Imagine where MSFS will be in 3 years?

[abrams_tank 7,419]

22 minutes ago, GSalden said:

That you are happy should only count to you. If you only use the default ac it might be good enough.

If you take a look at the MSFS forum where this update is being discussed than you will see many opposite opinions.

The succes is primairy because of the huge marketing campaign. Great looking vids and Q&A’s etc. 

And many of the eyecandy likers where all about systems in XP/P3D and PR scenery was not that important....

Just give me a solid base with all default aircraft working and then start expanding.,,

This latest patch has been tested by 300 betatesters and no one noticed the WASM issue ..?!?!?

No offense. But you are also going down the path of a321.

Again, I said MSFS brought flight simulation to the 2020s.  That it raised the bar on graphics, and generating 3D terrain from satellite/photogrammetry data streamed to the player's computer for the entire world.  And they did it at the low cost of $60 USD without recurring subscription fees.

Taking out your frustration on me for the recent issues has nothing to do with what I said in the text above. And for the record, I have actively been asking people to upvote the question on making beta testing "opt in" for the entire player base, not just limiting the beta to 300 beta testers, so more bugs can be discovered & fixed before the patch is released to the public.

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by abrams_tank

[crimplene 634]

13 minutes ago, GSalden said:

That you are happy should only count to you. If you only use the default ac it might be good enough.

If you take 

And many of the eyecandy likers where all about systems in XP/P3D and PR scenery was not that important....

Just give me a solid base with all default aircraft working and then start expanding.,,

This latest patch has been tested by 300 betatesters and no one noticed the WASM issue ..?!?!?

Nonsense. The problem only occurs with stand-alone wasm modules, very few people use. Your above (in an earlier post) claim that there are problems with the CRJ shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. Same with your silly remark that this update was 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, when it was clearly a very successful and much appreciated update. You seem to be no "eyecandy liker". Then why using MSFS if a realistic scenery is not important to you? To me it seems that it is your only goal to spread fake-news and negativity. 

Default aircraft, especially GA aircraft are much, much better than the default aircraft in X-Plane or P3D.

 

[GSalden 4,657]

46 minutes ago, crimplene said:

Nonsense. The problem only occurs with stand-alone wasm modules, very few people use. Your above (in an earlier post) claim that there are problems with the CRJ shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. Same with your silly remark that this update was 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, when it was clearly a very successful and much appreciated update. You seem to be no "eyecandy liker". Then why using MSFS if a realistic scenery is not important to you? To me it seems that it is your only goal to spread fake-news and negativity. 

Default aircraft, especially GA aircraft are much, much better than the default aircraft in X-Plane or P3D.

 

Take off your pink glasses....

Fake news ? Go read the official MSFS forum (+ AS forum) and see what the update brought. 

Grow up with your impolite behavior....

 

[GSalden 4,657]

52 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

No offense. But you are also going down the path of a321.

Again, I said MSFS brought flight simulation to the 2020s.  That it raised the bar on graphics, and generating 3D terrain from satellite/photogrammetry data streamed to the player's computer for the entire world.  And they did it at the low cost of $60 USD without recurring subscription fees.

Taking out your frustration on me for the recent issues has nothing to do with what I said in the text above. And for the record, I have actively been asking people to upvote the question on making beta testing "opt in" for the entire player base, not just limiting the beta to 300 beta testers, so more bugs can be discovered & fixed before the patch is released to the public.

 

I agree to almost everything you wrote.

No frustration here as I can fly with P3D. I just hoped this new update fixed things. Still can’t fly the 787. Still the handmade airports like Amsterdam have bumpy runways :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni9oruojmw87mji/Foto 25-01-2021 20 39 10.png?dl=0

 

 

[crimplene 634]

41 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Take off your pink glasses....

Fake news ? Go read the official MSFS forum (+ AS forum) and see what the update brought. 

Grow up with your impolite behavior....

 

I didn't find anything about a broken CRJ in the Aerosoft forums. Instead it works just fine. Why are you inventing stories?

 

[GSalden 4,657]

I am curious how long it will take to fix this. Again, it’s all about eyecandy and the upcoming release of the XBox version. 

Too much systemwise that needs to be fixed.

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by GSalden

[a321 207]

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

If you hate MSFS so much, why are you here in this forum? Maybe you should go to the P3D or X-Plane forum.

You are so bitter and negative about every single aspect of MSFS, I have no idea why you play MSFS in the first place.

What I see is MSFS pulled flight simulation to the 2020s.  X-Plane and P3D would have kept flight simulation a decade behind at their rate of improvement.

Just uninstall MSFS.  You are so negative and bitter about everything about MSFS.  You don’t have single positive thing to say about it.  Go back to P3D and X-Plane.  I’m not sure what you are doing in this forum anyways.

I dont hate MSFS. I hate the way it has been developed. 

You say they brought Flight sim into the 20th Century! Graphically yes, the rest of it no way, FS2000 is more complete. The real problem is FS2020 has attracted a vast number of people who dont want to get to complex, it offers an opportunity for them to use a flight sim and they fear that if it actually became a simulator they would no longer be able to play because they would actually have to learn. 

Let me predict where it will be in 3 years.

It will go to console and fail, after month one all the GTA kiddies will have abandoned it no weapons, I cant shoot everything!!!, There will be hissy fits because they cant fly anything especially things like the CRJ,if that will even be available on the consoles. The PC Version will suffer as a result. The market place will be flooded with nickel & dime add-ons, none of which will suite any serious simmer. If MS are so confident of it, dont put it on game pass and lets see its install base 2 months after release. It will eventually end up with a small following on console that wont be worth maintaining in the long run.

The bean counters will then either cut the dev team down or just cut the project. If they decide to keep it going they will come crawling back to the Serious simmers with some BS excuses another 2 years of development, developing what should of already been developed and then it will reach its true potential because ASOBO will have clear definition of the where the sim should be placed. The console was always the end game and will IMHO be the end, but lets see. 

Meanwhile X-plane et al will still continue growing, Go read the forums, people are returning to other sims in droves, because no matter how amazing MSFS looks, no matter how much potential there is and there is tons, more than enough for it to be king and stay king, it is not being used and I hate that, and I have every right to hate it and voice it. It should never of been released in its current state and it should not be in the state it is, and I am sorry to say they knew this and scraped the barrel on appeal to gain momentum. 

This should of been the best SIMULATOR ever released and it isn't, it may very well become that, but that is not what was sold to me anyway! and for that I am annoyed, so what? I also cant stand the blind denial that goes on and the rubbishing of other sims and peoples hard work. I read all kinds of BS, X-plane add-on devs are stuck in their ways etc....err no, they would be there and most are, but the sim the sdk is a pain. Why is it that the weather radar works in MSFS but Aerosoft could not add it day 1 to the CRJ? why is that? Who wants to develop like for that, I would not want to go from selling and making $80 add-ons to half baked add-ons because the sim is going to let me down, just on Pride alone.

Caraendo get all the flack over their planes being broken every update, but the truth is, its is hardly ever their fault! who wants to deal with that! 

This is what I hate, not the sim. And by the way I sunk probably over £1000 into MSFS already, so again I dont hate it, but it is not what it should be and not what was promised.

Edited April 14, 2021 by a321

[Nuno Pinto 1,397]

4 hours ago, Krakin said:

Dude that comment makes no sense. Taxi lights still don't work in FSX to this day so what are you on about?

What makes no sense is what you just said. I'm not part of the CTRL-E crew, so we're clearly on a different path here. You're worried about looks, i'm worried about realism inside the airplane, in the cockpit, i don't care about "taxi lights" as those work perfectly with the addons i use (so, not the CTRL-E things MSFS features nowadays).

[mrueedi 702]

Imho MS by a long shot owns the best digital model of the whole globe now. By that they got the hard part right for the base sim. From the sources we read, that they had 2 PhDs in rooftop image analysis to get that data right. No other sim is coming close or will come close.

System deepth on the other hand has always been added by addons. There is zero difference to the other sims in that regards. The only difference is the state on the life cycle. All the ingrediences are there, just not the add-ons yet.

So in three years, I predict the number of add-ons will have exploded. In the freeware area, benchmark setting addons will exist in great variety, in the payware area every current Boeing and Airbus aircraft will be available in study level deepth. And some open source projects will have accomplished more than the best today existing payware on any existing sim. The performance will be excellent on much more systems and the lacking parts of the sim will be resolved. The nitpickers will have nothing to nitpick anymore.

The graphics will be so good, that the first cinematic film will have made use of the scenery for some scenes.

Further MS will make use of the digital model of the earth. They will have announced a Trainsim, in which each railway track globally can be operated out of the box. They will have announced a Ship simulator, which models every corner on the earth reachable by a ship. Climate researchers will have made use of MSFS based algorithms to count the trees on the earth.

Thats my prediction. A bit wild, I agree, but I like thinking outside of the box...

 

1 hour ago, a321 said:

You say they brought Flight sim into the 20th Century! Graphically yes, the rest of it no way, FS2000 is more complete

Now tell me in which part FS2000 was better than MSFS. 

 

1 hour ago, a321 said:

The real problem is FS2020 has attracted a vast number of people who dont want to get to complex, 

This is not a "problem". This is called "serve a market with a product, which is under heavy demand". Its not the fault of these people nor the vendor of a base sim, that you require something else. Thats your problem. MSFS can't cover the needs of everybody. Especially not in the first years after launch. No sim can. How would you feel, if this vast number of people would go over to the other sim's forums and write hundreds posts like yours about the lacking graphics in those sims? You need to understand, that the sims in their current state address different segments of the markets. If you fly IFR by night, you could use FSX and a good addon and have everything you'd ever wish. MSFS excells in the area of VFR flying on the other hands. "Navigation with the eyes rather than the FMS" so to speak.

 

1 hour ago, a321 said:

It should never of been released in its current state, and I am sorry to say they knew this and scraped the barrel on appeal to gain momentum.  

Rubbish, it offers a lot for many, so why waiting with the release last August? The launch was perfectly timed to address the needs of a locked down crowd. Not releasing it would be a huge loss not only for me. True, for specific requirements (= if people putting emphasis exactly on the weak spots), it needs to grow, but how on earth was that not clear to everybody? No product covers everything from the first day on.

Edited April 14, 2021 by mrueedi

[abrams_tank 7,419]

1 hour ago, a321 said:

I dont hate MSFS. I hate the way it has been developed. 

You say they brought Flight sim into the 20th Century! Graphically yes, the rest of it no way, FS2000 is more complete.

But it's more than graphics.  I have pointed out over and over again that MSFS can stream satellite and photogrammetry data to you at real time to generate 3D terrain that mimicks the real world.  And it costs a one time fee of $60 USD with no recurring subscription fees.  And it cover the entire world.

If a similar service were offered for X-Plane or P3D, it is reasonable for that service to charge $10 USD a month, which would equate to $120 USD a year.  Already, if you paid $60 USD to use MSFS for the last 8 months, and it would have cost you $80 USD to use such a service if it were offered for X-Plane/P3D, you would have profited already by playing MSFS.  

Edited April 14, 2021 by abrams_tank

[abrams_tank 7,419]

3 hours ago, GSalden said:

I agree to almost everything you wrote.

No frustration here as I can fly with P3D. I just hoped this new update fixed things. Still can’t fly the 787. Still the handmade airports like Amsterdam have bumpy runways :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni9oruojmw87mji/Foto 25-01-2021 20 39 10.png?dl=0

 

 

We all want MSFS to be better.  I pushed and I will continue to push for Asobo to do a proper "opt in" beta testing where the entire player base can opt in to the beta.  

I think the best way forward is to keep pushing Asobo in the areas we want to fix the most.  But I also think it's best to use constructive criticism to help Asobo to help them get to where want MSFS to be. In the meantime, despite all the warts and imperfections of MSFS, I enjoy it immensely.  I feel that I am finally playing a modern flight simulator and I appreciate the work that Asobo/Microsoft have done, even if MSFS is not perfect yet.

[GSalden 4,657]

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

Imho MS by a long shot owns the best digital model of the whole globe now. By that they got the hard part right for the base sim. From the sources we read, that they had 2 PhDs in rooftop image analysis to get that data right. No other sim is coming close or will come close.

System deepth on the other hand has always been added by addons. There is zero difference to the other sims in that regards. The only difference is the state on the life cycle. All the ingrediences are there, just not the add-ons yet.

So in three years, I predict the number of add-ons will have exploded. In the freeware area, benchmark setting addons will exist in great variety, in the payware area every current Boeing and Airbus aircraft will be available in study level deepth. And some open source projects will have accomplished more than the best today existing payware on any existing sim. The performance will be excellent on much more systems and the lacking parts of the sim will be resolved. The nitpickers will have nothing to nitpick anymore.

The graphics will be so good, that the first cinematic film will have made use of the scenery for some scenes.

Further MS will make use of the digital model of the earth. They will have announced a Trainsim, in which each railway track globally can be operated out of the box. They will have announced a Ship simulator, which models every corner on the earth reachable by a ship. Climate researchers will have made use of MSFS based algorithms to count the trees on the earth.

Thats my prediction. A bit wild, I agree, but I like thinking outside of the box...

 

Now tell me in which part FS2000 was better than MSFS. 

 

This is not a "problem". This is called "serve a market with a product, which is under heavy demand". Its not the fault of these people nor the vendor of a base sim, that you require something else. Thats your problem. MSFS can't cover the needs of everybody. Especially not in the first years after launch. No sim can. How would you feel, if this vast number of people would go over to the other sim's forums and write hundreds posts like yours about the lacking graphics in those sims? You need to understand, that the sims in their current state address different segments of the markets. If you fly IFR by night, you could use FSX and a good addon and have everything you'd ever wish. MSFS excells in the area of VFR flying on the other hands. "Navigation with the eyes rather than the FMS" so to speak.

 

Rubbish, it offers a lot for many, so why waiting with the release last August? The launch was perfectly timed to address the needs of a locked down crowd. Not releasing it would be a huge loss not only for me. True, for specific requirements (= if people putting emphasis exactly on the weak spots), it needs to grow, but how on earth was that not clear to everybody? No product covers everything from the first day on.

The product was not finished in august and we all know that.

If I am correct it  just coming out of alpha and only 2 weeks in beta. And many beta testers pointed to many issues/bugs. 
But the release date was fixed and it was time to make money ., 

They should have released it 1 year later...

[mrueedi 702]

30 minutes ago, GSalden said:

The product was not finished in august and we all know that.

Define finished. I bet, most of what you call "bugs" in fact was just lacking functionality (means on purpose lacking, not due to coding errors), which would be acceptable for a Version 1 release.

Not covering your needs does not mean, that it is not finished. It certainly was finished for me.

Look, global photogrammetry is very close to the top of my wishlist. My wishlist is of course not more valid than yours but it is also not less valid than yours. Should I e.g. say that XPlane and P3D were released unfinished, just because they don't tick that box for me? That would be silly. But many are doing exactly that regarding MSFS.

Edited April 14, 2021 by mrueedi

[GSalden 4,657]

7 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

Define finished. I bet, most of what you call "bugs" in fact was just lacking functionality (means on purpose lacking, not due to coding errors), which would be acceptable for a Version 1 release.

Not covering your needs does not mean, that it is not finished. It certainly was finished for me.

You can defend MSFS what you want but it wasn’t finished by far. Read back all threads just after the release....

Your expectations might be lower than mine...

[mrueedi 702]

1 minute ago, GSalden said:

Your expectations might be lower than mine...

A good example how everybody tends to see his wishes as the golden standard.

If you honestly review your requirements (as a home cockpit builder), you must admit that they are pretty far away from mainstream.