I know. Same in the multinational company I worked. Sales never sold what was in the brochure ... it always was what's still in development that got sold (easier, because the better specifications). It always led to insane time pressure. I guess nothing changed.

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by RudyB24

19 minutes ago, LHookins said:

I'll go with "couldn't get it solved in the time he had available."  I think the August release date surprised more than just us. 🙂 

Hook

Surprise or a textbook case of self-intoxication in a social media (Avsim) ?

From June to December last year, we speculated like crazy with two schools of thought : E3 in June or after Labor Day. Reasonable. Then the Beast came to Wreak Havoc to the World . Most of us thought it should be released around Thanksgiving after all. Reasonable. For the whole process we had no clue, just speculation we believed in because they sounded reasonable. They were reasonable except...

... except that there was a contract between MS and Asobo with a specified date for the release.  

26 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

I know. Same in the multinational company I worked. Sales never sold what was in the brochure ... it always was what's still in development that got sold (easier, because the better specifications). It always led to insane time pressure. I guess nothing changed.

Now imagine the same thing, just with people constantly sending you hate mail because your trees are too tall. 😄

Personally I was surprised they announced release at August 18 even before the beta had started June 30. It told me they had things boiling in the kitchen ... they even already baked the (DVD) cookies. It would give me a strange feeling as alpha / beta tester ...

5 hours ago, LHookins said:

The problem is that Rob has an underlying attitude that comes through in his writing. 

 

 

I see no attitude. Maybe you are too sensitive? 

1 hour ago, RudyB24 said:

I know. Same in the multinational company I worked. Sales never sold what was in the brochure ... it always was what's still in development that got sold (easier, because the better specifications). It always led to insane time pressure. I guess nothing changed.

This is marketing 101 really; you 'sell the sizzle, not the sausage' as they say.

My response deleted!  Because Rob had responded and I hadn't realised. Thus no need for me to counter the response from the evil antagonist. 

 

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by martin-w

I certainly haven’t read all 27 pages of this thread, but I will emphasize someone’s post along the way- imperfections in flight models will eventually be modified as far as the technology permits either by the primary modellers or 3rd party developers. Enjoy the ride this new technology will bring. Still awed by the fact that we will soon be able to fly anywhere on this planet and experience scenery like we have come to expect from multiple add-ons. Cheers!

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by Doering

I'll add views in a simulation on a 2D screen is always a compromise. Airline pilot AIRBOYD noted this and provided his example of the runway when he is in the cockpit. His work view in real life would be void of any gauges in the simulation on the main screen. 

On 7/31/2020 at 12:29 AM, WestAir said:

I respectfully disagree. I think it's a spectacular improvement on FS9/FSX.


This is a Level-D sim. I bet if I told people this was Flight SIm 2020 someone would shout "The plane moves like it has no inertia".

Here's an Air Bull aerobatic aircraft. If this were Flight Sim 2020, I am sure someone would claim it was "twitchy" and like a video game.

This next video is MFS2020. It behaves exactly as I'd expect it to, having landed in a similar aircraft at Sedona on more than one occasion:

Cheers

Its kind of a thing the community does. Critiquing the living heck out of upcoming sims, nitpicking every last thing and going over it all with an electron microscope often seems to me like the community attempting to coerce developers into creating "study level" aircraft as free defaults,

This was done with Flight, Dovetail sim... Even Aerofly, as default aircraft are compared badly with $40 and more 3rd party craft.

I've seen it so often, I don't even have anything against the practice. Its just something we do, like cats sleeping 15 hours a day.

Nature.

2 hours ago, RudyB24 said:

Of course it's nice if there are files with which we can tinker parameters, but shouldn't the autopilot be flying stable out of the box?

A lot of autopilot issues (porpoising, lack of accurate localiser or glideslope following, over-running of set altitudes, etc) are often a reflection of other parameters outside of the autopilot params. For example, porpoising is often a reaction to the C of G being set even a tiny bit too far back. In manual flight this is manageable but the a/p is very sensitive to C of G positioning. A well designed 3rd party aircraft will normally not have many problems on autopilot because the flight model is well done. Given a decent f/m the original FSX a/p params are I think very good, when you consider how well many aircraft precisely follow a heading, altitude and glideslope.

3 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

going over it all with an electron microscope

"Gazing into soulful eyes through a microscope."  

Hook

2 minutes ago, robert young said:

often a reaction to the C of G being set even a tiny bit too far back

Oh lordy, I don't EVEN wanna think about it.  If you're willing to study the aircraft, work out the necessary file adjustments, and publish them, you've got your work cut out for you, and I suspect you'll be praised.

You probably know more about fixing flight models than the developers.

Hook

9 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Its kind of a thing the community does. Critiquing the living heck out of upcoming sims, nitpicking every last thing and going over it all with an electron microscope often seems to me like the community attempting to coerce developers into creating "study level" aircraft as free defaults,

This was done with Flight, Dovetail sim... Even Aerofly, as default aircraft are compared badly with $40 and more 3rd party craft.

I've seen it so often, I don't even have anything against the practice. Its just something we do, like cats sleeping 15 hours a day.

Nature.

"Study-level" is a rather wierd term for something that is well done. But that usually refers more to systems, hydraulics, procedures, flight management computers, gauges, start up and shutdown procedures and so on. Designing a decent flight model is I think not part of "study-level". If you look to the sim racing world, you'll see quite demanding sim racers who want a convincing physics model in a car, and that is after all reasonable, because it doesn't matter how pretty the cars look if they drive poorly.

So I don't think a good f/m, especially given the multiple examples available nowadays, is something that only expensive addons should be required to achieve. It seems to me to be rather a basic requirement given that it is a FLIGHT simulator!

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by robert young
typo

2 minutes ago, robert young said:

But that usually refers more to systems, hydraulics, procedures, flight management computers, gauges, start up and shutdown procedures and so on.

That's what they're asking for when they ask for a study level sim.  A decent flight model should be a given in all aircraft.

Earlier I posted;
Starry-eyed dreamer: "Gee, I hope the default 747 is study level!"
Me:  "Gee, I hope the autopilot works."

I think now people know why I said that. 🙂 

Hook