The A320 flying with flexed wings was my favorite part of the video.

3 hours ago, MatthewS said:

Likely? Well that depends if they think "the trees are obviously oversized".... Have you seen them mention the issue anywhere in their alpha feedback? I've not.

Maybe because they mention it in the Alpha forums..but then maybe they don'y aswell.

25 minutes ago, HighTowers said:

 I dont particularly find the ATC that much different from the old FSX other than the SID/STAR capabilities and hopefully better vectoring.

If the ATC directs "offline" AI aircraft to follow the appropriate SID and STAR that will be a big improvement.

5 minutes ago, YMMB said:

Maybe because they mention it in the Alpha forums..but then maybe they don'y aswell.

Do they? Great...  Asobo should give non-alpha testers access to the forums IMO... what's the harm?

AIRAC updates are another hint that this would be a subscription based thing. But hey, even so, I wouldn't mind 🙂

As for charts, the Navigraph app is amazing and I don't believe that Asobo could beat that.

And I really hope that the Innsbruck picture wasn't taken at the best quality / settings because my ORBX Innsbruck in P3D actually looks better 😄

The G1000 seems to be working well which is amazing!

Edited May 29, 20206 yr by Thomasso

2 hours ago, MatthewS said:

So are you saying they have fixed it in your lastest alpha build?  Take a screen shot of Sydney and submit to Asobo for next week's update.

No, that is not what I am saying.

I have shared what I think are reasonable assumptions based on what we have seen in the publicly available screenshots and what is public knowledge about the dev team makeup.

You might remember in the last thread you started tearing your hair out worrying the devs weren't aware of the problem with tree size, that I said as they were clearly monitoring Avsim forums and even threw you the huge personal bone of showing cirrus clouds and gloriously undulating runways in their screenshots, the devs are at least aware that people are talking about the tree-size. I also said I'm confident they'll get to it at some point.

Yep, I'm in the Alpha but none of my comments are based on my experiences with it. Sorry, I won't accept directions from you about what to do with my time in the Alpha.

Edited May 29, 20206 yr by scotchegg

8 minutes ago, Thomasso said:

.....because my ORBX Innsbruck in P3D actually looks better

Good as this sim is going to be out of the box, I would think MS/Asobo realise that a viable ecosystem of third party developers is good for the longevity of their product - even if those third-party developers will have to subsist on income from limited numbers of purists. 

Edited May 29, 20206 yr by lzamm

1 hour ago, ArchStanton said:

What surprises me is that in the Innsbruck screenshot all roofs appear flat.(?) For halls, high-rise buildings and some other houses this is certainly true, but for all houses?

There are quite of lot of flat roofs in Innsbruck, but you're right, not only - particularly not in the centre. I don't know if all roofs in MSFS are flat. The screenshot quality is rather low.

Thanks Shack95 , from this viewpoint, it looks convincing! (the comparison real<>FS)

Edited May 29, 20206 yr by ArchStanton

7 hours ago, reignman40 said:

and preferably Jeppesen.

LIDO charts are much more accurate in many cases.

What about the ability to call an emergency? Can the ATC handle this?

6 minutes ago, MaVe64 said:

What about the ability to call an emergency? Can the ATC handle this?

Pretty sure that it would be featured in the video if it was the case.

37 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

I have shared what I think are reasonable assumptions

Yes, assumptions.

37 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

they were clearly monitoring Avsim forums and even threw you the huge personal bone of showing cirrus clouds and gloriously undulating runways in their screenshots

Ok yes, so until I see an indication that they are aware of the problem (or have addressed it), I'm going to keep on talking (every now and then) about tree-size.  Isn't that the point of this forum, to debate and discuss?

Unlike you I don't have access to the alpha or the alpha forums, so I don't know if they are aware of the issue of not. 

I suspect they are aware of it and I "hate" the oversized trees.  They have done a great job with the buildings, perfectly scaled, it would be a shame if they "dropped the ball" on tree size. 

edit: A side-by-side comparison of that Innsbruck shot above and the FS2020 screenshot on page 1 demonstrates nicely the tree-size issue (and this time not even in the tropics).

Edited May 29, 20206 yr by MatthewS

26 minutes ago, lzamm said:

Good as this sim is going to be out of the box, I would think MS/Asobo realise that a viable ecosystem of third party developers is good for the longevity of their product - even if those third-party developers will have to subsist on income from limited numbers of purists. 

True, if it looked better than ORBX, it would be very embarassing to ORBX 🙂 Add-ons will be necessary.

Some ATC issues that stood out to me in the IFR episode:

• so many pointless frequency changes, just as in FSX. Hopefully (if the ATC is based on FSX code) they fixed that annoying bug when ATC would have you switch back and forth between control A and B.
• phraseology is wrong, either by FAA or ICAO standards. For instance, "keep speed below" should be "do not exceed X knots". Or "continue as planned" - what even is that? 
• procedures seem odd. Why would ATC say "Make straight in Runway 16L" to an aircraft on the ILS, in IMC? Completely unrealistic.
• voice (Text-To-Speech) is a huge step back from FSX.

Edited May 29, 20206 yr by alkan