11 minutes ago, w6kd said:

  1000-point flight dynamics for super-accurate modelling of aircraft performance?  Nope, not even close.

 

 

And before we draw conclusion on that some stock single engine aircraft are pretty accurate while XP11 been struggling to model tail dragger accurately for years ...There is no perfection

Perhaps this topic should be locked now. Its gone south.

5 minutes ago, sanh said:

Please re-read my post about x-plane usage and then tell me how this is calling my bluff? Was my comment about x-plane wrong? It certainly wasn't.

As for the msfs comparison - no game is going to maintain its opening day numbers several months after release. Some people will move on to the next big thing like they always do.

I am going to end with @wthomas33065 reply which totally "owned" the argument. Mic drop.

So the rollout of Vulcan in the X-Plane betas isn't allowed the same consideration?  You think it fair to measure X-Plane from the peaks experienced over a year's time, but not SimZilla?  A year ago X-Plane was at 2888 concurrent sessions; the last full datapoint on Nov 23rd showed 2375.  That's an 18% YOY drop, not 50%.  From release to the 23rd of Nov SimZilla had an 85% (mic) drop.

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

I believe that is what they refer to as "calling someone's bluff"

Well-played.

 

I think it's time for us to start trolling the X-plane forum and see how the mods react there.

13 minutes ago, sanh said:

Perhaps this topic should be locked now. Its gone south.

That was the intent of the those trolling this thread...beat them by getting back on track.

6 hours ago, sanh said:

Go over to steam charts and type x-plane 11 and look at the downward trend on x-plane usage this year

Almost as if it's returning to mean usage.

32 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

Only compared to the steep curves of MSFS.  I call a swing +/-50% in their concurrent users over a year hardly stable.

Almost as if peak usage coincided with a global pandemic, requiring people to stay indoors during March, April and May.

39 minutes ago, w6kd said:

There are no rewards for heroism for putting out a fire that you yourself started.

Exactly. If I screw up I don't expect my clients to cheer my efforts when resolving the problems I myself caused. They paid me to do what I said I would.

I hope early next year will bring significant improvements in some of the fundamental areas of the sim. I also hope these will have been properly beta tested before being rolled-out.
 

Edited December 2, 20205 yr by F737NG

2 minutes ago, w6kd said:

So the rollout of Vulcan in the X-Plane betas isn't allowed the same consideration?  You think it fair to measure X-Plane from the peaks experienced over a year's time, but not SimZilla?  

Simzilla has not been out a year so we dont have any real trends to compare it to. Any game or sim that comes out is going to be heavily skewered in the first few months post release. People play every day when they get something new. Some get bored and move on after a few weeks or months. Therefore its hard to compare at this stage.

X-plane 11 has been out got a very long time so I reckon that curve is more revealing and its been on an almost continuous upward curve until this year.

I have msfs and x-plane 11 on my computer and do not build add ons for either and its only one of the games I play (and even then its only once or twice a week max) so I don't really care which one is on top or where they are headed. I have no skin in the game.

However I still think my point on the x-plane trajectory was valid and worthy of a response to an obvious inflammatory post from the person you 'high fived' with a few minutes ago. Lets agree to disagree.

Getting back on track then...  It was great to see them (well, Sebastian at least) helping to resolve issues directly. 

So the question is, is this just a one-off, or will they continue.  I hope they do, because the sim and the community need it, and it will maybe win back some trust from certain parts of the community.

1 minute ago, bobcat999 said:

Getting back on track then...  It was great to see them (well, Sebastian at least) helping to resolve issues directly. 

So the question is, is this just a one-off, or will they continue.  I hope they do, because the sim and the community need it, and it will maybe win back some trust from certain parts of the community.

+1

Someone get Sebastian a computer and assign some bugs to him. Forget management reports and bar charts.

2 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Getting back on track then...  It was great to see them (well, Sebastian at least) helping to resolve issues directly. 

So the question is, is this just a one-off, or will they continue.  I hope they do, because the sim and the community need it, and it will maybe win back some trust from certain parts of the community.

Yes,  And I am extremely happy that those changes seem to also work with the default A320.  For my own personal reasons, I prefer the A320 that is in house.  FBW folks have done a wonderful job, and I am slowly wading my way into that A/C.  But when I just want to "play pilot", I prefer the default A320 for that.

And, I am happy that whatever Sebastian provided for the FBW version, seems to stabilize, for me anyway, the default aircraft as well.   At least to the point that I don't have to worry about it augering me into the ground after takeoff at near VMAX, or completely ignoring my MCDU as if it doesn't exist.

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

Anyway, back (waaaaaaaay back) to where there was an actual post even peripherally related to the actual forum topic here...I find it difficult to hand out kudos for resolution of issues when the basic product that was advertised--HEAVILY advertised--has still not been delivered.  Anyone here remember those neat graphics of wind flows over terrain and how they were modelled in the sim?  Anyone want to show me that capability in what was actually delivered?  1000-point flight dynamics for super-accurate modelling of aircraft performance?  Nope, not even close.

This answers that question better than I can.   Stock...No Addons.  They must be doing something right.
 

 

2 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

This answers that question better than I can.

Well now, no, it really doesn't answer the questions I posed at all.  Not a bit.

Wind?  Visibility?  Flight dynamics?  Yeah, we get it--the video looks great.  That said, I can give you more than a couple routes of flight that...don't.  But here we go again...any time anyone mentions that this is a great scenery simulator that doesn't get the promised basics of flight anywhere near right, we immediately come back to "but it looks great."  Might as well put that camera on a model of Aladdin's magic carpet...the video would look the same and my point would also still be the same.  The scenery looks great when viewed from a flying machine that's as much fantasy as physics.  SimZilla is an unparalleled scenery simulator.  It is also a slow-motion train wreck as a *flight* simulator.

So...back to topic, the issues that need to be resolved to make SimZilla a respectable flight simulator in its own right have nothing to do with how the scenery looks.  The issue in the OP topic post had nothing to do with how it looks, either--it was about a grossly malfunctioning autopilot and Asobo's helpful response to that.  That's punch list item #1 of hundreds.  A start, yes, but way too early to declare victory.  And since they took our money based on false advertising that the basics of flight were not only covered, but done so in a revolutionary and superior manner, I still cannot find it within myself to adorn them with praise for acting to fix what should have been tested and working to begin with.

Somebody up-thread likened being critical of Asobo's efforts as expecting "white glove" service.  Delivering the product that's advertised is not white glove service, no, it's the most basic foundation of the quality proposition.  If you order a filet and the waiter brings you the most beautiful hamburger you've ever seen, sending it back for what you ordered off the menu--a menu that *they* printed--is *not* asking too much.

 

4 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

Well considering that you came to the entire wrong conclusion of my comments, I must either deduce that your reading comprehension is in need of improvement, or that you are intentionally misquoting individuals.  And if that is the case, then I'll simply file you away as I do other trolls.   Have a nice day.

Cool-  listen you wrote what you did and then insulted me but somehow I’m the bad guy.  Got it.

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

I still cannot find it within myself to adorn them with praise for acting to fix what should have been tested and working to begin with.

And no one asked you to.  The original point of this thread was that the developer went out of their way and helped a freeware developer, in which they had no financial interest into finding a workaround so that it's users could help mitigate the issue prior to the upgrade.  

They were under no obligation to do that.  One can argue that they were under obligation to fix what they broke, but they could have simply stayed silent and fixed it later this month during the next upgrade.  So helping FBW, and WT to help with their products is an example of going above and beyond what is necessary, and that is objective fact.  Which is why both FBW and WT expressed gratitude even though it was Asobo who originally broke it.

So it is ACTUALLY possible to be thankful that they are responding better than expected to the issue while simultaneously being frustrated that they broke it in the first place.  If the cook screws up my steak, and the manager comes out to my table, promises to fix my steak and offers me free appetizer while I wait, I can be grateful for the appetizer.

That's a pretty basic concept to grasp.  But if you don't choose to be that magnanimous, then that is by all means, your choice.

Edited December 2, 20205 yr by wthomas33065

I'm really curious about how they are modelling wind flow over terrain?  I've been flying a lot in Alaska and have noticed that when heading towards a mountain range I get turbulence before the mountain range if I have a headwind (obviously wind heading flowing over the mountains towards the aircraft), and no turbulence when I'm past the mountains (normal air though possible updrafts should exist).  Vice versa if I have a tailwind heading towards the mountains.  I do get up and down drafts but will have to see where these occur in relation to where the flow is.  Also, the stronger the wind speed the rougher the turbulence.

So they are modelling something there, just not sure if it's the advertised flow over terrain or some other trigger that creates the turbulence.

Back on topic, but I think the reason Asobo helping a freeware dev fix the autopilot has some significance is that I've seen some post that the Asobo team does not care about simmers.  I've seen that posted multiple times.  Hopefully, them providing a fix to a non revenue aircraft shows that they do care and that they seem invested heavily it getting things to work. I don't know the answer and no one here knows the answer but it's at least a positive sign in that respect.