45 minutes ago, GSalden said:

 

I certainly would not use that kind of unpleasant language with you but the fact is that you have a pretty nice but highly unusual hardware installation. It seems  that you draw your conclusions about MSF including the supposed stutters of fast aircraft  from your own experience in your cockpit networked over two computers and three screens with Prosim. Fair enough. Except when you repetitively generalize your pretty unique experience to the new sim. 

MSF is not perfect we all know that, not yet 🙂, but aren't the supposed stutters you see  coming from your installation  ? Should it have been a priority for ASobo to adapt the sim straight away to Gerald Salden's wonderful installation  😉?

15 hours 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. 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.

I'll never understand this position.  If their goal was simply to make a game, they wouldn't bother to simulate or model 90% of the things they did, and they'd spend far more time building in actual "game" mechanics to entertain... y'know... gamers, as opposed to simmers.  They'd make a new Crimson Skies, instead of making something whose branding as a simulator alone will forever doom it to be more niche than big games that sell millions and millions of copies.

Right now MSFS is a buggy simulator with some unfinished components.  That doesn't make it a "game" or a "virtual Bing tour", as some derisively describe it.  It makes it a buggy word not allowed new flight simulator in need of fixes and updates, that almost certainly came out a few months too early.

The Xbox port of MSFS will have the sim's settings tweaked to the fixed spec of the console.  Most of the actual simulation (versus the visuals) is CPU bound, and the next-gen consoles have very powerful CPUs in them.  The GPU in the Series X has been estimated at roughly the power of anywhere from a 2070 to a 2080 Super by Digital Foundry.  That's more than enough for a decent experience.

The console port is obviously unlikely to be as extensible or moddable as the PC version, as is an inherent part of the bargain with playing things on a console in the first place.  But Microsoft know MSFS' real long-term audience is on the PC, which is why it's getting far more priority attention.  They haven't even given a window for the console port yet.

It's been fascinating from a psychological perspective, to watch some of the more elitist and gatekeepey simmers in the community grapple with MSFS's existence - whether it's petulantly concern trolling or throwing tomatoes from the sidelines to convince themselves it's no threat to <insert other sim here> because of these frustrating early teething pains, or that it's never going to get the support literally everyone in the project says it will essentially "because remember Microsoft Flight?" or something inevitably involving the word "beancounter", or harrumphing the "eye candy".

The hype of MSFS as a flawless holy grail Swiss army knife of simming from day one was clearly overexaggerated, and a case of hopes and dreams outstripping reality.  That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid platform for the future of the hobby underneath the frustrating bugs and unfinished systems people are dealing with at the moment. And I suspect a year from now, we are going to be looking back on all of this hyperventilating and laughing.

4 hours ago, knmanyffw said:

I don't understand why people get offended if it is called a game or a simulator.

There's nothing inherently wrong or "offensive" about it.  It all comes down to how the word is wielded by the user, and as we all know, the term "game" is often used by flight simmers to refer to something that is somehow less "serious" of a simulation

At the end of the day, flight sims that aren't purpose-built for training pilots, are games.  Games committed to trying to depict a realistic experience of flight, but games nonetheless.  But the term "game" will forever raise the hackles of grown men in their mancaves, wearing boxers and a pilots cap with their plastic yoke that has glowy red LEDs inside, in that somehow it's belittling their super-serious hobby as being equivalent to Hungry Hungry Hippos or something.

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

I certainly would not use that kind of unpleasant language with you but the fact is that you have a pretty nice but highly unusual hardware installation. It seems  that you draw your conclusions about MSF including the supposed stutters of fast aircraft  from your own experience in your cockpit networked over two computers and three screens with Prosim. Fair enough. Except when you repetitively generalize your pretty unique experience to the new sim. 

MSF is not perfect we all know that, not yet 🙂, but aren't the supposed stutters you see  coming from your installation  ? Should it have been a priority for ASobo to adapt the sim straight away to Gerald Salden's wonderful installation  😉?

Indeed, also on my fastest pc I see outside view stutters at detailed places with the A320. The instruments on the other hand look very smooth 
With a small and slower ac I have none.

I purchased MSFS after having tried it at a Fs friend house and the eyecandy is very good and realistic. No CTD’s. I also have several issues that others have too. But as a jetflyer I am not happy what we experience. 
That MSFS cannot be used for cockpitbuilders at this moment I knew. But I bought MSFS to fly the jetliners as that interests me the most.

P3D is not perfect : I use a higher zoomvalue icw photoreal scenery and looking in the distance it is less sharp than when using LC textures. That is something what remains less pleasant.

Imho LM should have implemented EA when it was complete, not as a beta. That they must have done when they knew that MSFS was coming.

LM changes shader parts with each update so Shaderapps have to be modified again and again 

Not XP/P3D/MSFS are perfect, as long as it can be used without CTD’s/crashes...

 

Edited October 13, 20205 yr by GSalden

8 hours ago, GSalden said:

Come on Alan. you were always unbiased but regarding MSFS you are wearing pink glasses 🤓

MSFS at this moment is a candy eye game and not a simulator. You of all should see this. If it will ever be a simulator depends on how the future development will turn out.

I'd be interested to see how you've come to your conclusion. MSFS is pretty much the only flight simulator which comes as standard with the ability to create a flight plan which includes SIDs, Transitions and STARs, plus it has a number of other features which are only available as either payware or not at all for other sims. How may years have people been whining about P3D and FSX not being able to do that? But MSFS comes along and includes it by default, yet is somehow not a simulator? Some might think looking at approach charts in order to determine how to fly a departure or an approach is fun, but it's definitely a stretch to class it as eye candy.

It's going to take a while for some fancy aeroplanes to show up for MSFS, but they'll come, and until then it's really no worse, and in many cases better, than other sims. Try finding the FMC on a default FSX or P3D aeroplane, for example, if you don't think that's true. Or turning on live weather in P3D without throwing 60 quid at a TPD.

3 minutes ago, Chock said:

I'd be interested to see how you've come to your conclusion. MSFS is pretty much the only flight simulator which comes as standard with the ability to create a flight plan which includes SIDs, Transitions and STARs, plus it has a number of other features which are only available as either payware or not at all for other sims. How may years have people been whining about P3D and FSX not being able to do that? But MSFS comes along and includes it by default, yet is somehow not a simulator? Some might think looking at approach charts in order to determine how to fly a departure or an approach is fun, but it's definitely a stretch to class it as eye candy.

It's going to take a while for some fancy aeroplanes to show up for MSFS, but they'll come, and until then it's really no worse, and in many cases better, than other sims. Try finding the FMC on a default FSX or P3D aeroplane, for example, if you don't think that's true. Or turning on live weather in P3D without throwing 60 quid at a TPD.

Most I can agree on with you.

I am always looking through the blue (KLM) glasses I have now, so am comparing my enhanced P3D to my almost default MSFS. And as I fly jetliners only MSFS is a bit disappointing at this moment. And the MSFS SDK will never be as enhanced as the P3D SDK (Asobo stated this) ,so we’ll have to wait and see what comes out for complex ac flyers ...

Regarding the price you can’t go wrong 😁Keep in mind that beside free updates also payware updates will be released, so the 60 quid might be more in the future. But that is the same with XP/P3D...

 

 

22 minutes ago, Chock said:

MSFS is pretty much the only flight simulator which comes as standard with the ability to create a flight plan which includes SIDs, Transitions and STARs

Actually, Aerofly allows that as well. 🤫

2 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Actually, Aerofly allows that as well. 🤫

Yup, which is why I did say 'pretty much' rather than 'only', but the reply was in relation to sims with a ton of fancy airliners, so that'd be P3D and FSX really.

I have no idea why there is a bunch of people who apparently have this thought in their head that PMDG would have airliners to go at launch of MSFS when that has never ever been the case in any sim unless they could simply flip a switch to port it over and then declare it the sims problem for not having 3PD add-ons ready...These are amazingly complex pieces of software practically tailored for the sims they were made for (Namely FSX) that's why there isn't a lot of carry over between sim platforms.  It takes time.

5 hours ago, Scottoest said:

I'll never understand this position.  If their goal was simply to make a game, they wouldn't bother to simulate or model 90% of the things they did, and they'd spend far more time building in actual "game" mechanics to entertain... y'know... gamers, as opposed to simmers.  They'd make a new Crimson Skies, instead of making something whose branding as a simulator alone will forever doom it to be more niche than big games that sell millions and millions of copies.

Right now MSFS is a buggy simulator with some unfinished components.  That doesn't make it a "game" or a "virtual Bing tour", as some derisively describe it.  It makes it a buggy word not allowed new flight simulator in need of fixes and updates, that almost certainly came out a few months too early.

The Xbox port of MSFS will have the sim's settings tweaked to the fixed spec of the console.  Most of the actual simulation (versus the visuals) is CPU bound, and the next-gen consoles have very powerful CPUs in them.  The GPU in the Series X has been estimated at roughly the power of anywhere from a 2070 to a 2080 Super by Digital Foundry.  That's more than enough for a decent experience.

The console port is obviously unlikely to be as extensible or moddable as the PC version, as is an inherent part of the bargain with playing things on a console in the first place.  But Microsoft know MSFS' real long-term audience is on the PC, which is why it's getting far more priority attention.  They haven't even given a window for the console port yet.

It's been fascinating from a psychological perspective, to watch some of the more elitist and gatekeepey simmers in the community grapple with MSFS's existence - whether it's petulantly concern trolling or throwing tomatoes from the sidelines to convince themselves it's no threat to <insert other sim here> because of these frustrating early teething pains, or that it's never going to get the support literally everyone in the project says it will essentially "because remember Microsoft Flight?" or something inevitably involving the word "beancounter", or harrumphing the "eye candy".

The hype of MSFS as a flawless holy grail Swiss army knife of simming from day one was clearly overexaggerated, and a case of hopes and dreams outstripping reality.  That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid platform for the future of the hobby underneath the frustrating bugs and unfinished systems people are dealing with at the moment. And I suspect a year from now, we are going to be looking back on all of this hyperventilating and laughing.

It was originally planned to be a technology demonstrator for what Asobo had done for Hololens & is probably a tech demonstrator for Azure.

WE actually have no idea as to how & in what form the Xbox version will be. 

From a psychological perspective, it has been fascinating watching  how desperately folk have grabbed the sim, spending money on upgrading hardware, without a shred of due diligence & waiting a couple of weeks to read reviews. I want to be first attitude, with the resulting pity party, moans & refund requests.

Does Microsoft know that the real long-term audience is on the PC? Do they care? It's about the numbers, & their Xbox audience market far exceeds that of PC. sales