Anybody have any bug spray? My first flight: C152

[mtr75 653]

47 minutes ago, Slides said:

Asobo had access to pilots straight from the companies at times or owners of aircraft. Access to pilots was never an issue.

Then God almighty, how did some of this "stuff" happen? They had access to them, but did they listen to them? Because I can assure you, from a pilot's perspective, it's an issue. 

[bonchie 2,305]

2 minutes ago, eslader said:

So you were (correctly) insisting on p-factor vs torque accuracy, and should therefore be accurate yourself. The boats are underwater. Some of us get why that's happening, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

I'm not gonna waste time arguing about in circles. If you want to bash Asobo like the OP did because the "boats are underwater" without dealing in any of the context, you go ahead. The boats are not actually underwater. It's an ortho and a limitation of the technology.

Edited August 19, 2020 by bonchie

[mtr75 653]

49 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

No, you’re already trying to walk back what you actually said, which was that pilots should have been used instead of gamers, not that they should have been part of the testing. They absolutely were part of the testing.

Please just stop. Nobody's interested in your garbage, least of all me. Everyone can read what I said. 

[Farlis 2,287]

2 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Then God almighty, how did some of this "stuff" happen? They had access to them, but did they listen to them? Because I can assure you, from a pilot's perspective, it's an issue. 

This is how testing and quality control works.

The people report and then the people in charge of the creative design team decide what needs to be fixed before release, what can be postponed until after release, and what will never be fixed.

[bonchie 2,305]

6 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Then God almighty, how did some of this "stuff" happen? They had access to them, but did they listen to them? Because I can assure you, from a pilot's perspective, it's an issue. 

Some of the "stuff" is not actually stuff, i.e. you complaining about p-factor when you push the throttle up on takeoff in a 152.

Left-turning tendency seems fine to me. If you don't use enough rudder in real life, it will absolutely veer left and go off the runway immediately. It's not a subtle thing. P-factor in the climb is definitely not overdone, maybe even slightly underdone. Sensitivity of controls without putting it down to like -80 making it hard to control either? Now, that's a problem.

Edited August 19, 2020 by bonchie

[Slides 1,552]

5 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Then God almighty, how did some of this "stuff" happen?

What stuff? Maybe their pilots had more accurate data to share with Asobo? I don't know the details but one thing I do know is pilots will often disagree on flight sims.  

[mtr75 653]

28 minutes ago, bonchie said:

P-factor is definitely not overdone in the climb. 

If we are gonna rant about “real pilots” and the flight model, let’s at least get our terms right. 

Right on, Tiger. And it absolutely is overdone. You can climb out in a 152 with your feet on the floor. The ball will be a hair outside to the right, it will not be entirely out of the cage. But as you mentioned, they've compensated for it by an exaggerated rudder response. 

[eslader 1,783]

2 minutes ago, bonchie said:

If you want to bash Asobo like the OP did because the "boats are underwater" without dealing in any of the context, you go ahead.

I think you need to calm down. I'm not bashing anyone. I'm not bothered with them being under water. I assume it will be fixed at some point. But right now, visually, they're under water and pretending that they aren't is ridiculous.

 

 

[mtr75 653]

23 minutes ago, dilore said:

I do not have the sim, however I predicted this. Masts, powerlines and wind farms are hard to see from satellites, so the AI has nothing to work with. I've seen some windfarms, but they are probably hand-placed (because they were animated).

At least in this regard, ORBX et al will not be out of work.

It's somewhat ironic then that it has beach chairs on Rendezvous Bay out front of the Cuisinart in Anguilla. You can see them. 

[scotchegg 4,186]

1 hour ago, mtr75 said:

Yeah, I tried to argue that having pilots instead of gamers in the alpha and beta was a good idea.

You clearly don’t remember what you said.

[bonchie 2,305]

3 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Right on, Tiger. And it absolutely is overdone. You can climb out in a 152 with your feet on the floor. The ball will be a hair outside to the right, it will not be entirely out of the cage. But as you mentioned, they've compensated for it by an exaggerated rudder response. 

So is your complaint how the gauge reads or how much p-factor is actually existent? Because if you climb out with your feet on the floor in a 152, it's not going to just be a hair off the center line in the climb.

2 minutes ago, eslader said:

I think you need to calm down. I'm not bashing anyone. I'm not bothered with them being under water. I assume it will be fixed at some point. But right now, visually, they're under water and pretending that they aren't is ridiculous.

 

 

I quite literally did not "pretend" anything. I explained why they are the way they are and that they are not actual "boats underwater," which would be a bug to be fixed, whereas the real reason is a technological limitation with ortho that will probably never be fixed unless the AI learns to do it.

Edited August 19, 2020 by bonchie

[mtr75 653]

23 minutes ago, Soulflight said:

Uff, well. I am not saying MSFS isnt an amazing piece of work in some aspects. But what always riddles me is what people were doing during beta testing. TNCM is one of the most popular airports among avgeeks. One of the first things half of us will do is load up TNCM to see how it looks now. So someone really thought "this is fine"?

Couldn't agree more. Seems like a lot of playing around and not mich testing. Which is what you'd expect given a look at the alpha/beta testers. Asobo was clearly more interested in what the gamers had to say than what the pilots had to say, who of course can't say anything about it. 

[mtr75 653]

23 minutes ago, eslader said:

 

Only if you choose the "legacy" over the modern flight model, which I assume reverts it to the FSX flight model without the multiple aero points.

Yeah, but the visual effect is that of sunken boats. There's a cruise ship that appears to be under water over near Pelican Peak on St. Maarten. Whatever the cause, the impression in the sim is that it sank.

 

Let's just be straightforward about this: the boats and piers are underwater. End of story. 

[mtr75 653]

21 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

It wouldn't have mattered.  Numerous pilots like myself (and lots with far more rw flight experience) hammered away at Asobo with bug reports.

Microsoft decided to release this early...not Asobo.

Even with all the warts, this sim is incredible...better than any default/vanilla sim to date.

I agree, and appreciate the info. 

[mtr75 653]

14 minutes ago, bonchie said:

I'm not gonna waste time arguing about in circles. If you want to bash Asobo like the OP did because the "boats are underwater" without dealing in any of the context, you go ahead. The boats are not actually underwater. It's an ortho and a limitation of the technology.

The boats are underwater, brah.