alpha testers are becoming more vocal

[Wewk584 137]

But why would we (unfairly) compare sims with tons of add-ons to MFS. I assume the TBM in mfs will pale to the Hotstart TBM for xplane. but.. as long as the likes of PMDG etc are working on addons for MFS, Things will be OK. I would add that vatsim /PE support is a must for me (even if it is not immediate)

 

I still do not get why guys like that get 'mad' at people for wanting to use MFS. Anyone that  intends to stick with xplane only or p3d only after MFS comes out is welcome to. Why get mad at me for getting and using MFS. (i will still also use xplane.. I have enough room on my PC for 2 sims)   

 

When xplane and p3d get pretty scenery will they be games? (p3d already added truesky)...  I think not.

[tweekz 2,165]

10 hours ago, Claviateur said:

He thinks that one can mod XP11 to become like MSFS

Yeah, sure... undoubtedly! 😄

If you mod the whole globe and have a data center in your backyard, it'll be just as fine.

Realistically speaking, on the scenery aspect other sims won't be able to hit back on the same level. They just don't have the infrastructure needed to achieve the same level of detail. What I could imagine is, that XP will answer with more detailed, updated landclasses and improved autogen. This will certainly make it look better. But to be able to practise your VFR flights on a random spot in the world (not covered by Orbx), MSFS is the go-to sim.

Edited May 16, 2020 by tweekz

[loubar 62]

I could see X-Plane for 12 or something down the line they might partner with google for map data. But for streaming they might introduce a subscription model like Infinite Flight has. 

Anyway competition is always good to see, especially when it comes to the world of simulation! 😉

[Superdelphinus 718]

If I was laminar I’d try getting xp12 on to UE5. From what I saw a few days ago with the tech demo, it’s billions and billions of triangles and new lod method that basically means no pop-ins anymore is perhaps one of the only chances for them to make msfs look dated in a few years time. 

[tweekz 2,165]

16 minutes ago, loubar said:

I could see X-Plane for 12 or something down the line they might partner with google for map data.

If they'd get Google on board that'd be awesome. Google data is superior to Bing data. Even my small european 100 000 inhabitants town is photogrammetry there.

But I am not sure if Google wants this to happen and if LR is willing to scale up complexity (renting and maintaining datacenter) like this. I mean... last year real world weather was broken for about a month because the provider changed http to https... 😄

Edited May 16, 2020 by tweekz

[Theboot100 404]

3 hours ago, Superdelphinus said:

If I was laminar I’d try getting xp12 on to UE5. From what I saw a few days ago with the tech demo, it’s billions and billions of triangles and new lod method that basically means no pop-ins anymore is perhaps one of the only chances for them to make msfs look dated in a few years time. 

Errrr no.  A general "does everything" engine will never compete with a custom engine for performance.  Unity is good for small developer teams hoping to make fairly simple cross platform games. But it's locked in component entity system and inability to access and modify the source code doesnt leave much room for performance improvements.

[Murmur 3,940]

9 hours ago, Chock said:

So, just to be clear, the FIFTH most important thing to you in a flight simulator, is how it simulates flight? 🤣

 

Depends on how you see it: let's say flight model is the SECOND most important thing after the overall sensory experience (eyes+ears).

If forced to choose between a sim that looks and sounds like MSFS but with an arcade flight model, and a sim that looks and sounds like Sublogic FS but with a 100% accurate flight model, I would probably get more immersion using the first. I'd leave the accurate, Sublogic FS-looking sim to you. 🤣

Edited May 16, 2020 by Murmur

[NZ255 309]

1 hour ago, Theboot100 said:

Unity is good for small developer...

He’s talking about unreal engine 5 I believe. 

[Theboot100 404]

Just now, NZ255 said:

He’s talking about unreal engine 5 I believe. 

Oops ignore my comment then

[Claviateur 789]

Yes Unreal Engine 5 technology/demo is breathtaking ... 

And to return to the flight dynamic topic, for most people (like me), if the default aircraft collection offer flight models that behave in a plausible and logical way for that specific type of aircraft, it's already good enough to enjoy the simulation in such an engine.

Fancy aircraft addons will no doubt push things further as they always did (in any PC civilian simulator we know) for those who like to verify the "accuracy" of the numbers on every gauge vs real life data...

For example, I enjoy a lot the flight models of the fighter jets in DCS even if I have 0 idea about their accuracy... I just feel that the flight models are convincing enough for that global type of aircraft...

Speaking of DCS. they have 3 types of flight models with different levels of sophistication. I found this interesting:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Claviateur

[snglecoil 1,828]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

Depends on how you see it: let's say flight model is the SECOND most important thing after the overall sensory experience (eyes+ears).

If forced to choose between a sim that looks and sounds like MSFS but with an arcade flight model, and a sim that looks and sounds like Sublogic FS but with a 100% accurate flight model, I would probably get more immersion using the first. I'd leave the accurate, Sublogic FS-looking sim to you. 🤣

Agree. Most flight simers could not judge the accuracy of a C172 flight model, much less a 747. Honestly, as long as the flight model performs basically by the numbers for a given pitch/power/configuration, that is good enough.

[dtrjones 356]

13 hours ago, viz said:

Regarding casual players - ""I'm not normally a Flight simulator buff"...then wait until it's on Xbox and get it there. This is exactly the problem with this sim and the people who are giving it way too much credit already. They are marketing it as a realistic sim, but in reality, they are mainly attracting people who have no experience, who just want to look at pretty scenery. We are going to have a whole new generation of FS2020 YouTubers who just expletive off on multiplayer. Its not what flight sim is about. The community is toxic enough already. For those of us flight sim "chads", this is not the sim we were expecting. Not until there is some serious study-level aircraft available to match the visuals."

Regarding 'non simmers' - "You are the target demographic, and that's why some of us who have been in this hobby for 20+ years are a little annoyed with this "game"."

Regarding realism - "Thats the problem, this is a game, not a simulator."

Regarding the C172 - "Dude if you're telling me the 172 in this game flies like a real one then I want to see your airman certificate LOL. This is totally a game, not a simulator."

I don't think it's at all fair commenting on default aircraft as recognition of this being a game or a simulator.

IMHO It's clearly a platform geared towards supporting more compelling simulation of aircraft than you get out the box.

To what extent will the simulation level reach we'll only know once third party developers have released there higher fidelity aircraft.

Edited May 16, 2020 by dtrjones

[Claviateur 789]

It's funny that the word "game" was always used in the global flight sim community almost as a curse to disqualify this or that flight sim...

Of course as we could expect, the user who posted the comments for that Youtube video, thought using the word/curse "game" as well to make his point... 

However, as you might know, it seems there is this trend on Youtube these days, as far as I could see, where many real world pilots (civilian and fighter pilots) spend some time in the flight simulators we all know  (civilian and military) to compare them to their daily job...

All those aviation professionals, at least the ones I saw, call every flight simulator we know "a game" no matter how much good and positive feedback they usually give regarding the global experience and details in these PC simulators...

And sometimes they even underline the fact that yes, these are "games" especially when they receive frustrated comments and feedback from fans who are obviously not real aviators...

I hope this social media phenomenon and evidence from the professional world of aviation will make the word "game" fairly accepted. Hopefully it will stop being used as an insult to any PC simulator we like to enjoy to simply pretend we are flying...

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Claviateur

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

17 hours ago, Claviateur said:

Edit: Ok, I don't know how reliable this one is but one comment is from someone who thinks that it's visually stunning but did not like the flight model(s). He did not think the C172 flies like a C172 and claims having "few hours" in a real C172. Then he mentions that he lost access to the Alpha...

Thanks for the information. Did he say why he lost access to the Alpha? I'm wondering if he was kicked for misbehaving in the official forums or breaking the NDA, or if he was retired along with others to make room for new testers.

[Claviateur 789]

6 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

Thanks for the information. Did he say why he lost access to the Alpha? I'm wondering if he was kicked for misbehaving in the official forums or breaking the NDA, or if he was retired along with others to make room for new testers.

After his first frustrated long comment about MSFS graphics and flight model vs his C172 experience, he added an "edit" saying he is no more in the alpha.

So I personally suppose it's related to the NDA.