1 minute ago, bonchie said:

I think he's joking about about photogrammetry trains.

 

1 minute ago, LHookins said:

Not even close to airports.  The 3D one I saw appeared to be part of the photogrametry of the nearby city, but I may be mistaken on this.

Hook

Oh yes. Those are there. But photogrammetry not covers too many places yet... at least in Europe. 

2 hours ago, CallsignDE said:

Well, the environment of a flight simulator consists of trains and cars. So in my opionion they need to simulate that as well.

The environment of a flight simulator also consists of bad in-flight meals, boarding delays and baggage offloads when someone doesn’t board, but there’s no point in wasting time on those things either. 

1 hour ago, Paladin2005 said:

Or do you navigate by night over the atlantic by following the sailing boats or a train?

Just because the trains themselves aren't used for navigation doesn't mean that they don't offer a sense of realism & immersion.  (btw -  train tracks are very often used as part of a typical VFR plan as checkpoints, and actual moving trains are often of great benefit if spotted during low/slow vfr flights).

Now you might fly only large jets and not give a hoot about anything at all on the ground, and that would be understandable...but there are millions who also enjoy flying low/slow VFR...so is it fair to make them wait 25 years for moving trains so we could have 30 pages of raw data added to an FMC that they have no interest in? Or would it be fair if it were the other way around? I guess my point is that, while all development projects need to prioritize, our own individual wants/needs are not the end-all.

Truth be told if the entire community felt the way you do then we could all agree that much of the new world MS is now providing us was a waste of time & resources and the sim would end up stagnating instead of growing and evolving with modern technologies.

Just like the new blades of grass, the 3d trees, the volumetric clouds, the extreme amounts of autogen that will bring your GPU to its knees, the reflected water textures and the jetways...none of these things are actually "needed" either... but they are in there because the community wanted them and because MS understands that all these little things add up to a much more immersive environment...without them you end up  looking out your window at plain blue for sky, plain green for the ground and a plain grey strip for your runway, and all of a sudden we're back in MSFS 3.0.

So, just because something isn't actually needed or should be placed on a lower priority doesnt necessarily mean it wouldn't offer great value.

I do understand your way of thinking. But I always felt that a priority list is something that should be voted on by the community as a whole, and not corporate suits or individuals.

The good news at least, is that the vast majority of these new visuals can be scaled up/down to suit the user and his own priorities according to the way he wants to fly.

12 minutes ago, Paladin2005 said:

 

While I agree that some things like ATC, weather, airports and so are more important than others, I doubt a train 3D medium poly model on the scene is going to be the reason why the other things can’t work better, or is going to eat half of the GPU resources to render it. 

Is not a no buy feature by far. But having trains is a good scenery addition for me. Just like boats or vehicles can be. I don’t know if this will be implemented at some point. I read things about live train and boat traffics months ago, and never again heard of it. 

But probably on one of those works updates things like that will be implemented. Some will see it necessary and other a waste of resources. But that’s an Asobo decision. 

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by aleex

I'd like to see moving trains, and even real world and user customizable models and schedules, in the sim at some point.

There are other more important issues the developers should focus on in the near term, but adding moving trains would improve the immersion factor and realism.

Dave

 

24 minutes ago, aleex said:

Oh yes. Those are there. But photogrammetry not covers too many places yet... at least in Europe.

The other trains I saw were baked into the terrain.

Given the nature of the data they're using to create the sim, I would expect exactly the same number of trains in MSFS as there are in real life.

Hook

I guess the devs who think AVSIM is the voice of the community and use it as one of their most important avenues of public opinion about the sim, scratch their heads when they come in and see the next big request is trains.

They have much more important and bigger things to work on. God forbid something like trains is labeled as more important than Heli support or seasons.

I'm all in for nitty gritty details to be added as well (787 strobes, ‘smoothened’ approach lights, no contrails/particle generation etc are some I complained about recently) but please don’t implement these at the expense of refining the flight model or something more necessary for the core functioning of the sim.

2 hours ago, Paladin2005 said:

As i expected: Ridiculous arguments for such a nonsense in a flight simulator.

Differentiate between eyecandy and more important stuff a flight simulator needs.

Or do you navigate by night over the atlantic by following the sailing boats or a train?

Let's have a little tolerance here. Different folks have different priorities in flight simming. What is "eye-candy" to some is important to others (including me). I am not personally much concerned with the degree of realism in flight dynamics, but I recognize that this is paramount to some simmers. Bottom line: expressing a wish to see trains, cars, and boats is not "ridiculous".

I also think the Asobo Team should add the smell of jet fuel in the morning🤤

25 minutes ago, FAZZ3 said:

I'm all in for nitty gritty details to be added as well (787 strobes, ‘smoothened’ approach lights, no contrails/particle generation etc are some I complained about recently) but please don’t implement these at the expense of refining the flight model or something more necessary for the core functioning of the sim.

Everyone knows adding trains to the sim are the main reason those issues are not yet fixed. Furthermore, with a dev team of 200 people is imposible they divide the work in different areas. How people could dare to give suggestions. 

14 minutes ago, aleex said:

Furthermore, with a dev team of 200 people is imposible they divide the work in different areas. How people could dare to give suggestions. 

There’s no way they‘ll allocate the same number of people for post-release plans compared to when they were developing the sim from scratch. 

There’s a reason why they’re staggering post-release developments to only once per quarter. And I most certainly will not be pleased when I find out that I’ll have waited 3 months just so I can see some containers floating around in the sim. 

Well, we already have migrating birds in this sim so why not trains?

How odd is it that I, not particularly interested in trains and not looking for them, have seen several, and no one demanding trains has spotted any at all?  It was like this on the Beta forum too.  And no one demanding trains seems at all excited, or even interested, in the fact that they're already in the sim?

I submit that they don't care about trains at all.  I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what is actually happening.

It will be interesting to see how many train spotters there are after release... and who they are.

Hook

I think it only means that many folks will post before they do the research...which is so typical. They're probably just not viewing the entire clips and probably not too carefully either (you know, just clicking through it)....just a guess though.

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by hangar

You may never see a train in one of the posted videos.  But on one Cessna 152 flight I saw two.  I doubt trains are all that common except in a few places.

Hook