To Asobo, if you are still reading

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

57 minutes ago, Rocky said:

The answer to your request is in the request itself 🙂
You wrote: "This is on par with novices flying on vatsim that never heard about SIDs and STARs before"
This is exactly the problem with Asobo, they are not professional pilots (maybe they have PPL, I am not even sure) so the concepts of SID, STAR, transition, approach is completely unknown to them. They have been asked to develop a new sim with amazing visual, this is what they did, but they probably know nothing about IFR and procedures.

I understand this situation because I was in in this same situation when I started developing aircraft add-ons for FS2004 and FSX. Understanding all these concepts is not easy and they need to be explained by professional pilots, which was the case for me.

I really think they will never fix this, I even believe it is not part of their job. Instead, they should open their sim just like FS2004 and FSX were opened, so that add-on developers can develop serious aircraft with advanced systems, including the flight management system that handles Navigraph database. In the past, we never expected the ACES Studio team to develop a PMDG-like aircraft 🙂

In other words, they should provide a comprehensive SDK and let the others do the work they cannot do (or don't want to do).

In short, I believe you are wrong that it will never be fixed. Navigraph cant publish anything for MSFS yet because of the way MSF handles the various "bits" of a route. It doesnt help that 3rd party devs give us up to date navigational database when the sim has hardcoded rules for picking transitions and combining them with the ILS automatically, and then overwrites part of the STAR. Navigraph has already an updated database ready to be released, but they dont want to do that because MSF navigational bugs are hardcoded into the sim. So if it isn't fixed, it can NEVER be a sim for professional/hardcore simmers. It will just be a nice game. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Andreas Stangenes

[Moria15 950]

16 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

In short, I believe you are wrong that it will never be fixed. Navigraph cant publish anything for MSFS yet because of the way MSF handles the various "bits" of a route. It doesnt help that 3rd party devs give us up to date navigational database when the sim has hardcoded rules for picking transitions and combining them with the ILS automatically, and then overwrites part of the STAR. Navigraph has already an updated database ready to be released, but they dont want to do that because MSF navigational bugs are hardcoded into the sim. So if it isn't fixed, it can NEVER be a sim for professional/hardcore simmers. It will just be a nice game. 

ermmmm Navigraph are running their beta for MSFS2020..  I'm using it  and it has seriously improved both the airports, approaches and the various waypoints, all of which are available in MSFS2020 flight planner and has added many missing ILS/RNAV and VOR approaches and rebuilt many approaches to allow for the SID's and STARS.

Graham

Edited October 23, 2020 by Moria15

[tweekz 2,165]

On 10/21/2020 at 10:56 PM, Andreas Stangenes said:

Aerodynamics and flight behaviour is mostly great - except when it is not... Especially during the flare most of the jetliners just simply turn to pure garbage. I'm losing my patience with this issue, and I wish you would just fix it already. "We are here for the hard core simmers" remember? Feels particularly bad not being able to grease a landing anymore in MSF with the 'liners. The GA are fine in this regard. In the jets every landing is a gamble whether or not it goes to shambles. 

Yeah, this was already evident in the dev videos, when they weren't able to properly land the A320. It's just something - certainly not realistic. Makes you wonder if they are content with its state.

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

2 hours ago, Moria15 said:

ermmmm Navigraph are running their beta for MSFS2020..  I'm using it  and it has seriously improved both the airports, approaches and the various waypoints, all of which are available in MSFS2020 flight planner and has added many missing ILS/RNAV and VOR approaches and rebuilt many approaches to allow for the SID's and STARS.

Graham

I am participating in the beta as well, and the navigraph database does NOTHING for how the sim combines approaches with transitions automatically, and also how it overwrites stars when you select an approach in the cockpit. So I dont know why you wouldn't know this. The navigraph devs have even said they are not prepared to go out with anything that they can sell to the public yet because of the native bugs in MSF that navigraph are helpless to do anything about. 

 

https://forum.navigraph.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10529&p=45749#p45749

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

Another point I wish to remind Asobo and Microsoft about is  that they can't just say "we are here for the hard core simmers" without raising expectations. The way I see it, there is enough eye candy in the game already. Whenever they add MORE eye candy and dont fix glaring issues like navigation and airplanes flying like garbage, they are catering to GAMERS and NOT to simmers. Mouth is saying one thing, but the hand is doing something else. Hard core simmers would not put "remove press any button" on top of the wish list, I can tell you that! 

 

So how does Asobo and MS even know what hard core simmers want when they have opened the flood gates to a whole bunch of eye candy gamers that give bad feedback? 

[bobcat999 8,483]

There is a false argument developing that the removal of 'press any key' and other smaller tweaks such as the removal of the labels is getting in the way of improvement of the flight dynamics and other systems.  It isn't.

These things are quick fixes that MS / Asobo already have, and even if they didn't, they are that easy that the fixes ore out in the community anyway if people care to look for them (I already have both plus lots of other little tweaks).

The only issue here is that the things being requested (such as by Andreas) are definitely needed, but are hard work and are not quick fixes, but I have hope that they will come, and hopefully withing weeks/months rather than years.

For me, the priority is fixing the things that they broke since launch...  Lightning in clear sky with live weather, poor looking water, and some kind of change to the anti-aliasing that is really annoying. 

The other thing I just want to add is that, whether you are an aspiring pilot, or just a casual flight simmer (some might say 'gamer'), we have all spent the money on this, and for paying customers, all views are just as valid.  Just because someone knows what SID's and STARS are doesn't mean they take any precedence.  It is definitely frustrating, and some things just don't make sense to me (I actually think there must be a saboteur at Asobo with the state of some regressions 🙂), but I think we need to give them a few more months to see how they go, then judge them after that.

I actually want everything fixed and all at the same time, but I know I will have to wait!  😁

 

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

@bobcat999, do you actually see mentioned the issues with navigation in the snapshots? I have looked, and I dont see anything that I enterpret as this issue. I've sent the feedback many times (zendesk bug report), and so have other navigraph testers, but still it isn't mentioned in the roadmap. 

So, the "press any key to continue" has gotten WAYYYY more focus than this much deeper issue. It's been talked about at 2-3 interviews, it's been written about etc. Where is the acknowledgement that you CANT use MSF for IFR flights?

 

Edit: some IFR you surely can, but there are a TON of IFR procedures that we are not able to do in MSF that is normal in XP, P3D and FSX. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Andreas Stangenes

[bobcat999 8,483]

Yes, agreed.  But what I am saying is that fixing these smaller issues takes very little time, and does not stop them sorting out the more serious issues.

Maybe there is a bit of an agenda to concentrate on the smaller things rather than tackle the difficult things at the moment, but in any case, you just won't beat the mass votes for the 'press any key'.  That's 'democracy'.

I really think Asobo meant to cater for the 'serious simmers' at the start, but as this thing has grown and become more difficult to manage (as you can judge by some of the regression that has happened), I think they will now appear to be following the wishes of the largest demographic, and that isn't what we would call the 'serious simmer'.   Frustrating I know.  👍

I really think these things will get gradually better and better over time, but I can see it being painfully slow.

Things are beginning to settle down a bit now, and as the next update is a 'simulator functionality update', I think we can start to judge them by what we see in that update.  That is all we can do.

Edited October 23, 2020 by bobcat999

[wthomas33065 994]

2 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

that they can't just say "we are here for the hard core simmers" without raising expectations.

And what exactly is the definition of a "hard core simmer"?

For a "hard core" GA pilot who primarily flies VFR, then the out of the window view is paramount.  They want every single physical thing in the real world accurately modelled because it is used as a reference.   That power line, that church steeple, those marinas.  Anything that helps a VFR pilot navigate.  Does this "hard core" GA pilot care much about SIDS and STARS?  For some, doing a virtual walk around their plane is more important than anything that might exist on an FMC of a jetliner they have no interest in flying.  And when flying IFR do these folks really care if there is a missing RNAV approach as long as there is an ILS approach available?  I don't know.  I'm not a real pilot.  But judging from what I've read, a complete and accurate database of SIDS and STARS for every airport modelled is not a high priority to some, and critical to others.

For IFR, it is a different story.  In instrument flight rules, the fidelity of instrumentation is paramount,  Proper working of all navigational and avionics instrumentation is key.  In IFR, the cockpit window is merely "the view".  Yes, over simplified, but you get my drift.  Accurate checklist, realistic depiction of ALL instrumentation, not just that critical for flight.  All these are priorities that a VFR pilot might not be too concerned about.  

In the past, we've been "forced" to focus on IFR simulation because our computer equipment and storage mediums were not equipped to simulate VFR conditions adequately enough.  

That has changed.

Yes, "hard core simmer" is an easy term to banter around, but a clear look at what people deem important even in this forum of "hard core simmers" shows that the definition of "hard core simmer" isn't even easily defined.  And if we can't define ourselves, how do we expect a company to?

 

[FlyingInACessna 656]

On 10/21/2020 at 1:56 PM, Andreas Stangenes said:

MSF is a joke on Vatsim. The way Asobo coded the different parts of a route (SID, airways, STAR, trans and approaches) doesn't follow ICAO standards. It's on it's own strange logic that even the Navigraph dev team doesn't understand. When I fly on vatsim I often just have to admit I am flying MSF and the controllers then understand that there are a whole hosts of things I cannot comply with that is otherwise standard in other flight sims. In example, when programing the arrival, the approach deletes waypoints on the STAR, and just picks a transition in alphabetical order, whether that is correct or not. Most often it is NOT correct and what I end up with in my MCDU is far from what is the published procedure. Instead, I need vectors to get to the airfield. This is on par with novices flying on vatsim that never heard about SIDs and STARs before. I wish Asobo would comment on this because it's super weird that something so essential as navigation is so bugged - especially when vatsim is your "partner". 

This is my biggest issue, along with fake taxiway names. Both broken systems contribute to difficulty on VATSIM (and therefore difficulty with realism).

[FlyingInACessna 656]

One other issue I have is that you can’t *not* select a transition on STARs and approaches. A lot of the time it automatically selects a transition for me, and I’ll have to just go with it and then delete some of the waypoints it added.

[BackboneOne 47]

absolutely flyable on vatsim with Navigraph beta, A20N by FlybyWire, C25C by WorkingTitle, TBM9 with G3000 by WorkingTitle at least. period.

Edited October 23, 2020 by BackboneOne

[DAD 2,653]

1 hour ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

Do you actually see mentioned the issues with navigation in the snapshots? I have looked, and I dont see anything that I enterpret as this issue. I've sent the feedback many times (zendesk bug report), and so have other navigraph testers, but still it isn't mentioned in the roadmap. . 

It was mentioned already at the MSFS Forum and cited here that there is a difference between feature snapshot, wishlist, zendesk and internal bug list and that MS Asobo are working on all. My understanding is that the feature snapshot is purely covering the Forum requests based on votes/likes or whatsoever. So I remain rekexad and continue to wait and see

[ShawnG 1,823]

3 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

Another point I wish to remind Asobo and Microsoft about is  that they can't just say "we are here for the hard core simmers"...

Asobo said they were making a “sim for simmers” the “hard core” bit is a fabrication.  Now I am aware that some here on this site refuse to believe that anything less than ultra hard core is simming, but I can assure anyone who believes such things that they are wrong.  The points about opening up the system for third party devs to expand upon are well put, but if there was any expectation that this was going to be ultra hard core from the get go, that is erroneous.

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

27 minutes ago, BackboneOne said:

absolutely flyable on vatsim with Navigraph beta, A20N by FlybyWire, C25C by WorkingTitle, TBM9 with G3000 by WorkingTitle at least. period.

You CAN use a bike with support wheels and still call it ridable. It's not anywhere near the IFR capabilities of the other sims. 

- You cannot go direct to ANY waypoint on the transition or ILS
- You cannot pick an approach only (ie ils) if a transition exists. MSF will auto-combine the first trans in alphabetical order to the approach
- You  cannot program in a STAR and an approach in cockpit. If you do that, most of the time the STAR will be cut short, and you will not fly the published STAR. You can make it somewhat work if you program in the STAR in the world menu and leave the approach to auto. However, if you get a different STAR by ATC, you are screwed, because you cant program a new STAR without also programming an approach. If there is a transition for that approach, your STAR is fooked.
- Many times the ap will take you back to the start of the approach when intercepting. 
 

I can simply just self vector myself with headings, but I hope you dont think that is normal.