4 hours ago, Chock said:

and even if you can see a building in that location, I bet it won't look much like your house.

That's it. I see it more as "accurate autogen". Buildings are random in look, somewhat accurate in layout and more or less random in height.

But it's quite good compared to completely random scenery. Sometimes it matches quite well and at least the building patterns are OK. Which is good for VFR (together with other autogen like areas of forest).

One thing I’m curious about. Are water features modelled? Niagara Falls or the Angel Falls in Venezuela? That would be spectacular.

Guys, this thread is suddenly going in all kinds of directions but the one the OP intended. 

It's a good intention. It can be worthwhile, especially to Asobo, to have list of all the things we've noticed that are open for improvement, all here in one place. I bet Asobo already knows most of them, but never the less, the more eyes that look, the more things we'll probably see.

Why not give this list a chance to grow?

Ahem.......

 

We had that discussion before, I think it is very hard to find a consensus. Some people are just such goodie-two-shoes, they don´t want the airplanes to make noise (do you know how people near an airport SUFFER??), they don´t want the airplanes to use kerosene (think of the environmental impact!)... they don´t want them to crash, hit things, and of course no animals should get hurt while making a flight-simulator. Plus the staff needs to drink fair-trade coffee while coding as well. 🤣

It is a simulator. It doesn´t happen for real. The only ill effect is your computer using power. It is a heck of a lot less dangerous or environmental unfriendly as flying a real plane. And its a lot less violent than playing Battlefield 5 or Civilization where you drop nukes on everyone that is in your way 😆.

Flying is part of life, planes are used to save people, kill people, transport little innocent hatching chicks and ferry cheating husbands to their lovers. Lets stay real.

Jan

 

40 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Suggesting wildfires be included is in poor taste. The loss of wildlife in this year’s fires in Australia was horrendous and many people also lost their lives. Nothing to do with politics, just basic human decency.

Again, i will just point out that i said i understood why it wouldn't be & i have no problems with that. Just as i even more so completely understand having no crash animations etc. But as @sightseer also pointed out, the extreme weather in the game would also harm people/animals. It's just less thought about & less visual. Where do you draw the line!? Because at the end of the day it's still a game. I can go buy a realistic fps like call of duty & blow peoples brains out, it's still just a game. 

FSX had missions where you rescued people from an exploding oil rig, airlifted people from a burning car crash, from a sinking ship etc.  I guess they aren't allowed either because they're poor taste. Do we just get to the point where we can't do anything anymore?

Also, i would like to add that of course the loss of wildlife this year in Australia was a completely horrible thing & the relief efforts was something i donated towards. But i find your suggestion that i lack 'basic human decency' very ill-mannered. I wasn't suggesting wildfires are a good thing, that i want them to happen in real-life or that i don't care about human/animal life. I just commented that they'd be a cool scenario in a video game, whilst i understood why it also wouldn't be.

Not trying to be disrespectful but if putting out a wildfire in a video game is your idea of 'poor taste' & poor 'human decency' then i hope you don't see the thousands of other realistic games in which far worse happens & doesn't put you in a position to help stop said bad thing.

Edited August 1, 20205 yr by d25bev

A black screen (if that's still the case) when crashing/overstressing is stupid. No earlier flight simulator was that touchy.

13 minutes ago, Janov said:

Flying is part of life, planes are used to save people, kill people, transport little innocent hatching chicks and ferry cheating husbands to their lovers. Lets stay real.

Eh. I guess I'll bow out here. I've learned over the years that people who dislike the idea of damage and etc, including mods, are so against the idea that eventually a reason will be found a lock the thread, so why even bother?

Toodles, guys.

@d25bev, just to clarify I didn’t accuse you of lacking basic human decency. Just that the simulation should not go down that route of simulating natural disasters like fires which I would class as distasteful.

I you feel it’s a game that’s fine. I have always treated it as a simulator and have no desire to see catastrophic events simulated. Nor would many I suspect.

I don’t have any games. Flight simulation is all I need.

31 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

Guys, this thread is suddenly going in all kinds of directions but the one the OP intended. 

It's a good intention. It can be worthwhile, especially to Asobo, to have list of all the things we've noticed that are open for improvement, all here in one place. I bet Asobo already knows most of them, but never the less, the more eyes that look, the more things we'll probably see.

Why not give this list a chance to grow?

Yea, i completely agree. I'm more interested in giving feedback on what's currently in the game & what can be improved. I have no problem hearing what others would like to be added either but as i said, it'd be helpful to see what other people think of what they've seen too.

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@d25bev, just to clarify I didn’t accuse you of lacking basic human decency. Just that the simulation should not go down that route of simulating natural disasters like fires which I would class as distasteful.

I you feel it’s a game that’s fine. I have always treated it as a simulator and have no desire to see catastrophic events simulated. Nor would many I suspect.

I don’t have any games. Flight simulation is all I need.

We can agree to disagree. Personally a simulator is also a game. As much as it tries, a simulation isn't real life & it's something you play.

Maybe ban all combat games that have guns in them?

All driving & train sim games as well?

As real as it gets? 

I was under the impression that smoke from wildfires could affect aviation.

A real world real time weather system would at least show the smoke from wildfires.  If the actual fires were shown we could have missions to do some aerial firefighting, and the effects of rising air and turbulence from the fires.

Hook

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Suggesting wildfires be included is in poor taste. The loss of wildlife in this year’s fires in Australia was horrendous and many people also lost their lives. Nothing to do with politics, just basic human decency.

He mentioned wildfires in the context of a "scenario" in the sim, perhaps like a firefighting mission.  This would actually be a great idea as real firefighting pilots could practice using the sim.

How you interpreted his post as being "in poor taste" is beyond me.

Dave

There have been fire fighting scenery and missions for FSX, ages ago.