Imagine where MSFS will be in 3 years?

[pstrub 998]

The part that most definitely wasn't finished was the downloader. I still think they should add a check-and-resume functionality, plus the capability to (automatically) download large files in chunks, especially when a connection is slow or unstable. 

I wasn't affected, but this was a big issue for a great many people that had never before experienced download problems.

The autopilot couldn't be left alone for more than a few seconds, or you'd run the risk of crashing into the ground anytime. 

Other than that, I'd say it was a great experience from day 1, with performance better than expected.

I have to add though that I used it mainly for VFR, and only recently began to get into IFR with MSFS, now that the AP is fixed and mods / add-ons allow for a decent IFR experience. If that's your main focus, I totally get it, MSFS still has limited options.

Edited April 14, 2021 by pstrub

[Krakin 5,743]

4 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

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).

Taxi lights are kind of a big deal when it comes to getting about the airports at night in a REALISTIC manner. Isn't it funny how you excuse FSX with 3dp mods but you're not saying anything about the plethora of mods realeased and in development for MSFS?

Edited April 14, 2021 by Krakin

[GSalden 4,656]

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

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.

There is so much potential in MSFS and I really hope that they can pull it all off...  
 

 

[pstrub 998]

4 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

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).

CTRL-E is by no means a new addition to Microsoft Flight Simulators. I used it with FS9 back in the old days, until I learned to start up the PMDG 737 from cold and dark. However, I don't see the need to look down on CTRL-E, I use it too, depending on my time, mood, etc... Doing a proper start-up has a lower priority to me than actual flying, so I don't always do it. To each their own...

And as far as realism is concerned, Microsoft Flight Simulator's default aircraft have always been known for not being very realistic. If you wanted realism, you had to get add-on aircraft, same story with FS9, FSX - and now MSFS. 

[Krakin 5,743]

59 minutes ago, pstrub said:

CTRL-E is by no means a new addition to Microsoft Flight Simulators. I used it with FS9 back in the old days, until I learned to start up the PMDG 737 from cold and dark. However, I don't see the need to look down on CTRL-E, I use it too, depending on my time, mood, etc... Doing a proper start-up has a lower priority to me than actual flying, so I don't always do it. To each their own...

And as far as realism is concerned, Microsoft Flight Simulator's default aircraft have always been known for not being very realistic. If you wanted realism, you had to get add-on aircraft, same story with FS9, FSX - and now MSFS. 

I mostly fly the default Baron as I did with FSX and always do cold and dark starts since I know how to get it started. What is interesting tho is that despite the default aircraft being more on the simplistic side, they are way more advanced that what I encountered in FSX. To the point that I sometimes have no choice but to hit CTRL-E when I try out some of the new planes because I don't know what I'm doing.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

It's very good as-is right now, I think the issue is just the way certain things get worse on some updates. Having been using the SDK since day # 1, there were some tough things that we had to debug and figure out. So far it looks like the latest SDK version is a lot better than the last 2 versions (0.9 was the best though), latest version 0.1.2.0.0. Though they now introduced a new annoyance, unless I'm missing something, we can no longer fly our airports in dev mode without seeing the outlines of all the objects (or making the objects completely invisible). They had it right in 0.9, we could do both without the taxiways disappearing bug, now they fix that bug but we are stuck with seeing the outlines. So we only have 2 choices, reload in the community folder or see the ugly outlines. I liked to test fly the airport as I was developing it.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Nuno Pinto 1,394]

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

Taxi lights are kind of a big deal when it comes to getting about the airports at night in a REALISTIC manner. Isn't it funny how you excuse FSX with 3dp mods but you're not saying anything about the plethora of mods realeased and in development for MSFS?

Because none is credible. People claim that the 320NEO is "this" and "that" but all in all it's just another default flying rock. Yes it is better than what we had back in the day with FSX, and it is one of the best we have but that's to be expected anda  far cry from anything i'd touch today. Back in the day you could actually fly default aircraft without it drifting away to neverland like most default MSFS aircraft do nowadays though...

I have no problems with MSFS nor do i want to compare it to FSX or P3D, they're different animals, but it's STILL not the next big thing, it's still a demonstration of what it might become in a few years and that's all i said initially and stand by it - Aerosoft's CRJ is a perfect demonstration of "it's not ready yet".

[Krakin 5,743]

6 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

I have no problems with MSFS nor do i want to compare it to FSX or P3D, they're different animals, but it's STILL not the next big thing, it's still a demonstration of what it might become in a few years and that's all i said initially and stand by it - Aerosoft's CRJ is a perfect demonstration of "it's not ready yet".

Dig your head in the sand all you want but it won't change reality. Third party devs are prioritizing MSFS in droves and some of them even want to get absorbed by MS. The fact that we have planes like the A320FBW, the CRJ and Piper III in less than a year speaks volumes no matter what qualifiers you choose to come up with. 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

14 hours ago, mrueedi said:

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

1. Stability.

2. You could actually follow the correct taxiways!

Just for starters.

[Noel 4,487]

20 hours 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. 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.

Some contrast for the cup 3/4 empty forecast above. 

Always, from Day 1 for MSFS, I felt the really hard part was mostly solved, which is of course the streaming scenery, photogrammetry and AI used to tweak textures, and as well the atmospherics.   I think most can agree these components of a complete sim have been done quite well--it's innovative, highly immersive, and performance is stellar relative to environment complexity.  As a 30y flight simmer I've never experienced the impact that comes from seeing what is actually below you, to a high degree, as I experience now.  I use P3D v4.5 regularly, and enjoy it regularly as a solid airline cockpit simulator.  But I go back to MSFS regularly as well, for different reasons.   The immersion is substantial because of the quality of the visuals and their connection to the real world.  This is frequently called 'eye candy', often delivered somewhat dismissively, suggesting it plays somewhat of a minor role in a total simulator experience.  I don't see it this way at all--people have spent thousands of $$ trying to improve this component of the other sims, and still, they can't touch what MSFS had on Day 1 for $60, and still has today, perhaps TruEarth in limited locations withstanding.  Anyway, back to the main point which was:  the really hard part has already been solved, and it's a huge component of the total simulator.

Getting the SDK up to snuff, getting various deficient components fixed and on a par w/ the other sims, to me seems like a minor part of the total project that is MSFS.  For starters, they don't need to innovate a thing--it's already been done ad nauseum in the other sims and they are free to use them.  They're just preoccupied at the moment.   People in this thread talk about FS2000 being more complete--yes, it had some of the other features of a fully functional sim, but really anyone who says this seriously is just blind to what MSFS already is in so many ways.  

So it's back to their priorities list.  Veteran flight simmers of course wanted the fully functional sim first, covering all the basics already fully available in the other sims, and MS/A decided to, as you point out, go after the console market.  For this market the huge part needed done first, the scenery and atmospherics.  So they've largely met this goal.  

Xbox users are comprised of a wide variety of people of all ages:  65% are 24 to 54y/o.   I bought Xbox to play PC golf w/ my brother on.  He is ready to buy MSFS for his Xbox, doesn't want to hassle w/ building a new high end PC and is happy with plug and play technology.  He's 73y/o and an experienced PC and system administrator in his past.  They can offer an impressive experience for those who did not get that familiar with PC gaming, or don't have the tech savvy to go there.  Since the immersion part is there even on Xbox there will be a portion of Xbox flyers who will become smitten by flight simming and seque on to become more hardcore simmers with all that entails.

I think MS/A knows what they're doing and why.   For the various hiccoughs along their purported 10y service life, they know their product is so good people will only temporarily shelf it, provided they stay on task to continue to round out the product to become a more fully functional simulator.  That is unknown for sure.  But so is the future of P3D and XPlane for that matter.  The chief engineer at LR may have a heart attack and die, and LM may decide to get out of desktop flight simulation support completely.  After the major performance issue w/ the 2nd to yesterday's world update, I also shelved MSFS until they resolved the biggest issues, which they have by my experiences so far over the past week.  It's nice to have it back.

In summary, the really hard, innovative part, has already been accomplished in large part.  The rest of the stuff required to polish and expand its depth, is relatively minor by comparison and involves nothing innovative--just follow the recipes available.   And undoubtedly they are grappling w/ DX-12 and console port as the highest of all priorities.   I still see them on their stated 10y cycle.

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Noel

[OSM 683]

Sometimes people try to find in the FS2020 something that XP and P3D don't have. 😄

[jpc55 185]

On 4/11/2021 at 2:51 PM, marsman2020 said:

might not even be around in 10 years

I just got back from a short stay at the hospital and that description just might fit me. 😂 When I reread what I had posted at best it was DUMB. (I plead insanity)🤪

The first thing I did when I got home was downloaded 22+ Gbs of data, and this morning fired it up and with adding the latest H135 (the only aircraft I've flown) and took both out for a spin. So far no problems, and I have to say I don't expect any. My best to all and have a great day! Now back to what I love! 

[jcjimmy 150]

Abrams Tank: "But I can't wait to see what this sim becomes over the next 3 years."

This same question might be asked after the 3 years are up.

I hope it looks/works as good as the pre-release videos suggested much sooner - like the end of this month.

[jpc55 185]

Well being away from simming for a few days, I had my POLITING set to hard and I had to back it off to MEDIUM because I had gotten sloppy at it. 🙃 

[efis007 877]

On 4/13/2021 at 6:05 PM, devgrp said:

For the record this is already a solid base. 

Forgive me, but what do you mean by "solid base"?
Everywhere I read that FS2020 causes (in many users) CTDs, stutters, crashes, etc.
It doesn't look like a solid base, it looks like a very fragile crystal glass that breaks when you touch it or when you install a non-default external component.
Do you want to see a simulator with a "solid base"?
Try Xplane11 to understand what "solid base" means, I filled it with addons, plugins, liveries, planes, I manipulated textures, clouds, LUA codes, airac, reshade, etc ... and the simulator does not crash or stutter ... solid and stable as a rock.
FS2020 does not have a "solid base", it is currently too uncertain, delicate, critical.
Will improve?
Of course. 👍
But it still takes some time before it can really be defined as a "solid base".
I state that I am not criticizing the absence of FS2020 addons, planes, helicopters, etc.
I criticize the base platform.
Today this foundation is not solid.
It is as delicate as glass.
It has to become steel.
The simmers don't want the "F1 car", beautiful, sparkling, with the most beautiful aesthetics in the world, but that breaks after 1000 km! 😕
They want a "battle tank" that never breaks down.
FS2020 is the F1 car.
Xplane11 is the battle tank.
It is graphically inferior.
True.
But it is a battle tank in terms of solidity, much more reliable than FS2020.