May 28th, 2020 - Development/Insider Update

[popite78 10]

3 minutes ago, Thomasso said:

What prevents you from creating them? Like SimBrief or whatever? 🙂 P3D has "flight planning" as well and nobody is using it. This at least helps the less experienced and isn't as useless as P3D planning.

That true 🙂 but the fact is that it’s true for a lot of aspect of the sim. We will need add-on for the aircraft (fslabs or pmdg), the ATC which is not correct and I guess I will need more. So in fact, we are getting close to what we have with p3d 🙂 

[HiFlyer 9,360]

[devgrp 1,233]

6 hours ago, Elwyn said:

We got awesome screenshots update after update, credits to Alpha testers and I enjoy it a lot....

Actually the drone camera which these photos were taken with is very very powerful, it it's a little complex until you understand how to use it. 

[Murmur 3,944]

I wonder, how do they integrate real life traffic with the player aircraft?

One possibility I hypothesized, is having virtual traffic delayed by say 15-30 minutes compared to RL, so that MSFS already "knows the future" of all air traffic, and can take control of part of it to insert the player aircraft into the traffic flow, without disrupting things.

[Shack95 2,658]

15 minutes ago, popite78 said:

Am I the only one who is disappointing by the flight planning mode ? It really looks like a arcade game, doesn’t it ? I prefer by far the online flight planning website, which show you a realistic FPL 🙂 

They said that flight plans can be „generated from external tools“. I guess this also includes online planning tools.

[devgrp 1,233]

17 minutes ago, popite78 said:

Am I the only one who is disappointing by the flight planning mode ? It really looks like a arcade game, doesn’t it ? I prefer by far the online flight planning website, which show you a realistic FPL 🙂 

Remember they are developing for Xbox too so they have to simplify the interface. I've never used the flight planner in fsx and I probably won't in the new sim. I have simbrief for that 

[KenG 492]

17 minutes ago, popite78 said:

Am I the only one who is disappointing by the flight planning mode ? It really looks like a arcade game, doesn’t it ? I prefer by far the online flight planning website, which show you a realistic FPL 🙂 

Have you ever used Foreflight or Jeppesen Mobile FD on an Ipad? It is sort of the same philosophy. 

Of course I am sure Simbrief will remain for a long time for the caveman types.

[badderjet 181]

Another amazing update, and I'm missing the Feature Discovery Series already. I wish there were more in the future, but you never know.

Since I'm one of the many not being busy alpha'ing this thing, here are a few comments on the screenshots:

• Superdelphinus: Anyone ever notice they physically modelled the DCDU on the Airbus, but to this day it remains dark? I wonder if they'll implement CPDLC stuff, and since the ATC is working already I believe this might be a feasible option, maybe even after release for the long term, but still. The instructions are similar and it should make no great difference if you react in that ATC window or via CPDLC.
• Simtom112: That shot with the 747 taking off and the runway edge light in the foreground: I just freak out to see those landing lights reflect on the fuselage. Awesome!
• Raynen: While I'm not sure how ice accretion on the lower wing like that is realistic in flight in severe CAVOK, that shot itself is just awesome.
• Svg1780: Incredible atmosphere. Those volumetric landing lights. Now this is exactly the kind of weather where I can imagine vapor and moisture to form on the upper wing, in the engine intakes and trails behind the flaps. Also the tilting bogies are, well, not quite tilting yet.
• Edf8981: Again, great colors and overall feeling. Although for the waves we are seeing, I still think the reflections of ground features on the water surface are too defined and precise. But that might just be me.
• Parorng: Once again a brand new runway, no skid marks whatsoever, geez... can also be seen in the video, skid marks still seem to be layered under the runway markings. This really has to change at some point, preferably before release. Also I don't get why the edge lights seem to be interrupted sometimes when taxiways intersect. Irl the lights will often just be of the in-pavement embedded type at these places, even if they are elevated on the rest of the runway.
• ExpertSage23861: This might be me or the lights and shadows playing games, but I could swear those clouds have improved. Look to the left and especially right sides of the main gear, I think these are a lot less puffy and fluffy and have a much more defined shape. Dang, love it!

 

A few remarks on the video:

• No more outdated AIRAC. Phew. Been asking MS for this 18 years (and two-ish weeks...) ago. And once again, patience has paid off. This sim is gonna have so much I've been wanting since decades, it's just insane. Probably not everything, but we're getting there, close as never before.
• On that huge map they have this filter to display certain data, one of them being called "Fix & RNAV Position Report" which I think just means fixes. Seeing that kinda reminds me of horrible translations of e. g. FSX into other languages. In general, I hope they review all labels and texts etc. before release to have them in somewhat aviation conform language. Totally unrelated, I wonder that that "Fauna" filter will do. Are these the elephants? 🐘
• The flight planner is a huge step forward regarding the UI/UX, but still reminds me a bit of FSX regarding the available options, even though it now supports SIDs/STARs. In the long term I would hope to be able to modify a route just by drag and drop, similar to Google Maps or so.
• Also I hope they will adjust the height of all those drop down menus. While they look great, they might contain a ton of procedures at big airports, making that scroll bar super tiny and sensitive. It would be easier if those menus had a much greater height. Other than that, a really great feature. God, how I hated that map in FSX with the arrow-clicking at the borders...
• YES - Another 'set the record straight'-moment - 8.33 kHz confirmed - thanks! And in that C152 shot we actually see 119.270 tuned in, certainly a non 25 kHz-freq. But wait... is that even a valid 8.33 channel? It seems it's not, which comfirms my concerns they won't get the channels right. As I said before, to the untrained eye it might seem like just a simple .005 spacing on the COM radio, whereas it's sometimes .010-steps as well... those are channels, not frequencies. This is important to understand. While 119.265 and 119.275 would be valid, 119.270 is in fact not. Amazing to have the support of the tech in general, but I suspect this needs another big fix!
• Same shot - that ADF tuning, I had hoped SO much for realistic needle behavior, which seems won't make the cut once again, at least not yet. It just snaps to its perfect bearing, just like it would in a FFS. Very NDB-unlike. Interestingly enough, in a later shot at 4:15 that (digital) CDI actually seems to move smoothly or dampened. Also see this shot and watch that NAV2, this is kind of the randomness I would like to see also when nothing specific is set or there is a weak signal. Just adds so much to the realism, cause that's just what the needles do irl. Need to find a good shot of an ADF as well, spinning around like mad.
• I don't care much about the ATC, as it pretty much reminds me of FSX functionality, even though the new SID/STAR support. Phraseology might be different internationally, but it already starts with "ready to copy IFR clearance". In many parts of the world the only correct phrase for this is the simple "request startup". This will trigger activation of your flight plan and you'll get the clearance. "Climbing through ... for ..." is another example that sends me shivers down the spine. Giving "Altimeter" settings, especially in inHg, is seemingly US-centric, ignoring the rest of the world. Now many of us know that in real life the official phrases are not adhered to all the time, which is totally fine. To get more of this variety into the sim however, I could think of some user editable file with phrases and placeholders for variables to be filled in, so there could be multiple variants of a certain radio transmission. The introduction of TTS might really help here too, although the voices really don't convince me at this stage. Localization or voice accents in the future with the possibilites of TTS would be awesome.
• As mentioned by others that waypoint spelling is really not adding to the immersion. They'd only spell if you really don't understand the point, don't have it in your flight plan and ask them to spell it out.
• Furthermore it would be cool to have simply more options to interact with ATC. As an example, it's not that uncommon to ask for the weather or the runway in use at certain smaller airports, when then don't provide ATIS, let alone D-ATIS. Also think of route deviations due to weather, which seems not far-fetched with all the new great atmospheric system and even WXR (how long have we waited for this!).
• Great to get a tiny insight into the virtual copilot's abilities here. I wonder how he flies the plane though and how that differs to the autopilot. Seems interesting.
• It's very weird to see QFE on the Airbus EFIS control panel and the PFD. I'm not an Airbus expert but I'm not even sure you could select QFE even if you wanted to.
• Pretty sure they're aware that no LOC(*)/GS annunciations were shown upon ILS capture, but that seems fine as other parts of all the panels still seem non-finalized (yeah, Alpha, I know...).
• While I'm a huge fan of all the fancy 3D lights we're now getting as a default, at 5:45 those PAPIs are somewhat interfering with the taxiway. Would be amazing to have such issues fixed.
• One little sentence definitely caught my attention, where he mentioned ceilings and RVRs could be precisely set for IFR training. Yesterday I wrote that rather extensive rant about airport lights, and now they say RVR could be set, which for me kinda sounds like the lights will somehow affect the RVR (which they should). Unlike in FSX, where you always had RVR equal meteorological visibility, lights on or off. Hope I don't interpret too much here and this is really what he meant between the lines.
• The sequenced flashes in that landing scene now have quite appealing visuals imho. They 'look' way brighter than the barrettes, just as it should be. Still no new information about physical light behavior in fog. Will be a total bummer and almost no-buy if it stays like in FSX/P3D.
• That wing flex upon touchdown is crazy good, eh. And I like the lights reflecting off the underside of the wing too. Yet no touchdown smoke anywhere.
• There are a few runway scenes that suggest the runway lights will finally be somewhat direction-dependant, although the visible angles could still be a lot narrower. If you don't know what I mean by that, look at this example of such an installation and you will understand. Taxiways, especially centerlines are also affected irl. There is no way to see embedded lights from other angles than straight-on. In most cases all those lights are simply invisible when you overfly an airport and look at it top-down. All of this greatly affects the visual impression of an airport at night. The only ones being prominent when looking from above are all elevated lights like runway and taxiway edges, and especially apron flood lights.

 

5 hours ago, HighTowers said:

And is there no TCAS? Couldnt see any traffic at all on the ND despite saying watch for traffic landing 16C.

Not entirely sure, but in that last landing scene, could it be those three white diamonds on the ND? Although they don't have any numbers to them (which could still be if they indeed were TCAS targets, with no altitude transmitted).

 

4 hours ago, Farlis said:

LIDO charts are much more accurate in many cases.

How so? I could easily claim the opposite and yet I believe it depends on the specific chart you're looking at.

 

3 hours ago, Bottle said:

One observation about the A320 displays. In the close-up under full angled sunlight, they appeared to be unnaturally nonreflective. I'm sure in real life they are antiglare screens, but even so, you'd expect to see some minor texture/reflection from them under those lighting conditions. It looks like that channel is still missing from the screens.

Actually that seems about right. That anti-glare coating is surprisingly efficient, at least as long as no one leaves their fingerprints on them. There are only rare occasions where readability is impaired due to reflections in extreme lighting conditions.

 

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I'm wondering if commercial airlines will be supported in ATC. Such as "Speedbird One Twenty Three, contact Departure on One Two Three decimal Five". Maybe a job for a third party product if it isn't.

As far as I remember those were already in FSX. The voices were recorded, but I think you somehow had to "unlock" them with this mysterious airlines.cfg file or how it was called. I might be wrong though.

 

1 hour ago, Ian Box said:

Call me cynical, but as we didn't see any non-North America ATC messages I'm guessing they haven't got international (hectopascals) baro implemented (yet?). Also they were set to 29.92 the whole time - was this to avoid the repeated messages about being above/below the assigned altitude?

Furthermore, with all the ADS-B today you'll even get yelled at if you set the wrong (assigned) altitude on your MCP/FCU. Even if you maintain the correct one.

[Ident 198]

4 hours ago, MaVe64 said:

Do they even use "... with you" still in real life?

Maybe pilots who never learned radio work on PilotEdge might 😉

[Carts85 1,203]

MS/Asobo could you please put the subscriptions argument to bed once and for all with an official statement so we don’t have to read the same droning opinion that takes the topic on a spiral of petty pointless arguments. An while you’re at it address the tree size even if it’s just “yep we know, we’re on it”. Minus some of the really good posters It’s becoming a real drain on here lately listening to the same Groundhog Day discussion.

P.S - The ease of flight planning will open the doors for so many beginners an new people to the genre. No longer will we spend an hour just prepping our flights. What a golden age we’re entering people!

Edited May 29, 2020 by Carts85

[KenG 492]

13 minutes ago, Ident said:

Maybe pilots who never learned radio work on PilotEdge might 😉

Even though many seem to eschew this term, it is used all of the time. Having spent 24 years of military flying I also still say "Tally" and "No Joy" when responding to traffic alerts.

We can go on with the people who still say five instead of fif, nine instead of niner, or oh instead of zero. 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by KenG

[anden145 2,285]

31 minutes ago, Carts85 said:

MS/Asobo could you please put the subscriptions argument to bed once and for all with an official statement so we don’t have to read the same droning opinion that takes the topic on a spiral of petty pointless arguments. An while you’re at it address the tree size even if it’s just “yep we know, we’re on it”. Minus some of the really good posters It’s becoming a real drain on here lately listening to the same Groundhog Day discussion.

P.S - The ease of flight planning will open the doors for so many beginners an new people to the genre. No longer will we spend an hour just prepping our flights. What a golden age we’re entering people!

+1

[Elwyn 67]

57 minutes ago, Superdelphinus said:

How dare you. 
 

(I’m joking). 

no offense mate 😊, those are pretty nice shot, it wont be featured if it wasn't, just concern about camera it's more like effects than how actual professional camera works.

[Brandon01110 407]

@ 5:50 is that the papi on the taxiway just ahead?  :0  don't hit those.

[andyjohnston.net 617]

The voices are terrible!  Is Fs2004/FSX, the voices were fairly realistic.  These...ones sound..like a robot...is talking...