1 hour ago, Chock said:

Actually, I do focus on how much the wings are flexing quite a bit when I fly gliders, because they tend to bend quite a lot and it does sometimes look a bit disconcerting. 🤣

 

Another scenario:

First thing I do after engaging the autopilot, is switching to passenger view and enjoy the climb-out. So yeah, flexing wings add a lot to immersion to me as well.

 

As for the ASOBO/MS topic.

Guys, this is a nitpicky discussion on names yet again. ASOBO developes the sim for Microsoft. Not much more to say. 😉

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by tweekz

15 hours ago, tweekz said:

I had to look twice. A proof MSFS visuals just look too good.

I want to bet that if he had posted it with some blurry area's photo shopped in it, some people would have been complaining that the clouds don't look right! 😄

 

Those clouds look exact like Asobo's clouds. "Too much cotton", some like "ash".... colors "too dark", etc. etc.

Asobo, good work, you nailed the clouds in my opinion.

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by MaVe64

 

17 hours ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

Wikipedia is never 100% reliable because information can be contributed by everyone. Anyone can click that edit button and vandalise the page or insert inaccuracies.

You just try to hold against it with the means of old rethorical tactics by discrediting someone's quotation.  If you do so, than you have to bring up a disproof.  But nothing from your angle, only deviation and calculating blablabla.... .

But take it easy, your fanbase and those who want to be mislead seems to be solid .

Sorry lads, in my Previous Post I've linked Wiki's german version inadvertently (German is my mother tongue)

You can find the correct English version for your convenience right HERE

Quote

Flight Simulator will feature Asobo's in-house developed game engine, and leverage Bing Maps data, accessing over two petabytes of data from the cloud on demand.^[2]Azure AI analyzes map data and photogrammetry to generate photorealistic 3D models of buildings, trees, terrain, and so on.

 

17 hours ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

So because it is made by someone else in another location means that it is not part of the same franchise? That's not how the game industry works. Several studios can work for the same title, and several different studios can work on titles of the same franchise. Sometimes a studio can have several locations, blablabla... .

His claims have no substance at all.  He is just guessing and trying to justify his assumptions, without statement of particulars.

Below there is an old article from 2009 (source: Microsoft Closes ACES Studio )

Quote

We've heard about Microsoft laying off some 5000 people, but in a blow to our hobby that includes the entire staff of the internal ACES Studio, the section of Microsoft that is responsible for developing Flight Simulator and Train Simulator....."We can confirm the closing of ACES Studios, which was responsible for the Flight Simulator franchise," said Microsoft spokeswoman Kelda Rericha.

You cannot close a studio (and lay off people) if you don't have owned it before.  The Aces studios where a small part of the huge Microsoft Corporation.

And the new, upcoming sim, will be an ASOBO Flight Sim, or short ASFS.  Because the french developers are developing the main parts of this sim, even its inherent game engine, and Microsoft is just supporting them, mainly with data.

If someone is able to cite other sources, or disproofs, I will be all there.  Because I'm not an Asobo or Microsoft executive, I can only rely on what I'm finding on internet.

But only guessing and a dogmatic approach leads to nothing.

 

All the best.

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by KBUR

Does it matter in this argument that MSFS wasn't made totally from the ground up, but has FSX/ESP code in it?  This was confirmed early in the process.

Hook

45 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Does it matter in this argument that MSFS wasn't made totally from the ground up, but has FSX/ESP code in it?  This was confirmed early in the process.

Hook

Of course it has "old" ESP (FSX) code in it. 

But on the other hand Lockheed Martin and Dovetail have done so too; both have contracted with MS (Dovetail even twice), and both had (and still have) old ESP code based on FSX in its structure.

• Dovetail published "Flight Sim World", which was built up on its predecessor MS Flight (and MS Flight was the predecessor of FSX).  But Dovetail didn't call it MS Flight, because Flight was a nonstarter.
• Dovetails main success was the FSX:Steam Edition
• Lockheed Martin developed P3D, based on Microsoft's FSX.

To me it is clear:  Microsoft is not developing an own sim (built up from scratch) any more because of too much financial risk.

They've decided to make big business with minimal risk through selling different levels of franchise for those who want to take the risk of developing a new flight simulator.

And we all know what hat happened to Dovetail and its FSW department.  On the other side there is LM and still in business ..... we'll see for what the new ASFS is capable for.

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by KBUR

Interesting take @KBUR...not sure I agree with your assessment, but it's really not pertinent to the original topic. 

@JU108, I definitely can agree with the sentiment of your original post. There is so much more going on in a real cockpit that you just don't have the bandwidth, nor even really the desire to notice some of the fine detail that is nitpicked in these forums sometimes. On the other hand, a lot of the fine details that people seem to obsess over maybe aren't consciously noticed during a real flight, but your sensory registry is definitely taking them in.

You have to assume that a vast majority of flight simmers are not real-world pilots. A couple of things are at play there. First, the experience in the sim is the only thing that is known. There is no real-world experience on which to base an opinion. Take the cloud argument. It is one thing to look at clouds at a distance from the ground. It is a much different visual experience to be in a real cockpit flying in and out of them. From that frame of reference, the clouds in MSFS look wonderful to me, but maybe not to someone whose only experience is what they see from the ground married to previous versions of a flight simulator. The deviance from reality has been normalized through the sim.

I am certainly not going to argue for less visual detail, and let's face it, eye-candy sells. But like you alluded, my personal first desire (not that it particularly matters) is to see those things that really matter to a real-world pilot take priority over something that may simply be eye-candy. I'm not talking about perfect re-creations of flight models or systems down to every auxiliary function. but at least to the level that I'm not shaking my head saying "what were they thinking?" The MSFS visuals are good...really good. Here's hoping the fidelity of rest of the sim at least matches the outstanding visuals.

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by snglecoil

2 hours ago, snglecoil said:

 

@JU108, I definitely can agree with the sentiment of your original post.  

Some remarks   :

-  About a nitpicking dear to some, the size of the trees and houses, several pilots on this forum who seemed genuine to me, have said that their height was a non negligible awareness factor when flying low, specially when in an approach. In anycase, I am just a simmer but when I try to land on a strip hemmed in trees I'd  rather have normal trees than prehistoric sequoias 😁.

- Clouds. "The deviance from reality has been normalized through the sim." So true but I would add through the movies, cartoons and games too. Hence IMO the unrealistic sunsets and bloody red clouds/skies that we see in some screenshots. I find them breaking the immersion.I am lucky enough to have a house with very nice cloudscapes  and been an aircraft passengers numerous times, at any hour of day and night. Never saw such things.  

 - On the most important part, what do we expect ? For me, a non pilot simmer, long time simmer, simming is an holistic experience, I do not want to choose between landscape, cloudscape, air and flight dynamics. I expect the best for all. Of course, I know I don't and I won't 😏 but  I feel that it is exactly the spirit of the FS20 team. This is what I like in the project. And that doesn't mean we shouldn' nitpick. On the contrary !

4 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

unrealistic sunsets and bloody red clouds/skies that we see in some screenshots

Ha, yes. There are certainly some stunningly dramatic sunsets in the screenshots, aren't there! While you do get those in real life on occasion, you'd think every sunset was like that if you use the sim as your benchmark.

I know that not every sunset is quite so dramatic in the sim....but how are you going to show off your awesome screenshot with uninspired lighting? 😂

Just now, snglecoil said:

Ha, yes. There are certainly some stunningly dramatic sunsets in the screenshots, aren't there! While you do get those in real life on occasion, you'd think every sunset was like that if you use the sim as your benchmark.

I know that not every sunset is quite so dramatic in the sim....but how are you going to show off your awesome screenshot with uninspired lighting? 😂

🤣

You know one the most inspiring shots I've seen so far in the updates had subdued light piercing through the overcast over Hong Kong. That was good. 

But you are right , what we see might very well be some alpha testers tweaking the weather parameters to show off. However if the tester might wants to show off his or her bad taste, at the end of the day the mod picks up the shots to be displayed....  

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

Some remarks   :

-  About a nitpicking dear to some, the size of the trees and houses, several pilots on this forum who seemed genuine to me, have said that their height was a non negligible awareness factor when flying low, specially when in an approach. In anycase, I am just a simmer but when I try to land on a strip hemmed in trees I'd  rather have normal trees than prehistoric sequoias 😁.

All I can say is that trees are an issue, and the developer is aware of this.

1 hour ago, snglecoil said:

Ha, yes. There are certainly some stunningly dramatic sunsets in the screenshots, aren't there! While you do get those in real life on occasion, you'd think every sunset was like that if you use the sim as your benchmark.

I know that not every sunset is quite so dramatic in the sim....but how are you going to show off your awesome screenshot with uninspired lighting? 😂

Here are some of sunset scenes from my flights. Nice moments. 

On 6/23/2020 at 5:50 PM, KBUR said:

Well, with all due respect, but this is not true !  Have a quick look here:

ACES Studios in Redmond

ACES was a part of the extensive Microsoft Group, responsible for developing games/simulators.  And they have been closed in 2009 by Microsoft, because of a round of dismissals within MS.

ASOBO game studio was founded in 2002 with its headquaters in Bordeaux/France, completely independent from Microsoft.

Asobo Studios in Bordeaux

 

All the best 

PS:  To me it is clear and stays clear (not joking in this case):  This new upcoming sim is an ASOBO Flight Sim.  Mainly developed by an independent studio with its headquaters in France, and supported by Microsoft. 

And yes, they paid good money for allowing to carry the name " Microsoft Flight Simulator" in its title.  In revers Microsoft is making a decent amount of money for selling its brand Microsoft Flight Simulator.

It's clearly not true. MSFS is produced, financed and mannaged by Microsoft, which only contracted ASOBO to physical develop this software. So ASOBO didn't pay to Microsoft for Flight simulator licence, but Microsoft pay to ASOBO for their work.

The first 2 letters in MSFS or MSFS 2020 denote Microsoft.  Nuff said.

Cheers

bs

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by bean_sprout

KBUR wins the Gold Cup for Thread Hijack - that's all I know.

 

24 minutes ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

KBUR wins the Gold Cup for Thread Hijack - that's all I know.

 

We are all bozos on this bus.

 

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by bean_sprout