A game or a simulation?

[scotchegg 4,186]

19 minutes ago, Janov said:

no simulator has ever yet reached the full reallife fidelity of flying an airplane. I guess that would need a neural plug that injects the necessary sensations directly into the brain (visual, aural, sensory, emotional).

Interesting that the criteria for high fidelity simulation you list such as visual input are exactly the ones you have so consistently sneered at MSFS for for doing well. Good job Janov!

[Janov 2,383]

37 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

you have so consistently sneered at MSFS for for doing well.

I never said good visuals is a bad thing.

But I said that other things are - in my opinion - more important (flight model, ground physics, accurate performance of aircraft, system fidelity, avionics, realistic layouts/lighting/marking of airports, nav database, being able to set visibility accurately) when trying to recreate the challenges of flying an airplane from A to B.

Most of that challenge does not consist of finding your house or marvelling at how beautiful the clouds are 😁.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Janov

[scotchegg 4,186]

2 minutes ago, Janov said:

I never said good visuals is a bad thing.

You may not have directly said they were bad, but you have frequently implied they are childish or unworthy, something you just repeated in your last post (“marveling at how beautiful the clouds are” “smiley face”).

But then given how important you clearly feel they are for your image of a Matrix-esque neural interface, perhaps you’re a tad confused about how you really feel about the eye-candy?!

[Janov 2,383]

11 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

perhaps you’re a tad confused about how you really feel about the eye-candy?!

No, I don´t think I am.

At the risk of repeating myself: I like good visuals, I just think that other aspects are more important.

[scotchegg 4,186]

7 minutes ago, Janov said:

At the risk of repeating myself: I like good visuals, I just think that other aspects are more important.

Perhaps you could express your preferences like this in future then, without the disdain for those who like to ‘marvel at clouds’.

[Janov 2,383]

Just now, scotchegg said:

Perhaps you could express your preferences like this in future then, without the disdain for those who like to ‘marvel at clouds’.

I hold no disdain for those that marvel at clouds - I only hold disdain for those that fail to see (or are apologetic or chant the mantra of "it will come soon") the other shortcomings of MSFS because they marvel at clouds.

 

[cobalt 798]

Withdrawn

Edited January 15, 2021 by cobalt

[cobalt 798]

6 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

oh absolutely.

There are numerous local airports run by various local government councils in my country that are now closed to both GA traffic and training flights for exactly that reason, non-commercial aviation is regarded as a a "game" that interferes with "real" flying (by which they mean business charter and commercial airline operations).

Which leads to the suspicion that life itself is a game!

[OldDosGamer 0]

You will laughing, but I like the simulator from old DOS game - LHX Attack Chopper.
You can try also, there is a link https://playonline-games.com/lhx-attack-chopper/.

[OldDosGamer 0]

On 12/21/2020 at 9:57 PM, yurei said:

Seems more folks read the title of a thread, then go straight to commenting what's pre-occupying their mind before they read the whole thread.

You are absolutly right. I think the same)

[fppilot 4,371]

On 12/21/2020 at 9:11 AM, overspeed3 said:

Perhaps that explains why MS/Asobo gave us problem-riddled aircraft, and have omitted several features that were common in past generations of MS flight sims, i.e. animated doors, replay , and 2D panels...

Not to mention fully modeled avionics.  Or more sophisticated cloud textures, a legitimate weather engine, realistic ATC and ATIS, complete NAV data, etc.  All of those have been available for years via developers using the legacy sim's SDK.  But Asobo has shielded off developers with this offering.  So this is best regarded as a sightseeing game.  That characteristic gets high marks.  Other characteristics fall well short.  The SDK and openness is the key.

Edited April 21, 2021 by fppilot

[Ricardo41 5,949]

11 minutes ago, fppilot said:

So this is best regarded as a sightseeing game

So, in your opinion, the WT CJ4 is only good for sightseeing?

[Gazzareth 808]

12 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Not to mention fully modeled avionics.  Or more sophisticated cloud textures, a legitimate weather engine, realistic ATC and ATIS, complete NAV data, etc.  All of those have been available for years via developers using the legacy sim's SDK.  But Asobo has shielded off developers with this offering.  So this is best regarded as a sightseeing game.  That characteristic gets high marks.  Other characteristics fall well short.  The SDK and openness is the key.

With you on the avionics and weather, although the fact they have taken WT on would suggest that they intend to make good on avionics. 

 

As for ATC though there are 3rd party options that work well as long as you have live weather in the sim. Full Nav data is also available, although their own is far better than I've seen as a default, and gets updated.

 

That said the SDK and opening up the weather system should be priorities...

 

G

[hangar 661]

in short, Ill use a simple gaming industry term which I feel very accurately describes msfs best... "SIMCADE" (part simulation, part arcade game)

[Kilo60 660]

Neither!

 

Its a 3D Bing Maps scenery simulator that you can view from the cockpit of an aircraft!