Asobo deserved this leak

Alpha testers like AdeptBaton reveal that they chose a good part of their testers without any experience in simulators and despised those with years in FXS, P3D or X-Plane. What did a guy like that add to the simulator? What did he report on the tests?

Other than that they didn't even look they had at least one decent joystick to fly, as I have seen many that were chosen and are flying with xbox control. Pathetic!

This video deserves to be shared because if the product is at that level it is better to postpone.

And I was dreaming about the quality of the 787 ...

Finally, after watching, I decided that I will not pre-order right away, but buy the gamepass and test the standard version first.

Edited July 18, 20205 yr by leonbr

1 minute ago, leonbr said:

Alpha testers like AdeptBaton reveal that they chose a good part of their testers without any experience in simulators and despised those with years in FXS, P3D or X-Plane. What did a guy like that add to the simulator? What did he report on the tests?

Easy there, big fella. It's not like they were having people write personal essays and sending in CVs. There are literally thousands of testers of all types. Let's not go off the rational-rails, here.

7 minutes ago, leonbr said:

Asobo deserves this leak.

Alpha testers like AdeptBaton reveal that they chose a good part of their testers without any experience in simulators and despised those with years in FXS, P3D or X-Plane. What did a guy like that add to the simulator? What did he report on the tests?

Other than that they didn't even look they had at least one decent joystick to fly, as I have seen many that were chosen and are flying with xbox control. Pathetic!

This video deserves to be shared because if the product is at that level it is better to postpone.

And I was dreaming about the quality of the 787 ...

Finally, after watching, I decided that I will not pre-order right away, but buy the gamepass and test the standard version first.

The point of the alpha was really just to test configs and server loads. I'm pretty much sure of it at this point.

1 hour ago, cepact said:

The flickering under the bridge seem like a Z fighting problem between the water plane and the bridge surface .. which shouldn't be down there. Weird. 

 

It's a photogrammetry issue with underneath bridges. I've tried to warn people. Photogrammetry is freaking awesome, but it can also be rough around the edges, especially when you get really close to it or when dealing with things like rock faces, etc.

If people don't like it or find glitches, you can always turn it off.

Edited July 18, 20205 yr by bonchie

I liked the video. That said, we have to accept that all the bugs are just water under the bridge 1 month from release.

I am really not concerned even by the flaws of this recent video.

For sure they need to stabilize the A320. It's far too twitchy - as if it was really light, like a RC plane. I guess this is just tweaking with the flight model. Didn't they mention problems with the stabilizers in recent development updates? The bank on the other hand never seemed to exceed 60°.

The bridge texture issue will probably also be solved. I guess the problem is, that color from satellite images is mapped on the water.

The disappearing cars probably have to do with problems with photogrammetry scenery.

 

Hope they fix as many of those things as possible till August 18th!

Edited July 18, 20205 yr by tweekz

33 minutes ago, leonbr said:

Asobo deserved this leak

Alpha testers like AdeptBaton reveal that they chose a good part of their testers without any experience in simulators and despised those with years in FXS, P3D or X-Plane. What did a guy like that add to the simulator? What did he report on the tests?

Other than that they didn't even look they had at least one decent joystick to fly, as I have seen many that were chosen and are flying with xbox control. Pathetic!

This video deserves to be shared because if the product is at that level it is better to postpone.

And I was dreaming about the quality of the 787 ...

Finally, after watching, I decided that I will not pre-order right away, but buy the gamepass and test the standard version first.

Its people like you that don't understand what an alpha is. It's not a bonus for serious simmers to have and enjoy before anyone else. For all you know, he or others might have been told to fly using the Xbox controller, you know, to test that part of the game. 

26 minutes ago, Dermot McClusky said:

Easy there, big fella. It's not like they were having people write personal essays and sending in CVs. There are literally thousands of testers of all types. Let's not go off the rational-rails, here.

I understand, but in my opinion people who use only xbox control did not need to be chosen as they can test in house. Who takes DCS World seriously with an xbox controller? And that was very easy for them to analyze, since we sent dxdiag to them.

 

25 minutes ago, bonchie said:

The point of the alpha was really just to test configs and server loads. I'm pretty much sure of it at this point.

I really hope so ... as I haven't tested it, I don't know if what was shown is the standard. Consequently I decided to postpone the pre-order to buy the gamepass first, because what was shown was not what I expected, especially on the a320neo.

I hope we all realize that not only do ALL of our sims support XBOX controllers, but that in fact they are as likely, if not more so, to support such controllers as they are to support any fancy hotas thingies you can name?

Edited July 18, 20205 yr by HiFlyer

6 minutes ago, shawty1984 said:

Its people like you that don't understand what an alpha is. It's not a bonus for serious simmers to have and enjoy before anyone else. For all you know, he or others might have been told to fly using the Xbox controller, you know, to test that part of the game. 

The shared video was clearly to show and criticize that the TRUE TO LIFE mode is far from any reality in an a320neo simulator. That simple.

Even on the FSX it was not possible to land at that speed on standard airplanes without crashing.

If that will change completely in the final version ... we'll see.

9 minutes ago, leonbr said:

The shared video was clearly to show and criticize that the TRUE TO LIFE mode is far from any reality in an a320neo simulator. That simple.

Even on the FSX it was not possible to land at that speed on standard airplanes without crashing.

If that will change completely in the final version ... we'll see.

That's regardless to the point I made. 

I'm surprised by the negative reactions to this leaked video.

The visuals, lighting and scenery still look much better than the other current default sims.

Some bugs and limitations (the bridge texture issue) are to be reasonably expected on orthophoto based scenery. Maybe the AI will solve them in the future, but maybe expecting all of them to be perfectly solved at this point seems overly optimistic. Maybe the "synthetic" (offline) scenery won't have them, not being based on orthophoto textures?

I agree though on the scenery pop-up/limited radius, that is disappointing, although we don't know the pc specs/graphics settings used in the video.

I'm also surprised by the negative reactions on the flight model. I think it's not easy to judge the accuracy of a flight model from a video like that, unless the aircraft is pitching and rolling at 200 deg/sec, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the video.

The aircraft doesn't seem particularly twitchy to me, less so than XP10 aircraft were. Moreover, it's a default aircraft, I don't expect an exceedingly accurate flight model. More so given that Asobo (seemingly) focused more on GA aircrafts for direct pilot feedback and flight model tuning, rather than on the airliners.

If you're referring instead to the aircraft bouncing on the runway, well it was already known from early alphas that ground damage is not modeled.

But honestly, although I would personally prefer to have spectacular damage and crashes modeled (as seen in military sims), I think that's probably not at the top list of things that make a civil flight simulator "serious" or "realistic". After all, FSX/P3D have a "crash" message and that's all, I don't think it's particularly more realistic than the aircraft bouncing off. And again, it remains to be seen what the SDK allows to 3rd parties with regard to damage modeling.

1 hour ago, leonbr said:

The shared video was clearly to show and criticize that the TRUE TO LIFE mode is far from any reality in an a320neo simulator. That simple.

Even on the FSX it was not possible to land at that speed on standard airplanes without crashing.

Well as a tester, I will begin and stop by saying you have zero idea of what level he had set his failure and damage model/assists........

The fact that you automatically assume the worst is...... unfortunate, but also gives a clear example of how people can take unauthorized videos out of context and with a lack of information and start rumors and come to firm conclusions that can be as hurtful as they are inaccurate.

44 minutes ago, Murmur said:

If you're referring instead to the aircraft bouncing on the runway, well it was already known from early alphas that ground damage is not modeled.

Settings.........

Edited July 18, 20205 yr by HiFlyer

Let's hope the issues get ironed out in due time, if MS/Asobo keeps developing like they said for the coming 10 years, or, maybe indeed popups and the likes are a matter of settings.

I second the point on 'newness' of the planes, this adds some to the 'toy like' feel. They are in desperate need of some weathering.

Asobo might want to hire Mellow Mike. He's a weathering artist for model railway cars. This is an example of his work, on a 2" high (1/87 scale) car.

 

 

Lol that leaked footage is from a few builds back...like beginning of the year 😂. A lot has changed 🙂

Edited July 18, 20205 yr by YVRDXBLHR