32 minutes ago, Elwyn said:

when they say "not implemented" does it mean they will not simulate it?

The fact that they say 'not currently implemented' and 'not implemented' indicates we may not see the latter.

4 minutes ago, Matt Barraud said:

At this rate I am not going to have anyone to talk too in these forums! 🙂 he he

I will still be here don't worry lol

Don't worry you still have 4 and 5 builds to come roadmap up to sept, 6 and 7 maybe oct-nov .

2 hours ago, rob0203 said:

I signed up I july already but now I discoverd that I had to resend my Dirextdiag? I already did that long time ago?

I don't think you have to. I signed up when they first opened up registration and I got in yesterday and I never resent my dxdiag. 

7 minutes ago, devgrp said:

I don't think you have to. I signed up when they first opened up registration and I got in yesterday and I never resent my dxdiag. 

Ok, there is some hope! 🙂

1 hour ago, Matt Barraud said:

At this rate I am not going to have anyone to talk to in these forums! 🙂 he he

I doubt to be called on duty either because of my lousy connection 😉 !

I am enjoying the technical discussions, thoughts, views etc in these forums and MS/Asobo have a great PR team IMO. I love the nod to the discussions going on in the various updates. It's been great to get a weekly snapshot of where they are as well.

My only thought now, (and it links to tree size) is the wave height. It is of course hard to tell but I think the wave height is a little over exaggerated. Not sure if anyone else has been watching the FlightChops youtube float plane videos but it would be great to see wavelets on the downwind side of a lake with a lee under the trees at the upwind side of the lake.

This could be massive overkill but would bring a huge amount of realism to float plane ops.

Edited May 15, 20206 yr by Matt Barraud

4 hours ago, canadiantree said:

Care to elaborate? Or are you just spreading canon powder for the sake of it?

No I don't, you obviously didn't get it

33 minutes ago, Noooch said:

No I don't, you obviously didn't get it

You're right, I failed to see your sarcasm, I should've read your other posts. I understand now. Apologies for my hastiness.

5 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

We are now in contact with more than 200 companies and 400+ developers have access to the SDK, that will not go down well with some here they don't want it to need addons or intend to buy them.

I on the other hand see it as guaranteeing long term development of MSFS, but for them MS would have nothing to came back to.  

I think there are very few people who are currently posting that won't buy any add ons for MSFS, the exciting thing is that the base product is many magnitudes higher than other sims so a lot of the time the need to buy as many add ons is greatly diminished. IMO that is one of the main differences between MSFS and the currently available sims.

9 hours ago, JSilva said:

Hate to be that one guy, but doesn't Madeira seem a little off. While I praise Asobo for depicting Madeira better than FSX and appear closer to how it is in real life, the runway appearance doesn't seem accurate to me. The start of both runways are supposed to be light gray in color rather than be the same as the entire runway. In addition, the runway number should be where the threshold markings are. In this case, there should be three lines to the left and right of the runway numbers each.

Also, doesn't the runway look too undulated. I hope these are only overdone just to prove some guy wrong about sloped runways, but in real life while Madeira does have sloped runways, I'm pretty sure it's not undulated to that extreme. From the perspective of the second Madeira screenshot, the runway platform is supposed to be completely flat (0.0%) from 191ft, then after the platform the runway slopes downward 0.8-1.0% (still somewhat flat most of the way but is sloped) to 146ft according to LPMA charts from November 2018. I looked at the 4/23 screenshot (the one from simtom112) of what I believe is Madeira, and the runway sloping (at least for runway 5) appears normal to me (save probably the trees).

And finally the trees. I'm pretty sure they're either bushes or small trees on the right of the runway (from the perspective of the first Madeira screenshot). Just, the height of the tree (on the right) should never reach the runway height. I think the inclined plane on the left is fine though. Just pointing out what I believe are discrepancies from what I remember and from a few images of the airport. As someone from Madeira, I really want Asobo to get Madeira right.

OMG.

 

Do you realize they are working on 40,000+ airports around the world, and you're complaining about the exact details of the way a number is painted on one runway?

2 hours ago, Bear242 said:

Happy to report I am in the Alpha too. There is still hope lol. Weekend is going to be fun.

16GB Ram

GTX 1080

I just received my invite as well! And I have tyhe same specs as your's; using on an Acer Preditor 1440p monitor. I was very early at signing up and had just about given up on getting an invite, so keep the faith all!

Holy word not allowed...I had completely given up...and then I just saw the email.

6 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

OMG.

 

Do you realize they are working on 40,000+ airports around the world, and you're complaining about the exact details of the way a number is painted on one runway?

I think you're overreacting a bit. I admit these are minor nitpicks and could've chosen my words better, and I do recognize there are tens of thousands of airports in the world. Not trying to be abrasive or anything. Just pointing out some discrepancies. Plus, I did say that other than the runway, Asobo got the other bits right.

12 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

OMG.

 

Do you realize they are working on 40,000+ airports around the world, and you're complaining about the exact details of the way a number is painted on one runway?

Exactly... Get some perspective my goodness.