The precursor to MSFS as Jorg mentioned. 

 

 

Hello all,

I agree with most of the comments here, but in my view there should be some sort of priority with these fixes.

1. based on the fact that even the most extreme optimists will not be expecting "default' aircraft to be worked on with feverish activity, I believe that the number one priority should be the SDK so that the "Good Guys" ie 3PDs, can get their sticky fingers into producing some really good aircraft. I am not saying that the default aircraft are actual rubbish, but I do feel, that satisfaction generally within the community would run to a max of 80 percent.  Most of those who are happy with all of the default aircraft would be, IMO, first time gamers and/or the people who would be XBOX users as a first choice. 

2. the same applies to Weather although there is more hope for immediate fixes with this than with the aircraft. Utilities (GSX etc) also fall under this banner except that I do not really see much hope, nor do I expect, that the MS/Asobo teams will get their teeth into this as a huge priority.

3. I just hope that somebody is working on a manual for this sim.  I believe that most of the problems that have cropped up, could have been solved by the usual RTFM (read the, explicative deleted, manual) Not that REAL men will attempt that particular pursuit.

I have adopted the attitude, and I am sure many others have too, that this has been a huge effort which has fallen a little short of expectations, justified or not, and has led to a lot of disappointment. I am not really happy with the default aircraft nor the weather, but I am very aware of the potential. I have said it before, and will keep saying this, The 3PDs will elevate this sim to levels we have never seen before.

I am quite sure that if MS/Asobo can just fix the core basics, and, probably after the SDK , most users will be more than happy to wait it out, whilst continuing to use and enjoy the sim. To further clarify para 2 above, if MS/Asobo do fix these issues, I firmly believe that 3PDs will surpass their efforts in much the same way as ORBX, and others, are vastly improving the included "hand crafted" airports. In that context, the statement that they are leaving some room for the 3PDs is an incredible understatement.

Regardless of whether, or not, this sim is regarded as a public beta, released too early, or just released as incomplete, If they could finalize the SDK, we can just sit back and enjoy what we have in the knowledge that it will all come to us sooner rather than later.

Finally, most of us have either P3D, XPlane, FSX or other platforms to fall back on.  Life is great.

Tony

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

I wish someone would ask them whether they are going to fix the RNAV approach logic in the G1000.

Specifically, the RNAV glidepath right now does not extend vertically beyond the designated intercept point... which is incorrect and makes it impossible to intercept the glidepath "from below" as all pilots are taught..

They said it is not their goal to make airplanes 100% accurate, so as to leave some room for the 3rd parties, however, the Garmin simulation has some real bugs in it... and it sure would be nice to hear someone say:  "Yes, that is part of the core sim, and it will be fixed!"  🙂

Or.. we need to report these bugs to the third parties that are using the Asobo G1000, like Carenado and ask them to fix them.

I have lots of confidence that the folks at Asobo will fix things that are either critically incomplete, or currently don't work properly.  The weird avionics/AP/Garmin behaviour would fall under that umbrella.

What I dont think, and is indicated by their response, is that they will be EXPANDING much functionality within the default aircraft, unless there was already work in progress that didn't make the August release.  But that's very different than fixing what is there, to make sure it works as well as possible.

And indeed, lots of these issues are already either in process of being fixed for the next update (to some extent, I don't expect the sim's SECOND patch to be a panacea), or directly acknowledged as problems to be worked on in their roadmap.

Once again listening to them is very encouraging for the future of the hobby. Either hard or soft core.

I hope their enthusiasm and willingness to do things right is supported by MS along the time frame they always spoke about and that no bean counter will be in a position to send most of them to other ventures

I wanted to express my own opinion on something that Sebastian said around the 23 Minute mark.

He talks about his first flying lesson, how awesome he thinks flying is and that in theory everybody could do it.

I think he is totally right. The only thing that is keeping the overwhelming majority of the population from doing it is the costs.

Getting the license, maintaining the license, buying an aircraft. It's not like driving a car around, where you can get decent bargains on used ones and then can simply afford to have it standing around 90% of the time and then just using it for fun.

I believe among others the reason why this is not the case with flying is gatekeeping. If everybody could afford to own an aircraft the skies would be jampacked with GA piston aircraft, buzzing around all the time, filling up the airspace, noisepolluting residential areas. And that is why I have the feeling that the expenses in flying are in part kept deliberately high by government regulations, so that the majority of people stay on the ground because they simply can't afford to fly just for fun, like they drive a car.

There are only two viable options to become a private airman:

a) get a job that affords you an income so sizeable that you have excess cash laying around in heaps all the time

b) make money off your flying in some way so that you can afford the aircraft, the maintenance costs and the landing fees.

20 minutes ago, Marco Manieri said:

Once again listening to them is very encouraging for the future of the hobby. Either hard or soft core.

I hope their enthusiasm and willingness to do things right is supported by MS along the time frame they always spoke about and that no bean counter will be in a position to send most of them to other ventures

Asobo are not owned by Microsoft - they are a contracted third-party, who are presumably at minimum contracted to keep working on MSFS through the end of whatever their post-release DLC plans are.  The first one of those (helicopters) sounds like it is a year away, so you're probably looking at a 2-3 year post-release contract up front, to ensure Microsoft aren't left holding the bag should Asobo get bought by someone else and moved on to other projects (for example).

This actually happened to them with their Killer Instinct (2013) reboot.  Double Helix made and released the game, but then got bought by Amazon shortly after, and Microsoft had to scramble to find another dev to support the game.

2 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

I wish someone would ask them whether they are going to fix the RNAV approach logic in the G1000.

Specifically, the RNAV glidepath right now does not extend vertically beyond the designated intercept point... which is incorrect and makes it impossible to intercept the glidepath "from below" as all pilots are taught..

They said it is not their goal to make airplanes 100% accurate, so as to leave some room for the 3rd parties, however, the Garmin simulation has some real bugs in it... and it sure would be nice to hear someone say:  "Yes, that is part of the core sim, and it will be fixed!"  🙂

Or.. we need to report these bugs to the third parties that are using the Asobo G1000, like Carenado and ask them to fix them.

I highly suggest you check to see if the bug has been posted to the "Bugs & Issues" forum in the official MSFS forums and if it has been posted, upvote that thread: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/c/self-service/bugs-issues/159. If it hasn't been posted, then you can create a new thread in the "Bugs & Issues" forum so that other people can upvote it.  For the progress update we get each Thursday, Asobo/Microsoft is directly including the most upvoted bugs in the "Bugs & Issues" in their Thursday progress report and prioritizing those most upvoted bugs.  Thereafter, you can also submit the bug in the Zendesk report.

An Asobo employee may or may not glance over the topics here at Avsim but don't count on the issues we report here at Avsim to make it to the list of priorities that Asobo fixes.  The "Bugs & Issues" forum with the upvote feature was specifically designed to bring to Asobo's attention the bugs that the community wants to be fixed first so that's the best place to get your voice heard for the fixes you want (seems like the 225/3 weather bug was pushed in the "Bugs & Issues" forum with many upvotes and even multiple threads on it so Asobo got the message that it was a high priority fix for them).

24 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I highly suggest you check to see if the bug has been posted to the "Bugs & Issues" forum in the official MSFS forums and if it has been posted, upvote that thread: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/c/self-service/bugs-issues/159. If it hasn't been posted, then you can create a new thread in the "Bugs & Issues" forum so that other people can upvote it. 

Done!

Thanks. 🙂

15 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Done!

Thanks. 🙂

I saw your thread in the "Bugs & Issues" forum and I upvoted it too!  Looks like it got 5 upvotes very quickly!

Edited September 16, 20205 yr by abrams_tank

8 hours ago, Farlis said:

The downside to this is that there are quite a few governments out there who will stonewall them.

True, but there might be other sources as well. I‘m just glad they‘re doing something about the not so perfect DEM. It‘s good to hear that MSFS and the Bing Maps team are working „together“, at least that‘s how it sounds to me. The nature of this partnership was something I never quite understood. Is it a one-way relationship in which BM just do their stuff and MSFS take whatever they get or is MSFS somehow involved in the decision making processes at BM (or at least have some influence)? I was a bit frightened that MSFS is too dependent on BM and that improvements could take ages or things like mesh wouldn‘t be much improved at all due to a lack of interest on the part of BM, but now I‘m more confident that we‘ll see some important improvements in the foreseeable future.

Edited September 16, 20205 yr by Shack95

Great damage control for a game that was released too early, is incomplete, buggy & a total pain to set up.

7 hours ago, Farlis said:

The only thing that is keeping the overwhelming majority of the population from doing it is the costs.

No. Cost is the one thing that keeps the overwhelming majority of the population from TRYING to learn to fly.

If they did try, the overwhelming majority of the population would find out that they lack the unique set of abilities needed to safely fly an airplane.

Fortunately in MOST countries it is still not possible to get a pilot´s license without demonstrating that you have the abilities and knowledge to safely operate an aircraft - unlike getting your drivers license. If the same standards were applied to driving, we would have 75% less traffic. 😂

Hint - just because you can find your house in MSFS does not mean you know how to safely fly an aircraft 😉

Cheers, Jan

13 minutes ago, Janov said:

No. Cost is the one thing that keeps the overwhelming majority of the population from TRYING to learn to fly.

If they did try, the overwhelming majority of the population would find out that they lack the unique set of abilities needed to safely fly an airplane.

Fortunately in MOST countries it is still not possible to get a pilot´s license without demonstrating that you have the abilities and knowledge to safely operate an aircraft - unlike getting your drivers license. If the same standards were applied to driving, we would have 75% less traffic. 😂

Hint - just because you can find your house in MSFS does not mean you know how to safely fly an aircraft 😉

Cheers, Jan

LOL, Jan, in a game, it does not matter at all..

 

1 hour ago, Wobbie said:

Great damage control for a game that was released too early, is incomplete, buggy & a total pain to set up.

what nonsense this is, maybe that happened with some, but not for the brunt of the users.

2 hours ago, Janov said:

If they did try, the overwhelming majority of the population would find out that they lack the unique set of abilities needed to safely fly an airplane.

I don't believe that for one second. There is no "unique" set of abilities needed, to safely fly an airplane, just a certain mindset. You can't fly an airplane in the same careless way many people drive their cars

But that is not a matter of skill it is a matter of attitude.