Sure glad that we have Jorg in there pushing the flight simulator needle forward.

Cheers

bs

10 minutes ago, BigDee said:

"Of course "we can", but we don`t want to overshoot. "Yes the same they did with above points.

...That thing made my day. What about learning first, work afterwards and release the work at last? Not the other way around. They release, work on their errors, and learn by correcting them. So funny. 

Maybe you're a bit strict here, my friend. They certainly would have to outsource/acquire additional resources if they would have aimed to that. As they did with the airports which partially were done by ORBX and others.

5 minutes ago, BigDee said:

Cannot resist, what about implementing a third party software tool that has been specifically created for a flight simulator, let`s call it Ortho4XP .

Have been there, done that. Same using AeroScenery for AeroflyFS2. Eats up my time, disk space, and patience. Time I can use for flying now. 

Kind regards, Michael

Good intervie, lots of promising stuff in the pipeline months or years out.

I'm a little surprised they're only just waking up to the idea that full system depth simulation of at least 1 stock aircraft was a good idea. Hopefully the Garmin improvements mesh well with existing mods.

3 hours ago, tpete61 said:

You never followed one of the anti-trust issues they had then. Particularly with Internet Explorer.

 

Certainly did. Was a Netscape user. And unlike the other major players, they not only made changes to their installer, but paid the fine. Unfortunately both Google and Apple don't have to follow the same playbook. 

regarding mirrored textures and decals

Quote

Jorg Neumann: Yeah. We look at that. The issue with the mirrored textures in the airliners is in the community feedback as well.

Basically how we do our decals is the actual problem and it’s not at all a trivial fix to change it.

I am aware of it. When we said it’s not planned, I was tempted to take it out of the Feedback Snapshot, but I don’t want to, because I want to keep looking at it. Maybe that just means that we’ll find a solution down the road.

Giuseppe: I actually planned to ask you later: do you have any plans on making the decal system more easily accessible to users? I think the system itself is fantastic, but it’s not very accessible because you need to actually modify the 3D model in order to change the decals.

Jorg Neumann: So that’s going to change. What we had there was exceptionally memory-inefficient, let’s put it that way. We are already detaching now the way liveries are applied to planes, but as I said it’s not ruled out.

Edited February 4, 20215 yr by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, lambourne said:

Good intervie, lots of promising stuff in the pipeline months or years out.

I'm a little surprised they're only just waking up to the idea that full system depth simulation of at least 1 stock aircraft was a good idea. Hopefully the Garmin improvements mesh well with existing mods.

I get the impression Asobo and the Flight Sim people at Microsoft were very cautious about how they re-entered the flight sim space, because they knew a ton of people would skeptical, if not outright hostile.

I agree though - they should have put resources towards at least one study-level aircraft.  Or one tubeliner, and one GA - like the A320 and the C172, for example.  But what's done is done I guess.  Thankfully the community have taken that ball and run with it faster than I ever imagined.

I'm excited for the new passive models for the AI/Live planes.

7 hours ago, WestAir said:

That’s why we decided not to take our airliners to study-level. Could we have done it? Sure. It would have taken longer, but it was possible, but then at some point, there is no more third-party ecosystem. We were trying to find the right balance.

Wish they would, at the very least, take the abysmal ATC to "Sub-Study level"!

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 20215 yr by Kilo60

I'm not opposed to the base sim not having study level aircraft and I understand the point about wanting to not step on 3rd party devs toes and giving them headroom to do their thing in creating study level stuff.  All I ask is they make the default aircraft usable.  Especially planes like the 787 and Longitude that cost a lot of extra $$ to get the sim version with those and yet they had some of the worst and ongoing problems since sim release.  I know FSX had some pretty poor stock aircraft in some cases, but I don't remember any of them essentially falling out of the sky on landing like the 787 was doing at one point due to the loss of elevator authority.  

My take is the interviewer asked some good questions. 

Naturally, there are mistakes and short comings. .(you don't linger on those, just accept that you could do better ).We can all pick holes in this interview, but frankly no one but the Developers can determine which direction the Sim will take.in the end. I just hope I am around long enough for it to be all the ultimate Simulated flying experience I will ever need. 

 

They will for sure earn more money with this business model. And no need to worry about employement. But i am ok with choosing and paying for what i really want or need.

BTW I don't  think that ever flew any of the included planes in FSX.

regards

bs

Quote

The next Sim Update has a bunch of Garmin improvements, but the Working Title team has also done awesome improvements. I don’t know if you downloaded that. It’s just great.

Instead of us sort of doing what we can, at some point, I think empowering the Working Title people is the right thing. It’s the right thing for the community. If we can get their work somehow into the base sim, I think that’s best for everybody. They did every page, and that’s what I’m trying to do.

It's a bit blurry, what are we going to get on the next sim update? Will it be Asobo or Working Title improvements? 

Edited February 4, 20215 yr by bendead

What does absolutely not work with this marketing blabla about empowering and supporting 3rd party addon developers is the simple fact that any of their mandatory updates potentially break any addon. And I highly doubt that they share the content and planned updates with all addon developers, no? Means: as soon as we have study level aircraft and more complex addons in the sim, I wonder how he addresses this issue or if it turns out to be just a blunt, basic excuse for not delivering study level stuff themselves...

13 hours ago, tpete61 said:

Very hard to believe that Microsoft would care about people developing any add-ons.

Microsoft in the past hasn't shown this type of attitude. Actually I would have suspected for them to kill of anything 3rd party they can. Big tech has a take no prisoners attitude.

Sounds like a lame excuse for not making there own aircraft operate much better than they currently do!

Also bear in mind that when you buy the sim you've bought all of their planes. If they leave the door open for third party developers to sell better planes through their marketplace, they get a cut every time you buy one.