2 hours ago, filoux said:

If you analyse the new flight_model.cfg you will see it’s a concatenation of the old aircraft.cfg and air table in a txt format. That is to say based on derivatives.
 

Finally we have someone who knows what's he's doing digging into the FM.

10 hours ago, tonywob said:

but I don't see how this was any different when FSX came out which lacked even more than MFS

But MSFS is lacking working features that the two other major flightsims already have. That's the difference. It's not  2005 anymore and there's no excuse for releasing a sim with key features broken, as BA (and just about everyone else) has pointed out.

The analogy is to Tesla. They haven't gotten their quality control up to the level of the major German and Japanese manufacturers, but as a vehicle, Teslas far exceed anything anywhere in terms of engineering design and ergonomics. Tesla will eventually iron out those QC issues. And Asobo will fix the things that are broken in MSFS.  As I said before, in six months, MSFS will be dominating the flightsim market. Mostly because, just like P3d5, MSFS is just an enhanced version of FSX.

17 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Mostly because, just like P3d5, MSFS is just an enhanced version of FSX.

And that's the only similarity between them

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by ErichB

10 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

But MSFS is lacking working features that the two other major flightsims already have. That's the difference. It's not  2005 anymore and there's no excuse for releasing a sim with key features broken, as BA (and just about everyone else) has pointed out.

The analogy is to Tesla. They haven't gotten their quality control up to the level of the major German and Japanese manufacturers, but as a vehicle, Teslas far exceed anything anywhere in terms of engineering design and ergonomics. Tesla will eventually iron out those QC issues. And Asobo will fix the things that are broken in MSFS.  As I said before, in six months, MSFS will be dominating the flightsim market. Mostly because, just like P3d5, MSFS is just an enhanced version of FSX.

I actually disagree with this. For most, MSFS is actually working, & many are quite happy with the features so far. It has always been said that it is a sim in progress, so, you have to be really naive to expect 100% performance out the box.

It is also a bit ingenious to compare a piece of software with a battery car. Rather compare apples with apples, instead of apples with Microsoft.

As far as being an enhanced version of FSX.. Why dont you say that's it's just an advanced (very) version of FS2004.The only similarity is that you can fly in both.

I'm sure that you will agree that the default planes are totally different, as is the scenery which is very different to FSX default, weather, development company, & so many other features that bare no resemblance to FSX. Why FSX? Why not compare to FS2004 or any other sim?

You say 6 months? Why six? That's a bit of an arbitrary thumb suck..Why not 7, 8 or 9? or 12? Remember, the sim market is split between entertainment, & non-entertainment, but thats a story that does not belong here.

I agree to most of what he says. They should dump the current menus, which are terrible - I've said that in January already. Or at least create an alternative menu, strongly decapitated, to provide simmers a better "tool" (=sim). I don't need big pics, screenshots or whatever in the sim. Name, size, basic info, enough. More important is the start-up screen performance, way more important. I am not trying to compare, but I really like how FSX and P3D have all basic stuff on the main setup screen.

3 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

I actually disagree with this. For most, MSFS is actually working, & many are quite happy with the features so far. It has always been said that it is a sim in progress, so, you have to be really naive to expect 100% performance out the box.

It is also a bit ingenious to compare a piece of software with a battery car. Rather compare apples with apples, instead of apples with Microsoft.

As far as being an enhanced version of FSX.. Why dont you say that's it's just an advanced (very) version of FS2004.The only similarity is that you can fly in both.

I'm sure that you will agree that the default planes are totally different, as is the scenery which is very different to FSX default, weather, development company, & so many other features that bare no resemblance to FSX. Why FSX? Why not compare to FS2004 or any other sim?

You say 6 months? Why six? That's a bit of an arbitrary thumb suck..Why not 7, 8 or 9? or 12? Remember, the sim market is split between entertainment, & non-entertainment, but thats a story that does not belong here.

Of course "many are happy with the features so far". I fall into that category as well. The vast majority of MSFS users don't apparently care at all that everything needed for IFR flight is like stepping on broken glass when barefoot. I hate to tell you this, but MSFS shares a lot of legacy code with FSX. Many 3rd party developers are delighted with the similarities and are busy converting FSX scenery and aircraft  so that they work in MSFS. The path taken by Asobo seems to be very similar to what LM has done with P3d. The innards of the sim are the same, but the rendering engine is totally different. The one thing that MSFS has over P3d5 is that it streams scenery and that's a big improvement.

Please stop your passive aggressive nonsense about the so-called split in the flightsim market. You bring that up in almost every thread that you post in and all it does is to get the Mods angry  and eventually the thread gets locked.  

 

5 hours ago, Chock said:

Almost spat my coffee out reading this.

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by Anthracite

I used to luv the crazy scenery artifacts in FSX.  Kept things interesting but in no way realistic.

Microsoft should pay every player a stipend because of all the time they wasted trying to tune it.

 

Regards

bs

4 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I hate to tell you this, but MSFS shares a lot of legacy code with FSX. Many 3rd party developers are delighted with the similarities and are busy converting FSX scenery and aircraft  so that they work in MSFS. The path taken by Asobo seems to be very similar to what LM has done with P3d. The innards of the sim are the same, but the rendering engine is totally different. The one thing that MSFS has over P3d5 is that it streams scenery and that's a big improvement.

I don't get why, if also this was true, having the same innards should be something to fear about if the result are better on each own perception.

We see that this codebase uses CPU threads much better than fsx. We see that the rendering engine is next gen. We see that the scenery tech is on another step.

Who cares if they wrote everything from scratch or not?

But then we bash them because default keybindings are different from fsx, menus are different, flight options are different and we pray for the well known 3PD to be able to port over our beloved add-ons quickly ... 

My personal opinion is that there is no way they could technically have reused much of the code and of the architecture of fsx given the results we see, either the good and the bad ones

The FSX architecture or parts of it are there and maybe some code which is probably why DX11 was chosen as it was less of a jump to DX12.  IOW moving to DX12 might cause alot of effort.

bs

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by bean_sprout

10 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

P3d5 is that it streams scenery and that's a big improvement.

but it's not only scenery, it's weather and data. We all need to go back and watch P3D v1.4 vids and where it was when it came out.

I have overcast weather here today and went outside and told the wife, this is exactly what it looks like, it's not that it was close it was exactly, same texture, same color, same height ect... Once this gets a few updates and some study level planes come out it's only going to get better, much better.

5 minutes ago, Marco Manieri said:

My personal opinion is that there is no way they could technically have reused much of the code and of the architecture of fsx given the results we see, either the good and the bad ones

So if that's true, do you believe that LM "reused much of the code" from FSX for P3d, or not? This discussion is about as irrelevant as those that claim that P3d5 uses 15 year old code. The key thing that has been updated in both sims is the rendering engine. There are two hints that MSFS inherits  things from FSX. First, when MSFS is stressed, autogen popping occurs, just like in FSX. Big blocks of trees jump onto the landscape. LM eventually fixed this behavior by loading the autogen off in the distance and also in small patches, so the "popping" wasn't as obvious. Asobo will probably do the same. The second hint is that the ATC is virtually unchanged from FSX. SIDs and STARs were added, but the ATC is still problematic in MSFS. I suspect that just like with P3d and FSX, third party developers will produce better ATC add-ons fro MSFS.

1 minute ago, jabloomf1230 said:

So if that's true, do you believe that LM "reused much of the code" from FSX for P3d, or not? This discussion is about as irrelevant as those that claim that P3d5 uses 15 year old code.

I think LM could have reused much of the code in v1 and then went to rewrite much of them through v2 ,v3 etc etc.

By I agree with you, my point was exactly that whether a software uses old or new code is irrelevant, as long as it is good code in terms of user's perception of the results produced by it.

Microsoft could have created a whole new codebase but why?  Software to them is an asset as it should be and for every reuse the payback increases.

bs 

Although he makes valid points his overall post makes him sound bitter and angry.