40 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

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.

I agree...

A lot of the airports by the larger companies (third party devs) were converted from FSX, so they already had the placement coordinates, they just used their old XML file and added some PBR textures or remodeled the terminals. So it may seem like some third parties are being super productive with the editor or that they have some magic version of the SDK, but this is incredibly unlikely and this rumor has been going around. I've seen very few original airports done that were not already done by that same developer in FSX or Xplane.

Their thinking must be they don't need to fix the SDK because ADE can work if you clean the XML, but that is a BIG snob "nose up" to the freeware community and smaller payware developers. 

I am tempted to go back to ADE, but then again it's not nearly as exciting developing stuff on a 2D flat image compared to seeing it in real-time.
So I'm hooked to the 3D editor, it's just incredibly frustrating to move stuff around.

As a final point, something else I noticed was most of the third party outer-lying areas around the airports are relatively weakly done compared to the FSX days, and I am sure this is because they have to clean the XML and don't have all the placement objects they'd like in the original files, as well as they don't want to deal with the 3D editor.


 

 

 

Edited October 16, 20205 yr by SceneryFX

13 hours ago, NBurgess said:

Since MSFS arrived  I'm a bit unhappy with both.  I now look out of the window in P3D and meh, after MSFS, I'm really unhappy with the visuals.  I fire up MSFS and really miss any high quality addons.  I spend time in both, but neither quite cuts it for me at present due to the presence of the other !

I'm suppose I'm just going to have to be patient.....

Curiously that is exactly what I am feeling - disappointment with P3D that I never felt before and disappointment with MSFS that we may be waiting a year or more (if ever) for the top tier addon developers to support it.  It is kinda annoying to feel this way and yes I too am going to have to be patient.

Bruceb

2 hours ago, SceneryFX said:

As a final point, something else I noticed was most of the third party outer-lying areas around the airports are relatively weakly done compared to the FSX days

FSDT mentioned that when they were discussing KEYW.   He said that in photogrammetric areas, the photogrammetry is king.  That's why they couldn't add things like the 90 miles to Cuba marker or add cleaner versions of the Hemmingway house or Duval street in.  

Which is why a lot of the airport developers are keeping within the confines of the airport, because they know it won't be overwritten by photogrammetry.  It will be interesting what will happen to some of the third party landmark scenery packages like London Moscow or DC if a new regional update adds photogrammetry to areas that previously didn't have it.

13 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

Which is why a lot of the airport developers are keeping within the confines of the airport, because they know it won't be overwritten by photogrammetry. 

If, as a developer, you're not keeping within the confines of the airport, you haven't really understood what MSFS is all about. 

Not sure what the above implies, given that some areas just outside of the airport are semi-destroyed or too empty, but I will agree that many areas look good enough. I was always fascinated when developers added a bit of extra pizazz outside the airport like fixing roads and power lines (which I am trying to get done).

 

Edited October 16, 20205 yr by SceneryFX

2 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Sadly you might be correct, but I was hoping for the possibility that crowd would have been provided sufficient items/features of interest on release day

 

To be honest "that crowd" are not a good fit for MSFS, at least the WWII lot are not . maybe 20 years back in the heyday of the original IL2 Sturmovik when forums were full of 200 page threads about the proportions of tracer to incendiary to AP in the .50 cal belts being loaded into a Hellcat - but there seems a lot more "Air Quake" these days.

True there are still people around wanting historically accurate aircraft but they seem in the minority - for most people their main priorities in WWII aircraft are NOT historical accuracy they want 

- planes that fly like the movie version, for example by being "clever enough" to pick a plane that in popular mythology says was "superior" such as a Spitfire or P51D they expect to outperform everything else in game

- to be able to jump in anything and just fly it, this seems to be based on an internet myth that Battle of Britain RAF fighter pilots only had 10 hours flying time, which is nonsense, whilst true that some had as little as 10 hours on TYPE they all would have had several hundred hours total flying time on other types

- the ability to take heavy fast high powered fighter types like the P51D, P38, P47, F4U in to a low and slow WWI style turn fight and have them basically flip about and turn on a a dime

- probably most importantly they want the aircraft balanced to make a "fair fight" between opposing types

Of these the main priority is usually "fly like the movies/popular myths" and for the opposing sides to be balanced.

T&DR MSFS is a bad fit because the planes are likely to be too realistic.

 

Meanwhile, I have been enjoying the best of of both worlds, using the study level sim of all study level sims (The Aerowinx PSX 747-400) in conjunction with MSFS by linking the two with WidePSX, which allows PSX (run on a separate monitor) to control the MSFS 747. The combination works very well.

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

Meanwhile, I have been enjoying the best of of both worlds, using the study level sim of all study level sims (The Aerowinx PSX 747-400) in conjunction with MSFS by linking the two with WidePSX, which allows PSX (run on a separate monitor) to control the MSFS 747. The combination works very well.

That is very good news. Does it fly like it should in this way ? 

Myself I have Prosim. They have their own ac with a VC without panels and that should mean that the outside view stutters, caused by the default onscreen GC should be solved...

However they are waiting for an enhanced SDK.

2 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Sadly you might be correct, but I was hoping for the possibility that crowd would have been provided sufficient items/features of interest on release day, like:

• Combat aircraft 
• Combat missions
• Afterburners (missing entirely but appears to be a footnote)
• Get out of an aircraft and go exploring
• Get out of an aircraft and getting into another aircraft/vehicle
• Blowup building, aircraft and retain their "state" until some reset trigger defined by scenario or user
• Immersive missions and/or linked missions almost campaign like 

You make good points, as I feel some of this stuff (at least a few items - like exploration should definitely be added). I am mainly interested in driving to the airport. They should have allowed us to have hangars and keep planes in there, hence the hangars store the planes, we have a home, and we get to drive to the airport to pickup our plane from our hangars.

It would make the simulation feel more real, and the weak missions is a bit of a bummer, FSX had some really fun missions.

1 minute ago, SceneryFX said:

They should have allowed us to have hangars and keep planes in there, hence the hangars store the planes, we have a home, and we get to drive to the airport to pickup our plane from our hangars.

Aerosoft had something like this once, though I have no idea if it ever became popular, or what became of it.

One of the issues is that the current technology in our sims, even MSFS, does not really allow flat roads alongside hills, and etc, making them functionally undrivable as a general rule without a practically hand-constructed mesh.

Outerra, (or something like it) which automatically keeps all of its roads perfectly level, is probably the tech of the future for an actual everything-sim.

Most airports are in relatively flat parts of even mountainous cities, not all though. So I think it could still work for most cities, even Denver is relatively flat right where the airport is. That said, I would be fine with mesh errors, and I can always correct them myself. I think it would add an extra component for third party devs, and we can custom edit roads and mesh to make the roads flat (for the most part).

Edited October 16, 20205 yr by SceneryFX

8 hours ago, Isaiah53six said:

the only trouble is we all feed the trolls by posting on their threads like I just did.

... seems like some of the 'trolls' are members of MS top secret team, making covert market research. 😄

10 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

 the OP's post was NOT a Troll post, not even close to Trolling.

Quote:

"At this time for me, MSFS is only a "Cessna 172 VFR simulator" and a nice scenery tool to view the earth from above by setting dev camera on and using the XBOX controller to span around."

Yeah, sure, the OP didn't troll....In addition, this statement is simply factually wrong. Also, it's the 8000000th post with the same topic.

13 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Yeah, sure, the OP didn't troll....In addition, this statement is simply factually wrong. Also, it's the 8000000th post with the same topic.

If there are so much topics about the same then there must be something not entirely going well with MSFS....

Otherwise they were flying and having a good time 🤔

2 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Otherwise they were flying and having a good time 🤔

Possibly.

An alternative is the observation regarding human nature that those who are unhappy make lots of noise, while the majority who are happy are rarely heard from.

How often do you call the store and ask for the manager to let him know that the apples you purchased were delightful?

On the other hand.......