9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Since there doesn’t appear to be any plans for similar scenarios to be included in MFS further discussion seems pointless.

I think you will be in for quite a surprise when you mess up your first landing in the new flight simulator. 🤣

At any rate - I really think that your attitude towards violence and suffering is commendable and I wish we lived in a world full of people like you. There was once a designer in X-Plane who was a die-hard pacifist and threatened to quit any X-Plane work as soon as the first military aircraft would appear in it (or so).

Of course this attitude sits at the very far end of the spectrum and no one will argue that especially the military use of aviation has furthered its technology and has even brought out some of the most iconic and beautiful (as in the eye of the beholder) aircraft.

If a flight-simulator features firefighting, disaster relief or providing medical aid and airlifting, I think there is really nothing that even the most pacifist person could have against that. These are all among the most noble uses of aircraft one can think of. To pretend to live in a world where these bad things don´t happen is living in denial.

And to go back to my opening sentence. I saw that this new simulator will have both collision detection with buildings (and possibly trees) and also an extensive damage model.

Cheers, Jan

 

5 minutes ago, Janov said:

If a flight-simulator features firefighting, disaster relief or providing medical aid and airlifting, I think there is really nothing that even the most pacifist person could have against that. These are all among the most noble uses of aircraft one can think of. 

I totally agree! Not only would it add nice challenges to the sim but who knows how many people it might motivate to aim for a career in aerial fire fighting, SAR, MEDEVAC, Air Ambulance etc. 

YouTube is full of spectacular GoPro footage of helicopter rescues of people trapped on cliffsides and stuff. With the visuals of the new sim missions like saving people from a sinking boat from a hovering helicopter would be good fun and a nice challenge. 

17 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That’s why I consider flight simulation software as a simulation and not a game where it appears anything goes.

And if someone wants to simulate water bombing, they probably shouldn't be told they're morally deficient.

2 planes also just collided over Alaska, killing everyone on both planes. They weren't fighting fires. They were just flying around. By the logic of some in this thread, we should not simulate flight at all, because people die in aviation sometimes. Obviously, we're all here because we participate in the flight simulation hobby, so no one here has an inherent objection to simulating things that can and do result in people dying. 

Given that, it's reasonable to argue what aspect of the potential deadly events we can morally simulate (i.e., is it objectionable to simulate events in which people can die if you're simulating being an active participant in their deaths?), but it's simply not rational to argue that we should not simulate things that can result in people's deaths when the core of our hobby is doing just that.

 

I keep getting drawn back into a discussion I would rather not be part of. I have no objection to scenarios where rescues can take place. If that’s what some people want out of a simulator then fine.

But having the ability to crash an aircraft and see that simulated is not something that I would find desirable. I want to successfully land my aircraft, not crash it and certainly not into a building. Neither do I want to see natural disasters simulated. This simulator is about exploring the world and seeing places I’ve never flown over before.

That’s all I have to say about that.

54 minutes ago, eslader said:

As a counterpoint, in a world where Grand Theft Auto exists...

If you think that's bad, you're gonna be in for a shock when you learn about this. And if I recall correctly, there was also a game where you play a serial killer although the name of it escapes me. Not sure why anyone would actually want to play these games, but apparently some people do.

Personally, I have no problem with Lorby's fire-fighting add-on for FSX/P3D, in fact I bought it, it's good fun. Rest assured, no pixels were actually harmed in the making or playing of it. As someone has already pointed out, it's about saving lives, not ending them and like it or not, the smoke from large fires is a real world hazard to aeroplanes, so if we really do want it 'as real as it gets', then there's no issue with them being replicated in the sim if the data is there. They might even be a useful aid to the pilots and jumpers who really do the job of fighting those fires.

Edited August 2, 20205 yr by Chock

3 minutes ago, Chock said:

 might even be a useful aid to the pilots and jumpers who really do the job of fighting those fires.

Pilots, jumpers and C2. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that in a few years, a FS20  firefighting DLC  including the ATC involved , is used for training and preparation at CalFire or Protection Civile or their equivalents elsewhere. 

 

6 hours ago, MatthewS said:

 

Sure, so instead of raising the bar we'll just wallow in the mediocrity of past efforts, because it was good enough for P3D right? 🤦‍♂️

Exactly the opposite of my point.  Looking forward to the bar being raised on aug 18.  To follow your logic is to let the perfect be the enemy of the excellent.

I flew over my house. There is one oak tree in my back yard about 3x as tall as my house. It is pretty close to being the correct size in the sim. I'm gonna be really mad if MS/Asobo "fix" it and I end up with a bush back there. I like the shade. Sunburn stinks.

Wildfires are only natural disasters on some occasions.  Controlled, and on a smaller scale, they are also an important facet in the renewal of the environment.  Nobody would want the recreation of the widespread destructive fires that have been suffered in recent years in Australia or California.  

41 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

I flew over my house. There is one oak tree in my back yard about 3x as tall as my house. It is pretty close to being the correct size in the sim. I'm gonna be really mad if MS/Asobo "fix" it and I end up with a bush back there. I like the shade. Sunburn stinks.

I've got this same situation.  The trees here (and most of the trees at most places Ive lived) are almost all 50 to 100 feet tall.

I realize that if you live in a city you might suffer 'city planning' where they bring in intentionally small trees but out in the country, in all parts of the US that Ive lived, trees are tall.  X Planes trees and buildings are too small and there is photographic evidence of MSFS trees being too small at Istanbul (see the bing images vs MSFS thread).https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/558821-in-game-vs-satellite/page/70/

 

I dont want to lose my proper size trees.

Edited August 2, 20205 yr by sightseer

We need a preference slider for tree size!! 😄

Just looked at a small airport that I drive under the approach for every day. Arriving traffic crosses the road, and a row of fairly large trees (taller than the telephone poles). The trees along that road are also very close to actual size in the sim as well.

I've yet to see any trees in the sim that appear grossly oversized to the ones I can go take a look at in the real world. I'm not sure what the complainers are using as a reference or what part of the world they're looking at. I'm sure some areas aren't correct, but the evidence I see indicates that it is not a universal issue. I've not had a single flight where the tree type or size has negatively impacted my level of enjoyment. 

3 hours ago, sidfadc said:

Not read the whole thread but I’ve noticed a lot of blocky looking streams, slightly smaller than rivers in rural areas.  All water has a sort of curved line from above but there is a lot of sort of square looking turns as it meanders through the terrain.

This. It's not a huge issue & it only looks a certain way at a certain angle if the sun is reflecting off it. Might get tidied up down the line

12 hours ago, Bigsby said:

I'm hoping that somewhere in the sims innards where it tells it to load a Bing map ,a computer whiz makes a mod to load Google map instead.It's obvious why Asobo and Microsoft can't do this(if it can be done at all) but someone is sure to try.

The problem with that is lack of autogen. It took a super computer with direct access to thousands of servers two weeks to place autogen on Bing’s data. There’s also color correction, removing of clouds and some shadows, normalizing transitions, water masks, etc.

No random computer wiz or 3PD is going to be able to do that because they will never have the capability outside of a major corporate setting that only exists in MS or Google. So even if Google data makes it in later via something akin to a streaming Ortho4XP solution, it’s only gonna be similar to what we have in XP11 and not preferable. 

Edited August 2, 20205 yr by bonchie

Small brush fires are a constant feature of the landscape during the dry seasons in many African and Asian countries. The data to simulate real-time fires is already out there, and finding a way to put that into the sim would massively add to its verisimilitude in these places.

I remember flying into Heho airport in Burma just how much smoke from fires dominated the surrounding landscape. Certainly more notable than, say, traffic on the roads.

James