August 6th, 2020 - Development/Insider Update

[Dominique_K 10,149]

13 hours ago, LHookins said:

Thirty minutes from deploying a new algorithm to it processing the entire globe.  That... is impressive.

Hook

Wloch said in some interview they were working with a network of 20K computers. That helps.

[Slides 1,552]

3 hours ago, MatthewS said:

Well, I don't have access to the alpha/beta forums so I have no knowledge of what's reported to Asobo or what Asobo says. 🤔

I'll keep "nitpicking" and voicing my opinion that, from what I see in pictures and videos, Asobo has "dropped the ball" ⚽ and "jumped the shark" 🦈 with regard to exaggerated scale of certain tree types.

One only needs to look at Sydney in FS2020 to see evidence of that.

Any in the alpha/beta who think that Sydney looks "fine" clearly struggle with reality, but it takes all types I guess. 🤪

When/if Asobo fixes the comically exaggerated scale and incorrect variety of trees (e.g. 10+ storey tall rainforest in Sydney 🤣) then I'll stop "nitpicking" and go back to picking nits. 🦧

😁

This is a perfect example of how not to air out your views and criticism. 

No one has dropped the ball. Those of us who are adults understand that compromises need to be made for performance and resource and time availability reasons. Tree height is not a major issue for a flight sim.

They'll fix it eventually I'm sure. It's not a show stopper

Edited August 7, 2020 by Slides

[MatthewS 761]

43 minutes ago, Slides said:

No one has dropped the ball. Those of us who are adults understand that compromises need to be made for performance and resource and time availability reasons. Tree height is not a major issue for a flight sim.

Well I hope they don't take your opinion seriously. 🙄  Tree height is a major issue for a flight sim. 

For people with a normal perception of reality, exaggerated tree scale gives the impression that one is fly closer to the ground than they are. Apparently you don't suffer from the same "truth" as most of us.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that Asobo exaggerate tree scale for the sake of performance (less trees needed for the same coverage)? 🙄 Welcome to FSX.

So we are 11 days from release on the 18th and yet FS2020 still exhibits tree scale (for certain tree types) that is comical, just take a look at Sydney. 🤡

So yes, currently, Asobo has dropped the ball. 

Despite the assurances of "testers" that it's all under control and to not worry, not the mention Asobo's "can't see the trees for the forest" wise crack months ago, they have failed to address the issue. 🤦‍♂️

Apart from tree-scale (and incorrect tree varieties, eg rainforest in Sydney)  everything else I've seen is outstanding. 👍

What a shame if Asobo ruins an almost "perfect" sim, the best ever, by neglecting this glaring issue. 🌲🌴🤷‍♂️

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by MatthewS

[snglecoil 1,828]

So, serious question. If the tree scale issue is never addressed...apart from the HUGE trees growing out of buildings as seen in the Los Vegas footage..will that be a complete no-go? I'm just thinking, what if the tree scale stays pretty much as is for most of the world and maybe they only fix issues that are impacting airports? 

[MatthewS 761]

8 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

So, serious question. If the tree scale issue is never addressed...apart from the HUGE trees growing out of buildings as seen in the Los Vegas footage..will that be a complete no-go? I'm just thinking, what if the tree scale stays pretty much as is for most of the world and maybe they only fix issues that are impacting airports? 

If tree scale is not fixed, and there's no way to "hack" a fix in an .ini file (or whatever), I'll be turning them off completely (if possible).... The 10+ storey rainforest in Sydney makes me 🤢, I'd rather see no trees than trees the size of "skyscrapers".

If that fails and I'm forced to put up with comically exaggerated tree scale then I won't be purchasing any scenery add-ons for FS2020, just like I never did with P3D because of the comically exaggerated scale of autogen buildings and trees.

Aircraft add-ons, like PMDG are fine, I'll buy those, and I'll just fly at night so I don't have to look at the tree scale abominations I'm currently seeing (eg Sydney).

Edited August 7, 2020 by MatthewS

[tweekz 2,165]

Haha... I live not far away from Graz. Guess I'll pay them a visit if my house isn't depicted adequately. 😄

On the technology:

Generally speaking it does a great job. But I've seen some noticeable flaws that - at least to my inexperienced eye - seem avoidable. Like wrong roof types although clearly visible on BING maps, not placing the correct colors, putting buidlings where indeed there's a courtyard...

[bobcat999 8,482]

Alright Matthew - at least you are lightening-up about it a little bit it seems. 🙂  It is just that you can come across a bit harsh sometimes because you are really passionate about it. 👍

You do have a point though, and people are listening.  I have seen that some tees are indeed out of scale in some places, and I hope it gets fixed at some stage.  The fact that Asobo mention it means they have recognised it as an issue, and I am sure they will get around to it sooner rather than later.

I am pleased that they are looking at the suspension systems and adjusting the inertia issue, as they will be worthwhile tweaks as well.  With a few tweaks that are in the works, I really think this sim will be awesome. 

Edited August 7, 2020 by bobcat999

[Slides 1,552]

30 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Well I hope they don't take your opinion seriously. 🙄  Tree height is a major issue for a flight sim. 

For people with a normal perception of reality, exaggerated tree scale gives the impression that one is fly closer to the ground than they are. Apparently you don't suffer from the same "truth" as most of us.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that Asobo exaggerate tree scale for the sake of performance (less trees needed for the same coverage)? 🙄 Welcome to FSX.

So we are 11 days from release on the 18th and yet FS2020 still exhibits tree scale (for certain tree types) that is comical, just take a look at Sydney. 🤡

So yes, currently, Asobo has dropped the ball. 

Despite the assurances of "testers" that it's all under control and to not worry, not the mention Asobo's "can't see the trees for the forest" wise crack months ago, they have failed to address the issue. 🤦‍♂️

Apart from tree-scale (and incorrect tree varieties, eg rainforest in Sydney)  everything else I've seen is outstanding. 👍

What a shame if Asobo ruins an almost "perfect" sim, the best ever, by neglecting this glaring issue. 🌲🌴🤷‍♂️

 

As I suspected. You are ridiculous. Labeling you a truther was more accurate than I could have imagined. And just so you know, it's not a good thing to be labeled a truther despite what it might sound like.

[MatthewS 761]

1 minute ago, Slides said:

As I suspected. You are ridiculous. Labeling you a truther was more accurate than I could have imagined. And just so you know, it's not a good thing to be labeled a truther despite what it might sound like.

Yes of course, it's all a big conspiracy, that's why Asobo have failed to address the issue, now I understand, thanks. 🙄

[Bottle 663]

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

Wloch said in some interview they were working with a network of 20K computers

The beginning part of this video gives some perspective on the infrastructure available. For instance, they laid their own trans-Atlantic cable!

 

[bobcat999 8,482]

13 minutes ago, tweekz said:

On the technology:

Generally speaking it does a great job. But I've seen some noticeable flaws that - at least to my inexperienced eye - seem avoidable. Like wrong roof types although clearly visible on BING maps, not placing the correct colors, putting buidlings where indeed there's a courtyard...

We can have some fun with this though!  As my signature states, I have painted a large blue rectangle in my back yard so it looks like I have a swimming pool from aircraft height!  Now I just need to paint the large smiley face on my front drive.  I for one can't wait for the next Bing maps update! 😄

[MatthewS 761]

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

Wloch said in some interview they were working with a network of 20K computers. That helps

Probably he meant 20K virtual machines (on Azure).

[Bottle 663]

48 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

rainforest in Sydney

Having lived in Sydney myself for some years I know that’s exactly what there is in places. Due to its micro environment, Sydney is sub-tropical. The trees in Hyde Park and the botanical gardens are about 5 to 6 stories high. Some in the latter are higher. It’s not easy to evaluate but Google street view will show you fairly clearly.

[MatthewS 761]

14 minutes ago, Bottle said:

Having lived in Sydney myself for some years I know that’s exactly what there is in places. Due to its micro environment, Sydney is sub-tropical. The trees in Hyde Park and the botanical gardens are about 5 to 6 stories high. Some in the latter are higher. It’s not easy to evaluate but Google street view will show you fairly clearly.

I've lived in Sydney for 30 years and there is no rainforest like shown in the Sydney videos.

However feel free to link some pics to prove Asobo has Sydney right, with vast tracts of 10+ storey rainforest, but of course you can't.

Here's the real Sydney....

https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.8612331,151.2064504,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipOvWdY_1kqm6t_4YPWbiXYF7sH2nDlwMyCsvDeH!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOvWdY_1kqm6t_4YPWbiXYF7sH2nDlwMyCsvDeH%3Dw203-h114-k-no!7i3840!8i2160

Edited August 7, 2020 by MatthewS

[pmb 5,137]

No need for drama here. Numerous testers have pointed to specific places which they happen to know where trees were wrong. Some were already corrected, others not yet. And some users may even have been wrong in their claims.

They will work on this  And with the enormous number of regular users who will reporting more after release they will get those right by and by.

MatthewS, I would suggest reporting concrete failures yourself to Zendesk instead AVSIM after release - I am serious here.

Kind regards, Michael