My view on MSFS now, 2 months after release

[leprechaunlive 1,852]

6 minutes ago, GSalden said:

That is true but they could have released it with less features and therefore less issues first. And then add features along the way and take their time to fit it all together in a stable way..

 

The response would have been way worse i think. Peope get mad at a simple Press Any Key screen so can you imagine. 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

3 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

The response would have been way worse i think. Peope get mad at a simple Press Any Key screen so can you imagine. 

This is really annoying more so for developers, as sometimes we have to wait after a restart and it messes up our workflow when adding new packages.

That said, the most annoying bug in the SDK is the ALT-click bug, when you are placing stuff and spinning, it shoots you like 2-4 miles away from the airport and you have to reset the camera. I'd like to personally find the developer that has not yet fixed that bug and have a nice kind word (seriously would be nice, just want to understand why he makes us suffer with it). I therefore have to use hat switch or external controller sometimes to control the dev camera.

As far as the other bug, I can usually restart only scenery without restarting game, which is much quicker, but if I add a package sometimes I need to totally exit the game. It really does take serious patience, and they should have fixed these bugs, because it can cost hours and hours of time when developing.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by SceneryFX

[wthomas33065 994]

2 minutes ago, GSalden said:

That is true but they could have released it with less features and therefore less issues first. And then add features along the way and take their time to fit it all together in a stable way..

 

I'm curious to know what "less features" they could have released without being pilloried.   They are already being blamed for lack of aircraft, missing airports, missing Navaids, Poor UI design, buggy weather.

What do you think would have been the response of they only released with a handful of GA aircraft (good ones, but only GA).  What if they had released (like they had in the past) a "generic" GPS receiver and used it universally between GA and Airliners?  

So I guess I'm wondering what features they could have actually cut back on and avoided criticism when I see on this very forum, them being criticized for the lack of Trains....in a flight simulator.....

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

4 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

I'm curious to know what "less features" they could have released without being pilloried.   They are already being blamed for lack of aircraft, missing airports, missing Navaids, Poor UI design, buggy weather.

What do you think would have been the response of they only released with a handful of GA aircraft (good ones, but only GA).  What if they had released (like they had in the past) a "generic" GPS receiver and used it universally between GA and Airliners?  

So I guess I'm wondering what features they could have actually cut back on and avoided criticism when I see on this very forum, them being criticized for the lack of Trains....in a flight simulator.....

I think the amount of airport content is incredible, they should not be blamed for that. As with all dev projects, mistakes are made. However, the weird thing about MSFS 2020 is that it is a masterpiece yet also a mistake at the same time, so I don't know what to make of it sometimes. 

I think the weather is amazing, but the fact it had a simple parsing issue or bug with reporting when the whole engine worked is REALLY weird. There are some really simple bugs that should never have existed given how much they accomplished. The only way I can describe what FS 2020 is in one sentence, it is Albert Einstein solving a math problem on a good day, but on a bad day he cannot add 1+1, it makes no sense in some ways. It is like if I solved the hardest math problem, but then the next day I wrote a bug trying to code "hello world".

So honestly, both sides have merit in the argument, but people expecting every airport, well the default generic airports get boring after a while anyhow, though I have seen some good ones like Fort Collins, CO. Of course their high-detailed airports are all very good.
 

Edited October 15, 2020 by SceneryFX

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

12 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

What do you think would have been the response of they only released with a handful of GA aircraft (good ones, but only GA).  What if they had released (like they had in the past) a "generic" GPS receiver and used it universally between GA and Airliners?  

I think that just the Robin, the C172, and the Caravan would have been better IF those three aircraft had been debugged properly.  In FSX, there were only a generic G1000 GPS and a generic GNS530 GPS, but they had better functionality than what was released here.

Also the autopilot is still unreliable (after Patch #4)..

I am willing to give them time, but I do believe they bit off more than they could chew..

And prioritizing Japan scenery over fixing their airplanes does not sit well with me.. 😉

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Just now, Bert Pieke said:

I think that just the Robin, the C172, and the Caravan would have been better IF those three aircraft had been debugged properly.  In FSX, there were only a generic G1000 GPS and a generic GNS530 GPS, but they had better functionality than what was released here.

Also the autopilot is still unreliable (after Patch #4)..

I am willing to give them time, but I do believe they bit off more than they could chew..

And prioritizing Japan scenery over fixing their airplanes does not sit well with me.. 😉

Their big mistake was not contracting heavier with third-parties on the plane physics. They should have had PMDG or any of those outfits involved directly in the physics to lay the base physics down, or anyone that has the knowledge. I can tell the guy leading the physics had some knowledge, but I don't think he was an expert in aircraft physics, and there are plenty of experts in the community they could have contracted to help lay a better foundation.

I'm not a pilot, so this is my amateur opinion, but to me the most problematic issue with the physics is the ground effect on some planes when trying to land, seems to be exaggerated by at least 10x.

 

 

[wthomas33065 994]

2 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

I think that just the Robin, the C172, and the Caravan would have been better IF those three aircraft had been debugged properly.  In FSX, there were only a generic G1000 GPS and a generic GNS530 GPS, but they had better functionality than what was released here.

Also the autopilot is still unreliable (after Patch #4)..

I am willing to give them time, but I do believe they bit off more than they could chew..

And prioritizing Japan scenery over fixing their airplanes does not sit well with me.. 😉

I agree with everything you said except the last statement. 

They did not prioritize Japan over fixing airplanes, and for reasons that would take to long to explain here regarding how software development works with multi-discipline teams.

Suffice it to say, bugs go through a triage process.  Those that can be easily fixed can be fixed via hotfixes and sometimes can tag onto planned updates.  Those that require more fundamental design changes are pushed back to be done during a more major update planned for that system.

The Scenery updates have been prescheduled and those updates operate outside the bug fix or hot fix environment.  It's not that they were prioritized, it was that they were prescheduled.  

[B777ER 2,486]

2 hours ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

MSFS is the future of hard core simming. There's no doubt about it. P3D can go back to being a defence s..

How about we let them get the SDK to a level that aircraft 3PD can actually use it before you go bestowing the crown to MS. And there is zero guarantee that will happen. Especially as they are having Mathijs and his lot at Aerosoft help them with the SDK. I'm sure FSL, Leonardo and PMDG are just thrilled by that.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

10 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

They did not prioritize Japan over fixing airplanes, and for reasons that would take to long to explain here regarding how software development works with multi-discipline teams.

Suffice it to say, bugs go through a triage process.  Those that can be easily fixed can be fixed via hotfixes and sometimes can tag onto planned updates.  Those that require more fundamental design changes are pushed back to be done during a more major update planned for that system.

The Scenery updates have been prescheduled and those updates operate outside the bug fix or hot fix environment.  It's not that they were prioritized, it was that they were prescheduled.  

I don't know their internal process, but it just depends on the management structure really. I have worked 3 completely different bug fix projects in the same company, where the goals totally changed. Software development is a human process, and some of the allocation of how they are fixing stuff is definitely not perfect, but some is good too. I would have to say compared to other software and games that are big budget, they get a mediocre score, certainly not the worst or even close to it. However, I would give them a 5 or 6 at best for their prioritization procedures and allocation of dev resources.

This is project is too big to be leaving an ALT-Click bug in the SDK that long, that is most certainly a relatively simple fix on a key handler, I mean they can override the key handler and ensure to lock the camera, or just reset the camera back to last position (simple static coordinate float storage operation). This is an amateur bug, there is no way around it. There are several bugs in the SDK that shouldn't be in there right now that definitely do not require major code changes.

Per the Japan update, yah who knows, maybe they had too many modelers sitting around doing nothing. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by SceneryFX

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

1 minute ago, SceneryFX said:

I'm not a pilot, so this is my amateur opinion, but to me the most problematic issue with the physics is the ground effect on some planes when trying to land, seems to be exaggerated by at least 10x.

 

That is a tricky one as coming in just a few knots fast will have you float forever even in a real aircraft.  More so with low wing planes like the Mooney which has a real world reputation of needing you to do the approach on the numbers and cross the threshold at just the right speed or it apparently will happily float the full length of some runways and force a go around. 

That said, the high wing planes in this sim do "feel" like they float a bit much, especially the barn door flapped Cessna's - though we do not have any of those old 40 degree flap models that have you almost feeling like you are falling forward out of your seat on a short field approach (Cessna apparently stopped making them as they simply will not climb at 40 degree flap and people were messing up). To me the Cessna lands more like a Piper 😄  Though even in real life I had a bad habit of coming in two high and too fast so who knows it may just be me.

The excess torque reaction on the roll access has been talked to death elsewhere. The other thing for me personally is there does seem to be too much elevator authority in flare on the GA planes compared to what I remember but again that may just be me coming in far too fast.

 

[wthomas33065 994]

9 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

Per the Japan update, yah who knows, maybe they had too many modelers sitting around doing nothing. 

It's the fact that the modelers are not going to just suddenly start working on sdk.  They're going to start working on update USA.  So now you have a completed world update.  You can either release the update or let it gather dust on the shelf.  Now, if you have some low hanging fruit that you can piggy back onto the scenery update, then so much the better.  But it makes no sense to just let the completed regional update sit on the shelf.  

I expect the same thing for the USA update,  They'll release that part when the modelers are done, and then any quick hotfixes they can piggy back on it, they will.  Then the next regional update will begin....and so on and so on.

The only things that usually get "head of the line" privileges are CTD's and installer failures.  Other than that, If they are already planning on a huge upgrade to avionics,then avionics fixes will be going during that update.  If there is a big plan to update flight modelling, then adjustments to flight dynamics will be made then.  Same thing with weather and any other myriad of issues.

Unlike any previous version of flight simulator, they have road mapped specific dates for specific updates to the product.  FSX got two total patches during it's entire release cycle and we had NO idea what each one was going to fix.   MS/ASOBO is basically telling us when various parts of the product will be touched.  Does that mean we have to wait for the bug we think is precious to be fixed?  Yes.  But at least we know that it's on the roadmap.  

I agree with you regarding the SDK.  The developer partners are going to be a large part of the success to the product.  You need to give them the tools necessary to do their job.

And with that being said, I would not be surprised that updated beta SDK's are already being distributed to the bigger players before they get released  download link provided in the product.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

42 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

I agree with you regarding the SDK.  The developer partners are going to be a large part of the success to the product.  You need to give them the tools necessary to do their job.

And with that being said, I would not be surprised that updated beta SDK's are already being distributed to the bigger players before they get released  download link provided in the product.

The issue should have been fixed in 1 day max.

As far as the larger companies, no idea, but I suspect many have built their own tools around the XML or are using ADE instead and then just fixing the output XML, because it's not that much to fix. I've been coding around their XML already built tools to fix some things myself, but as one person I don't have time to build a placement tool. Don't even get me started on the HitBox problem with the mouse not being able to pick an object by view but instead randomly selecting objects 10 objects away and you having to double click 4-5 times to select the object you want. Or having to constantly scroll the window to keep changing between Airport and Scenery tree.

The bugs are carpal tunnel inducing and a bit sociopathic to be honest.

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by SceneryFX

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Sorry just venting. I can get rid of the bug temporarily, but even when I select locked to camera target, it always comes back. Plus the camera settings keep getting reset.

 

 

[ShawnG 1,823]

2 hours ago, GSalden said:

That is true but they could have released it with less features and therefore less issues first. And then add features along the way and take their time to fit it all together in a stable way..

 

yes, like they attempted to do with MS Flight.  That went over well...

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

In terms of features the real issue is this:

They claim they deliberately left features unimplemented/basic to leave room for the aftermarket Pay-ware developers and freeware hobbyist to get their teeth into BUT released the sim before the SDK was fully implemented.  If the SDK had been working as expected there would have been no need for MS to rush around expanding feature sets.