automatically with Bing data. This however is great for a basic adequate representation.
• 80 detailed airports (hope they cover my homebase LOWW)
• Interactive ingame (like) editor !!
• The jetways connecting to the aircraft look fantastic! (how the plastic pushes on the fuselage)
• props to @ChaoticBeauty 😄

Negative:

• No signs of deicing ground handling (hello MS 🙋‍♂️)

Edited February 21, 2020 by tweekz

[Ray Proudfoot 8,947]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

At my own place of work - EGCC - it is pretty noticeable that there are considerable up and down slopes along the runway when you drive along the airport perimeter track and see down Runway 23R. In fact, you don't even have to be on the airport to see that, if you stand at the end of 23R at the airfield's perimeter fence and watch an aeroplane land, it will go out of sight as it goes down the runway, only to have its tailplane appear again some time later as it comes up the other side of the dip in the runway.

If I recall correctly, there is only a few feet of difference between the height above sea level of both ends of the runways at Manchester (off the top of my head, I think it is something like maybe 256 feet above sea level at one end and 254 feet above see level at the other, or something like that, which itself would hardly be worth considering.

@Chock, according to NATS there is a 37ft difference between the end of 05L / 23R. THat's a figure I've had in my head for many years.

That excludes the hump in the middle of course so the height difference from the top of the hump to the 05L threshold is much greater. If an aircraft can completely disappear after landing when viewed from the 23R end then the hump is making that difference at least 50ft. Info here on the new NATS service... https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2020-01-30-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html

It would be interesting to see a screenshot of 05L/23R in MFS.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Ray Proudfoot

[Amon1973 1,421]

3 hours ago, elprim said:

Like most, I am thrilled with every new video from developers but also increasingly concerned: how much will this cost? Such effort and level of details could easily justify the $500+ price for some business application of the same complexity. With each new update we are pleasently surprised by MS and I hope at the release there will be one more pleasent surprise by announcing a reasonable price tag, wether one time or subscription.
 

No way will this cost anywhere near $500, more like $60 to $100. They'd be massively reducing the size of their potential customers if it was too expensive.

[mSparks 2,086]

well. finally an update that wasnt awful.

So nooow everyone starts worrying how much it will cost.....

Edited February 21, 2020 by mSparks

[Amon1973 1,421]

1 hour ago, Scottoest said:

The tools look powerful (and simple) enough that they could have even farmed out this step to contractors.  Of course, I'm sure the 80+ airports that got more attention were all internal though.

I would do it for free😏

[bashope 112]

1 hour ago, MatthewS said:

 

Just ignore him... FDEdev 🤡 doesn't even comprehend or remember his own assertion which was that 99% of runways appear perfectly flat. ROTFL 🤣

 

Absolutely, I have promised myself long ago to simply not entertain internet trolls. I simply stop responding once I think the person is tilting and has been disrespectful. This guy meets all of the above.

Anyway, just like @RALF9636 mentioned, we can all agree that real life runways are undulated (some more, some less) and it would be nice if this is represented properly in MFS, just like in X-Plane, and unlike FSX. End of story to me.

[tweekz 2,165]

3 minutes ago, eaim said:

No way will this cost anywhere near $500, more like $60 to $100. They'd be massively reducing the size of their potential customers if it was too expensive.

37K manually edited airports probably just mean that they went over them and took care of the basic layout and that things are where they are supposed to be. But I doubt that the buildings will look like they actually do. That will be the case with the 80 detailed airports.

[Chock 17,769]

9 minutes ago, eaim said:

No way will this cost anywhere near $500, more like $60 to $100. They'd be massively reducing the size of their potential customers if it was too expensive.

Yup. Basic economy of scale. They would  make way more if they sold it for 100 quid to half a million users, rather than if they charged 500 quid and sold it to ten thousand people.

But, I daresay they will have some stuff planned for a continuing revenue stream. It is after all, a business deal we're talking about.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Chock

[Dominique_K 10,138]

 500 Euros BUT we will be able to pay in several instalments.

[Jae McGill 3]

Holy word not allowed

[Victoroos 205]

Sad about ifr though.. 

[Amon1973 1,421]

48 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yup true, but I suspect that it'll be more a case of the new sim having been coded to use the GPU rather than the CPU for the visuals, which is of course the main reason why struggling for FPS has been an issue for years with preceding versions of Flight Simulator given that it was based on the idea that CPUs would get progressively more capable over the years, i.e. they basically bet on the wrong horse when they coded FS that way. That has typically been the reason why it has always compared poorly with the visuals in newer computer games, which of course were also written to harness the GPU.

Which is the reason, I'm saving up (through overtime) to buy a 30** series GPU when the're released later this year to go with my new rig that I've just built.

[Amon1973 1,421]

41 minutes ago, Chock said:

For most stuff it is not really essential to be massively brilliant at 3D modeling something with tons of complex polygons unless you're going to be getting up real close and personal to an object with a complex shape. Yes you can start going mad with a 3D models and making every door handle on a building be a 3D object, but a lot of the time you can simply have the textures do the work for things which will be seen from a few feet away. Most buildings can fairly easily be replicated to a good appearance with a few simple box shapes and generally speaking, that is something to aim for doing much of the time, in order to keep the polygon count down. Well, that and using arrays too, which also helps in not having the sim draw tons of individual objects (I'm looking at you, Aerosoft add-on airport with your 3 FPS because of using individual trees and bushes instead of having used arrays).

If you are considering learning a 3D program, having taught a lot of professional 3D courses over the years, and being familiar with the rate at which people are able to learn and assimilate information, I can tell you that -  for most people who teach themselves something such as 3DS Max or whatever - if you locked yourself in a room with a big pot of everlasting coffee, a computer and a determination to 'get pretty good' with a 3D program, you could probably reach a fairly good standard after about two weeks of doing that. Conceptually it is not that hard; you make basic shapes and project textures onto their surfaces and a good understanding of that and a bit of practice will get you a long way.

So with this in mind, it is as well to be aware that a big part of what makes a 3D model good, is actually one's ability with the 2D textures it uses to bring it to life. Thus keep in mind that you're probably going to have to get good with something like Photoshop and Illustrator as well in order to complete the necessary skill set for good 3D modeling. It's just as important a skill to have for that kind of thing.

Thank's Chock, Luckily my son is a Computer Scientist and my daughter uses Photoshop etc in her profession so I've got help at hand if I need it. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by eaim