Game for Xbox?

[jvdbol 6]

I don't really understand why the forum posts here are so kind to Asobo and Microsoft. We have to be patient, everything will be fine, the other sims weren't good either, etc. No, but they weren't as full of errors as FSX (years ago).

Many users fall in love with the image, the scenery. What you can see if you got off the plane while flying and you sometimes (but certainly not always) see beautiful scenery below. Even a drone is possible.

MSF is a game, a beautiful game, but at the same time it is not a real flight simulator, but an experience simulator. And that cannot be otherwise. It is nonsense to expect that within a few months with an Xbox of say 700 dollars you can really achieve the same functionality as with a gaming computer whose GPU alone is more expensive than the entire Xbox.

Do the positive forum members here really think that you can build a profitable simulator that can only be played well by the niche of enthusiasts with a 2000 to 3000 dollar computer? No, the profit will have to come from the sale to xbox owners based on the undeniably beautiful visuals and gamey nature of this sim.

So the priority of Asobo and certainly of Microsoft will be on the development of a smooth running and simple sim for the time being. That's nice, but that's not the level X plane and not P3D.

If there is not enough money to be made from the xbox, I think there is no more money source to convert the framework into a more open, accessible and modular sim with which add-on builders can make their living.

I am concerned about the long-term survival of MFS.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

In the latest developer Q&A they said that they changed their mind towards the complexity of the default systems after community feedback started rolling in. Wait to see what one or two Simulation Updates will do for the simulator and then you can judge whether this will be something for you in the long term.

A thing to consider is that we've had simulators that can accurately simulate complex aircraft systems for more than a decade, but only now do we have a simulator that presents a decent overall scenery depiction out of the box, without having to spend thousands on add-ons. Bringing the scenery, visuals and performance to today's AAA level was much more of a priority.

[jvdbol 6]

Yes, it was much more of a priority, ie. to win the hearts en minds on new xbox players on the new Xbox X (probably cheaper $700)

[samcan 37]

18 minutes ago, jvdbol said:

Do the positive forum members here really think that you can build a profitable simulator that can only be played well by the niche of enthusiasts with a 2000 to 3000 dollar computer? No, the profit will have to come from the sale to xbox owners based on the undeniably beautiful visuals and gamey nature of this sim.

So the priority of Asobo and certainly of Microsoft will be on the development of a smooth running and simple sim for the time being. That's nice, but that's not the level X plane and not P3D.

If there is not enough money to be made from the xbox, I think there is no more money source to convert the framework into a more open, accessible and modular sim with which add-on builders can make their living.

Obviously I can't speak to whether Microsoft is going to be committed long-term to Microsoft Flight Simulator; they claim they are, but business realities can always change. They claim that they view this as a "prestige brand," being one of the earliest products of the company, but honestly, I don't know if that would mean anything if the product did have horrible sales.

So we then must look at what other uses this would have which could keep Microsoft funding development. BlackShark, the AI company that's been working with Microsoft and Asobo on generating buildings across the entire planet, noted that their ultimate aim is to create a "digital twin" of Earth:

Quote

“Our bigger vision is a near-real-time digital twin of our planet, particularly the planet’s surface, which opens up a trillion use cases where traditional photogrammetry like a Google Earth or what Apple Maps is doing is not helping..."

I suspect that Microsoft's long-term goal is to fund the creation of this "digital twin," running, of course, on Azure. Some have speculated that Microsoft could provide an immersive world environment to other companies for their games. But I think we can look even bigger. There's a push for cities to create comprehensive GIS maps of their infrastructures, whether that's power, sewer, water, fiber, etc. If in the long-term Microsoft was successful at creating this "digital twin," complete with all relevant building, zoning, utilities all mapped out, the "world would be their oyster."

Flight Simulator then serves as the technology proving ground for this project. So yes, perhaps we won't see long-term "flight simulation" improvements. But I suspect that you will see resources devoted to ever better rendering the planet.

Notice how the next world update is for the USA, already one of the best-mapped areas. If they're hoping to get more US customers, then this makes sense. But it also makes sense if they're looking long-term to sell a "digital twin" of Earth, as we already have many infrastructure records available and it would probably be easiest to first create the United States in this "digital twin."

[bean_sprout 1,201]

Cheers

bs

[jvdbol 6]

Interesting story about digital twin of Earth. But I think that you can make much more mainstream games and make profit of it, than with a too simple and 'closed' system as MSF is on a Xbox.  

[jvdbol 6]

@bean_sprout, What is your point? That it is beatiful? Nobody wil argue that.

Edited October 12, 2020 by jvdbol

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

47 minutes ago, jvdbol said:

And that cannot be otherwise. It is nonsense to expect that within a few months with an Xbox of say 700 dollars you can really achieve the same functionality as with a gaming computer whose GPU alone is more expensive than the entire Xbox.

Well, by all accounts it will not run on a current XBox you will need an Xbox X which is not released yet.

According to Wikipedia:

Quote

he Xbox Series X is powered by a custom 7 nm AMD Zen 2 CPU with eight cores running at a nominal 3.8 GHz, or when simultaneous multithreading (SMT) is used, at 3.6 GHz. One CPU core is dedicated to the underlying operating system.^[12] The graphics processing unit is also a custom unit based on AMD's RDNA 2 graphics architecture. It has a total of 56 compute units (CUs) with 3584 cores, with 52 CUs and 3328 cores enabled, and will be running at a fixed 1.825 GHz. This unit is capable of 12.15 teraflops of computational power.^[12] The unit ships with 16GB of GDDR6 SDRAM, with 10GB running at 560GB/s primarily to be used with the graphics system and the other 6GB at 336GB/s to be used for the other computing functions. After accounting for the system software, approximately 13.5GB of memory will be available for games and other applications, with the system software only drawing from the slower pool.^[12] The Xbox Series X target performance is to render games at 4K resolution at 60 frames per second, with the console being about four times as powerful as the Xbox One X. The Series X can support up to 120 frames per second, and can render up to 8K resolution.

 

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

21 minutes ago, jvdbol said:

Yes, it was much more of a priority, ie. to win the hearts en minds on new xbox players on the new Xbox X (probably cheaper $700)

If you do not care about visuals and scenery then nothing's stopping you from playing Prepar3D or X-Plane. They are still being supported by the developers and a massive add-on ecosystem that can give you the system complexity you desire.

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, jvdbol said:

Do the positive forum members here really think that you can build a profitable simulator that can only be played well by the niche of enthusiasts with a 2000 to 3000 dollar computer? No, the profit will have to come from the sale to xbox owners based on the undeniably beautiful visuals and gamey nature of this sim.

Here's your problem. This simply is not true. I'd like to know in what universe I'd be able to get 2-3,000 dollars for my PC. If you're prepared to give me that much for for my PC, then I've also got a bridge for sale in London which you can buy off me too. The fact that it will ultimately run on a XBox is exactly why it will also run on a pretty mediocre PC. Sure, you can throw a three grand PC at it, and it would mean all the sliders can be over on the right and be running at a stellar frame rate, but the fact is it runs okay and looks okay on my PC which is by no means a rocket ship.

It's also worth bearing in mind that there is only so much 'game' you can make out of a flight sim which is not going to have combat in it. Microsoft are well aware of this, so don't be too sure that people on XBox don't want a flight sim. Not everyone who plays games only wants to play games, despite the popular myth, gamers don't all have the attention span of a goldfish, and gamers are by definition, a populace whose age group advances, and their interests in things shifts as part of that. The first 'gamers' are nearly drawing their pensions.

Moreover, Microsoft is tied into deals with other companies, such as Black Shark, Navigraph, NavBlue, Airbus, Cessna, Boeing, plus partner deals with a number of large TPDs and so on. They already have aeroplanes in the air shooting updated ground data for Bing and other big plans for the world they are creating. It's a massive undertaking, literally the size of a planet, and it's a technology which can be leveraged in all kinds of directions. Contrary to what people fondly imagine, Microsoft is not run by idiots.

Even if this were not so and it was possible to bail on it all, the backlash from committing to this in their financial long-term plan, then suddenly doing a U-Turn would see their stock plummet and their board members having to fall on their swords, so the notion that they can up sticks on a whim and decide to jack it all in is a complete fantasy. Microsoft had for years battled with a reputation of doing half-@rsed technologies only to abandon them and getting to a point where they had to actually tighten their belts because of what that reputation for not seeing things through did to their stock. They won't be doing that again any time soon

They have committed to a ten-year development cycle, and that's tied in with contracts to other companies, they can't simply bail on that stuff; there'd be massive financial penalties if they did that. 

And frankly, the idea that MSFS is not on the flight simulator level of XPlane and P3D is utter claptrap. Neither of those sims have decent weather by default, nor decent ATC, nor as good flight planners, nor as good terrain. This thread topic is just a bunch poorly-thought-out doom-laden nonsense.

This is not to deny that MSFS needs some work, but if you thought that was never so with XPlane or P3D, then you've got a very short term and selective memory.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Chock

[Evros 310]

And here we go again.

[bean_sprout 1,201]

9 minutes ago, Chock said:

This thread topic is just a bunch poorly-thought-out doom-laden nonsense.

Maybe it's time to start the Troll-O-Meter.

bs

[HiFlyer 9,343]

12 minutes ago, Chock said:

I'd like to know in what universe I'd be able to get 2-3,000 dollars for my PC.

Speak for yourself! Considering all the stuff in my pc, including three large SSD's I think I could get that fairly easily... 😄

[sd_flyer 6,033]

1 hour ago, jvdbol said:

 

MSF is a game, a beautiful game, but at the same time it is not a real flight simulator, but an experience simulator.

So when I tell my wife that I fly MSFS my instrument proficiency, you say I'm plating a game with some kind of simulation experience? LOL This is kind of offensive! LOL

[RustyFlyer 182]

21 minutes ago, Chock said:

"... Microsoft had for years battled with a reputation of doing half-@rsed technologies only to abandon them and getting to a point where they had to actually tighten their belts because of what that reputation for not seeing things through did to their stock. They won't be doing that again any time soon

They have committed to a ten-year development cycle..."

Totally agree... it's yet another example of the difference between Satya Nadella and Steve Ballmer. Ballmer was unable to take his eyes off the rear-view mirror thus leaving him unable to see the road ahead through the windshield.