Asobo, Please Open The Doors!

[RustyFlyer 182]

1 minute ago, sd_flyer said:

So Ricardo is ok to fly with incorrect weather, engine management, performance aerodynamics end etc as long as he can close and open door! There was conversion couple weeks ago about serious simmers here. Well what can I say....

Um yes, exactly, that is correct. As I alluded to in my post, it is not for PPs like you and me (21+ years, [MS]flight simming since the dinosaurs) to judge what others may consider serious or what they may consider essential towards enjoying an immersive experience to them, and then to laugh at the comment.

That is about all that can be said, sd.

[RXP 2,338]

3 hours ago, n4gix said:

The supreme irony is that the XML control scripts for the door(s) remains in the modeldef.xml file. What is missing is the controlling code in the core of the sim engine to enable the door(s) to move!

The supreme irony is selling us the idea they have kept what's good in FSX, and re-coded what's less good, while at the same time some are finding what was good is no longer there and what was less good is now worst... I'm certain this is not a fallacy but this makes you sometimes wondering what are the drivers being ditching this and that from good old working code, especially when you're used to code systems and gauges and have an intricate knowledge of the sim internals for 2 decades like you and me.

Edited October 27, 2020 by RXP
typo: gold -> good

[himmelhorse 1,276]

9 minutes ago, RXP said:

The supreme irony is selling us the idea they have kept what's good in FSX, and re-coded what's less good, while at the same time some are finding what was good is no longer there and what was less good is now worst... I'm certain this is not a fallacy but this makes you sometimes wondering what are the drivers being ditching this and that from gold old working code, especially when you're used to code systems and gauges and have an intricate knowledge of the sim internals for 2 decades like you and me.

Mate, I have a somewhat different interpretation on this.

What I gathered from the incredible marketing hype, was that this new sim was COMPLETELY different.  What surprised me, was just how much of this was old FSX or at least based on old FSX. ie ATC as just one example (and this has not really had a look at since FS2004 days). I am now just wondering if that is the case and it has been simply built on and upgraded, why are they having so many problems fixing it?

Not a complaint however, as, apart from my current problem, I have no complaints and am happy to sit and wait whilst combining al my platforms to maximize different superiorities in each of them.

Regards

Tony

[RXP 2,338]

 

32 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

What surprised me, was just how much of this was old FSX or at least based on old FSX. ie ATC as just one example (and this has not really had a look at since FS2004 days). I am now just wondering if that is the case and it has been simply built on and upgraded, why are they having so many problems fixing it?

ATC is a good example because it is really looking and working like FS9/FSX ATC. For this part they have indeed kept the internal logic but have enhanced the TTS part which is now highly customizable and parametric via a simple plain text file.

Conversely you might wonder about the 10 deg increment bug known since 2004 I've reported in the FS2020 forums here:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/heading-increment-bug-10-degree-instead-of-1-explained/290173/2

As a matter of fact, I'm not certain we have so much dissimilar views about this at all!

Like you said: if they've kept what is good, then how come they have problems fixing it?

I'd refrain venturing with any explanation because it wouldn't be factual, but one possible avenue is simply the knowledge behind the code base is lost with the dissolution of the ACE team and they have a hard time triaging the code base for what is good and not, because unlike us old time simmers well accustomed to the incremental fixes and enhancements throughout FSX-SE and Prepar3D after the demise of FSX, their code base is FSX only and the team has just discovered this whole simming space 4 years ago.

Edited October 27, 2020 by RXP

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

35 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

Mate, I have a somewhat different interpretation on this.

What I gathered from the incredible marketing hype, was that this new sim was COMPLETELY different.  What surprised me, was just how much of this was old FSX or at least based on old FSX. ie ATC as just one example (and this has not really had a look at since FS2004 days). I am now just wondering if that is the case and it has been simply built on and upgraded, why are they having so many problems fixing it?

Not a complaint however, as, apart from my current problem, I have no complaints and am happy to sit and wait whilst combining al my platforms to maximize different superiorities in each of them.

Regards

Tony

 

The original release discussion and development updates definitely said it was based on FSX but would have a new flight model and cloud based scenery, in the end the 3D modelling was a bit different as well and the weather engine is also different.   The core functionality connecting your controls to the cockpit and FM though are apparently FSX I believe. Someone may correct me on that if ii am wrong.

 

Sounds like the marketing people might have got a bit liberal with the "new sim" thing if they were claiming it was completely different.

The reasons for the issues are likely all the new stuff - new flight model, cloud based scenery, new 3D engine, new live weather.  more than enough going on there for plenty of bugs and teething issues.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[RXP 2,338]

27 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

The reasons for the issues are likely all the new stuff - new flight model, cloud based scenery, new 3D engine, new live weather.  more than enough going on there for plenty of bugs and teething issues.

Allow me to give a contrary example to this then: there are SimConnect functions merely returning the value of a variables, which are really basic in their core, which are no longer working now. It might be related to the other changes but in the case of the few variables I'm thinking of, I doubt it.

It is possible these changes gave way to bugs simply because these bugs went unnoticed until some 3rd party tried to use SimConnect on these variables though and they simply didn't have the time or resources to pay attention to these annoyances prior release. But in this case this begs the question of "developed for simmers at its heart" and "incremental development on what makes FSX good".

What is certain to me is that this a very complex project for which they almost started anew on the subject matter which is good for the new creative and excellent ideas found in the simulator but maybe a little bit detrimental to the heart of what makes a simulator a genre of its own unlike any other game. Hopefully they are willing to make things better and I believe we're all supportive and behind them!

Edited October 27, 2020 by RXP

[n4gix 4,947]

1 hour ago, RXP said:

The supreme irony is selling us the idea they have kept what's good in FSX, and re-coded what's less good, while at the same time some are finding what was good is no longer there and what was less good is now worst... I'm certain this is not a fallacy but this makes you sometimes wondering what are the drivers being ditching this and that from gold old working code, especially when you're used to code systems and gauges and have an intricate knowledge of the sim internals for 2 decades like you and me.

I'm stuck with working on reworking our GA aircraft to P3Dv5.x standards, but have been following carefully a Discord community of mostly well-known freeware devs as well as well-known FS "Tool" devs as they collectively work their way steadily sussing out the "TBD" stuff in the thus far rather incomplete SDK.

One of the surprises that caused my jaw to drop was that Asobo has reverted to the FS9 scheme of having rigid and specific names for objects in the model, albeit they are now accessible via a set of "Templates". Developers cannot change those "Templates" but can create new, custom "Templates" for their unique needs. So gone is the "Animation" tool where one defines the key frame range and picks the appropriate modeldef.xml script from a drop down list. While that sounds like a regression, thus far it's been embraced by the guys and gals who're members of the Discord group.

[sd_flyer 6,049]

2 hours ago, RustyFlyer said:

Um yes, exactly, that is correct. As I alluded to in my post, it is not for PPs like you and me (21+ years, [MS]flight simming since the dinosaurs) to judge what others may consider serious or what they may consider essential towards enjoying an immersive experience to them, and then to laugh at the comment.

That is about all that can be said, sd.

I have  flight sim since late 80th with prehistoric fish and before age of dinosaurs! LOL I'm not judging anyone, I merely setting the priorities in order. I side RXP, if Asobo can't or unable to fix let other developers do! I understand some people want to see particular kind of bird or fish in the sim but it can be  added later when basic are fixed. 

Today at my airport wind was gusting to 14-17 kts it was 3 kts in MSFS live weather.  I want it to get fixed before doors! And suspect believe I'm no a lone! We can even put in a vote! 🙂 

[Janov 2,383]

I think the real kicker of this thread is that Ricardo41 said something negative about MSFS! 😆

First Andreas Stangenes, then Ricardo41, who´s next, FlyBaby or bean sprout turning to the dark side?

Come on, the sim is only out for 2 months (plus 4 years of development with 200 devs), give it some time! Good stuff will come soon and we have PMDG and our modders rolling in on it, too! 😁

Just having some fun with you 😉

[WestAir 2,522]

6 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

So Ricardo is ok to fly with incorrect weather, engine management, performance aerodynamics end etc as long as he can close and open door! There was conversion couple weeks ago about serious simmers here. Well what can I say....

Logical fallacy. Ricardo never said those issues are ok with him.

[JJ_ 41]

23 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

How am I supposed to get to my seat? Slither in through the pitot tubes?

If the pitot tubes don't work, you might also try door keyhole, cowl flaps, gear compartments, but if all fail, there is always the static port 😁🤣

[bobcat999 8,484]

14 hours ago, WestAir said:

Logical fallacy. Ricardo never said those issues are ok with him.

Yes. This is the way some posters are twisting arguments lately.

I want removal of press any key (as I am a double busy person 🙂) but it doesn't mean I am not bothered about the other issues, or that I am putting it above other issues in terms of importance. They argue round in circles.

 

[altenae 171]

I also wish doors can  be opened manually
Maybe in the near future or add-on aircraft

[MelanieTV 6]

That would be great and the "Self Loading Cargo" would also work ^^

At this time this addon is not working on airports without jetways.

[Tierborn 188]

On 10/26/2020 at 3:15 PM, Ricardo41 said:

Huge immersion killler for me. How am I supposed to get to my seat? Slither in through the pitot tubes?

Real Pilots use their Superpower's to enter the aircraft   🙂