11 minutes 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. 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.

The ATC was discussed during testing and basically in a nutshell the team didn't have the resources (budget) to rework the ATC so they decided to leave it as is.

4 minutes ago, Marco Manieri said:

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.

Okay, but are we allowed to complain when re-using the code is a problem?

As one example, the turboprop modeling appears to be a direct port of what was in FSX. Turboprops badly needed improving from what was in FSX, not porting. Asobo appears to be leaving that for 3rd party devs. This may be how it was done in the past, but it's not what many of us expected for a "next gen" sim. 

"Technical debt"

bs

1 minute ago, Paraffin said:

Okay, but are we allowed to complain when re-using the code is a problem?

I think anybody who paid is entitled to complain for problems either from reused or from new code.

I just find that sometimes the "reused code" is brought as being a problem just because it's reused

found an interesting article by the same Bruce introducing flight sim team in 1999, the communication style feels very similar to todays MSFS team ("We hear you")

https://web.archive.org/web/20030211005125/http://www.microsoft.com/Games/FS2000/articles_fs98_team_599.asp

he seems to have been quiet high in the hierarchy, but left before FSX so you can't really blame that release on him, although he participated in the early planning of it

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by cepact

Generally speaking code reuse could involve tweaking or throwing out data and code objects.  You need to verify that the code is even relevant or should we include the (ATC?) code as-is.  Changing ATC could be out of the budget.

Cheers

bs

 

 

 

 

IMO MFS should at most be compared to MS FLIGHT which was, in itself, a big step fwd from FSX... and a very interesting flight simulator before the whole project started to derrail ( which started probably before relase... ). Unfortunately it's fate was what it was...

Let's just wish MFS doesn't follow the same route ...

 

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by jcomm

34 minutes 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. 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.

Not sure of your argument or who you're trying to convince that FS is a tarted up version of old sims, but unfortunately not much is sticking based on a couple of seconds of in-sim time...

12 hours ago, ErichB said:

With opensource development possible, those default airliners will be fixed by the community in short order.  Like another thread has indicated, it's Zibo style modding of the A320N.  

Makes me wish they made a default 737 instead 😞

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by FlyingInACessna

3 hours ago, Turpentine said:

This was a very painful read, it oozes with contempt and (very) selective memory. Actually, more than painful, it was sad.

Couldn't agree more. Given that updates to FSX were few and far between, and communication from the devs was non-existent, this is a bit rich.

Hello all,

"In sum, FS2020 strikes me as an update that focuses on visual wow factors that attract enthusiasts of console games and some veteran “simmers.” But it’s an incomplete flight simulation. In fact, in many respects, it’s a step backward for virtual aviators and real-world pilots who want to experience aviation when they can’t take to the skies in a real aircraft. I hope that Microsoft and the developer who created this new simulation will work closely with the add-on developers who can fill in gaps and make FS2020 more than just spectacular way to see the world from above."

I admit that I have not waded though the now 6 pages of comment, so I do not really know the common theme of the conversation.  However, I just wanted to comment on the summary quoted above.

I really do not think that any of us using this simulator platform do NOT realize that this is incomplete.  Can somebody tell me just which simulator actually is complete. FSX, 2006 vintage, is still getting addons and has gone from abysmal to very reasonable and certainly enjoyable, P3D is still getting addons (despite its age and maturity) and the same applies to ALL the other platforms.

Bruces' work with ACES was commendable but he and his team did not produce a complete simulator ether, and I believe that, that is an important fact/concept.  This is not to denigrate ACES teams whatsoever.  They did do great work and started us all on an upward journey. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he has made the comment "but it's an incomplete flight simulation" because in so many ways it is exactly what  ACES did/achieved and it reads to me, as an invalid criticism. Virtual aviators and real-world pilots could not take to the skies in FS2004 or any other platform, to experience aviation in a real aircraft. (particularly, any default aircraft)

Finally, he hopes (I actually know) that add-on developers WILL take to this like flies to honey, to make it a much much better sim which in the final analysis, will always be incomplete, and long may that process remain in place.  

For the good of the community, the sim and the future, if I could afford it, I would buy all the 3PDs running shoes, so that they could get these add-ons to us faster LOL

Thanks for listening.

Tony

4 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.

That, and the rest of your post, is an excellent summing up. What slightly baffles me is that quite a lot of useful params in the "old" air file appear to be missing. Or maybe the descriptions or labels have changed. Some of these params were key in more easily setting up desired outcomes - for example side slip. For some reason so far I cannot persuade the "modern" flight model option to side slip more than a few degrees, whereas the exact same tweaks in the "Legacy" model can promote a substantial side slip.

So when you switch from "Modern" to "Legacy" and vice versa something not obvious is kicking in and out. I notice in the Bonanza aircraft cfg at the bottom is the line

Sim=Cessna172SP

I wonder whether this is just a reference or whether it really is calling some kind of truncated or global "air" file to which the user has no access?

 

 

2 hours ago, MikeT707 said:

Sarcasm Alert: Please do not proceed if you cannot understand sarcasm. 

FSX was definitely not aimed at a gaming market and was certainly intended for serious virtual pilots in command. Many advanced pilot in command features and systems are enabled, not just basic stuff like MSFS, plus the FSX flight model is finely tuned. FSX is a good training aid.

Thanks for your post. I had forgotten that ad and the 'artist interpretation' screenshots. It was a long time ago, isn't it?

FSX was a huge disappointment. Period, end of paragraph. It ran like garbage and the included aircraft were poor. It looked like @ss. I haven't forgotten, if others choose to.

Fast forward to a month ago. To get a decent simulator going you had to buy the sim; either XP or P3D. You had to buy addons; many addons. You had to install, update and configure each addon while hoping they don't conflict with each other. You generally had to pick one sim and become expert in that simulator. Why?, you may ask. Because either one required a level of expert knowledge that only the hardcore could hope to attain; which addons, what aircraft, what settings for each aircraft. Oh you want to fly IFR? Well, then, get a Navigraph subscription, or you can use a web site. I guess you'll need a laptop or a second monitor then because how else can you see one while using the other? You aren't satisfied with the controller setup? Don't worry. There's a addon for that too. Lucky you. It never ends.

Oh look. An update from P3D. Cool! Oh-oh. This update breaks most of the addons. Guess I'll wait till the 3rd party guys get busy and release an update too. But, once they do release it, after an hour or 2, I'll have everything, more or less, where it was before the update.

I'm not harshing on P3D or XP. I've had many fun hours with both. I hope I've illustrated, where the state of the art was, prior to the release of MFS.

Now, we have a new sim. I can install it and, after some controller setup, fly, and have fun. This is just great.

I had/have reached the end with P3D and XP. They're fine, but I just can't be bothered to spend hours fighting with my simulators any longer. For a short example, I loaded up P3D with the FSL A319. It was beautiful and I enjoyed the fidelity of the systems--at 15 fps. Yeah, I know, just go and adjust the settings and turn off the weather injection and you be all the way up to 24 fps! Joy.

The release of MFS is a breath of fresh air. I'm looking forward to the future of flight simming/gaming, whatever you call it.

 

RichieFly,

Mate I do agree with most of this completely. 

I differ with respect to P3D and Xplane in that I fly both of them daily, and I am not about to give them up.  I will probably maintain this even after we get some absolutely complete addon aircraft, sceneries and utilities for MSFS.  I firmly believe that, at least for the time being, MSFS is the most complete and incredible "Base" simulator and even the default aircraft (as opposed to FSX etc)  are enjoyable.  There are, for me, so many add-on aircraft and sceneries in Xplane and P3D that I find it hard to ignore because, quite simply, they ARE better than MSFS at the moment.  I can see no point at all in deserting these other platforms for now, as they really are "more complete" than MSFS. This will change in the fullness of time, I know, but the release of MSFS has NOT made the other platforms less enjoyable ... it has simply given us another really good sim with a huge potential factor.  

I may well feel the same way as you do in the coming 12 months by virtue of finances. As a pensioner, I can support in a very limited way, buying add-ons for two platforms, but three is beyond my reach. This means that it will probably be P3D which will go in the long term as there are so many similarities between MSFS and P3D, whilst Xplane is just ... different. I will not rule out abandoning both P3D and XPlane in the long term, if MSFS develops in the way I hope and have expectations for. Until then though, I am deleting nothing and will not, until I cease to enjoy them (surely the only reason to stop using them) and even in the long term, they will be worth keeping just to revisit as a nostalgic "trip"  I still have a fly with FS2004 about once a month, if only to better appreciate what we actually have access to now.

Regards

Tony

He thinks the flightmodel seems to hold up to his real life experience. He says the sim looks great. He says there are bugs with the AP and the FP functionality. The way he says it's a step backwards sounds very strange to me. The other sims we have were bug ridden and lacking features on release (which he doesn't mention). It's nice that he shares his views, but I don't feel like I learned anything new from reading his blog post.