1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

To be fair... If people just want to test it beforehand... the price tag is $1

Hmmmmm... remember all the similar forum angst about how it was definitely going to be subscription based?

(Wonder what happened to those guys?)

They're hanging out in the same hedge as the guys who claimed that users of the Steam version wouldn't be able to install addons from the in-game Marketplace, and they'd have to wait longer to get the same DLC available through Steam.

 

2 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

I purchased the 120$ one, and I dont have a gamepass and I play just fine. 

If you don't have Game Pass, do you see all the high end scenery?

Thanks

1 hour ago, Richard Sennett said:

Wheres the freakin lights at the airports none nada - ghost towns whats up with that - makes no sense - thank you - carry on

This is the thing i would like fixed the most lol 

5 minutes ago, Stratocruiser1 said:

If you don't have Game Pass, do you see all the high end scenery?

Thanks

yes, and I have full access to the 748, 78X and all the planes. 

3 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Possibly, but the difference between your development resources and MS/Asobo development resources is probably pretty significant. 

Indeed so Rob, but it is only a matter of relative scale. A team of 2 developers might need 4 testers who do a perceptive job in areas of their expertise. A major dev house with a team of 50 to 200 might need ten times that to cover scenery, weather, sounds, flight model, gauges and ui, but the principle is similar. you don't need 16,000 testers to feedback salient info, and requesting them clearly is not much to do with actually listening, but something else, which is why I agree with your original points.

3 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

What about beta testing for the load on your internet structure?

Plus data on how people are using the sim, where people are visiting, etc....

Fair enough, but to test core functions of the sim itself, you don't need 16,000.

16 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

MSFS release follows the standard Microsoft 70% rule (70% complete) where the rest of the software engineering industry aim for 80-90% complete.  It's frustrating working with MS because one never really works "with" them, just get dictated to because they apparently know best in all things.  And yet they were so far out of touch with the reaction they got from end user install problems ... hmmm.

Cheers, Rob.

And then you get to deal with the MS Store, XBox Games, and Zendesk on top of it all..

Luckily, the "developers" are still having scheduled communications sessions with us.

Wonder if they will get muzzled at some point..  😉

Just remember Flight to see how bad it could get. Not saying it will... but still....

3 minutes ago, UAL4life said:

Just remember Flight to see how bad it could get. Not saying it will... but still....

That has been my concern all along.. and it could yet happen (again)..

Never in my life have I cared less than now what XBox users think of a flight sim.  Just dont.  A FPS addict has no opinion I need to hear.

This is no MS Flight. But it is early access imo. It is like almost everything is broke, but at the same time you can see the potential and it isn't like you have to squint your eyes to see it. This is going to be a really great sim. Excellent design decisions in so many places, but then you see that the basics are broke.  Even that dev mode tool does not work correctly. Half the time I close it and the FPS pops back up. But that is a really useful tool too! Describes the product perfectly. Completely brilliant in so many areas but also broke in the same areas. Obviously a date determined the launch of this software and not the state of it. 

It should have been called MSFS 2022. But still, I see the potential and my money has voted already. I am in. 

6 minutes ago, Boomer said:

Never in my life have I cared less than now what XBox users think of a flight sim.  Just dont.  A FPS addict has no opinion I need to hear.

See I sort of hope they love it and buy a word not allowed ton of it. That will make the market bigger, attracting more talent and add-ons. 

51 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Agree, I didn't realize there were that many Tech Alpha users ... I guess they all didn't post much in the Tech Alpha forum?

Asobo seem like a good group of developers, but obviously the mothership (Microsoft) are what I call a "resume company" ... meaning you go work for Microsoft for a year or two just to get them on your resume and then go look for a real job. 

MSFS release follows the standard Microsoft 70% rule (70% complete) where the rest of the software engineering industry aim for 80-90% complete.  It's frustrating working with MS because one never really works "with" them, just get dictated to because they apparently know best in all things.  And yet they were so far out of touch with the reaction they got from end user install problems ... hmmm.

Maybe MS don't listen but in the end Aces studio did with FSX and I look back now and appreciate a lot of functionality they put into FSX, much of which P3d now benefits from and indeed FS2020. What I did appreciate about MS is that they never to my knowledge did anything but completely tolerate tweaks, freeware, addons and third party input and positively supported them when they realised the future of their sim was down to mods and third parties.

I don't think Asobo's encryption of premium content will do them any favours in the long run. All the most long surviving sim software encourage modding right from the start, and it's a bit defensive not to.

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by robert young

14 minutes ago, RobJC said:

See I sort of hope they love it and buy a word not allowed ton of it. That will make the market bigger, attracting more talent and add-ons. 

I agree and think it's short-sighted to think it has to be either a console game or an authentic fully featured flight sim.  In fact, this is a seemingly brilliant approach because as you say it brings in coin which is required to supported that extra depth demanded by the fully featured flight sim, and that group may not be quite large enough to better sustain them.  It seems to me it might make the most sense you have to address scenery and atmosphere rendering first since console users need this 100%.  In my mind that seems more technically challenging compared taking the steps to complete the product so it better meets the needs of more hard core simmers.  So it's no wonder many features seemingly obviously needed by hard core simmers are missing in the early release.  People seem perplexed and some outraged by this, but as I say it makes sense if you're doing dual platforms, each w/ its own needs emphasized.

24 minutes ago, RobJC said:

It is like almost everything is broke, but at the same time you can see the potential and it isn't like you have to squint your eyes to see it.

To me that is the saddest part. MSFS has GREAT POTENTIAL but IMO, it was released too early and on top of that with major parts of the simulator part missing or not working.

Patch 1 addressed install issues and Patch 2 didn't work as expected due in part to substandard quality assurance.