2 hours ago, Chock said:

This is not to deny that there are some issues, but the notion that they are really anything more than a bit annoying for the most part whilst we await them being addressed, as opposed to being deal-breakers, is to overstate things somewhat. I'm not saying I don't want what I payed for, but I'm pragmatic enough to understand why it's taking a while and thus able to keep the level it affects usage of the product to a reasonable perspective.

This is always how I've seen this, and why I let myself feel compelled to become involved when I see the kind of title in this thread.  I think it makes sense to realign your expectations about what you think it ought to be at this point in its evolution, and instead appreciate how far it's come already.  They're obviously hugely capable as MSFS did not bloom out of thin air, and we have to appreciate we simply do not know their entire timetable enough to explain why they do what they do.  If they disappeared for 6 months at a time or more like LM does w/ P3D and it's rediculous $199 updates, I think I'd feel otherwise.  This seems like a very aggressive team and there is no indication they are letting up that I've seen.   Just remove all of the 3rd party content in P3D and compare that against what comes out of MSFS for $119.99 or less.   IOW, relax and enjoy what it is.  If you're in an area that hasn't resolved the mesh issue or whatever, fly somewhere else much of the world is fabulous already.

For me, it's lack of the depth required to run PMDG & FSCaptain that is the hardest part for me and MSFS.  When the SDK develops enough to let these two devs shine I feel we really will have reached an evolutionary milestone.   Until this the little annoyances are as you say a bit annoying, and that only because one's expectations are just a bit out of alignment w/ reality.  

40 minutes ago, Noel said:

If you're in an area that hasn't resolved the mesh issue or whatever, fly somewhere else much of the world is fabulous already.

Often the only way to know the mesh is bad in an area is to have already invested a bunch of time flying into that area. 

I've been following the route of the 1924 Douglas World Cruiser flight around the world, between Shanghai and Xaimen in China there was some really really poor aerial imagery (large areas replaced by generic landclass textures).  Google of course has much nicer aerials.  And (I think this is new since the update) many buildings now seem to be spawning with no textures (buildings look like extrusions out of the ground with the same texture) or blank box textures.  Even on Ultra graphics, there are visibly blank buildings.

"Fly somewhere else" is a pretty poor answer at that point, once I've made time on a Sunday night, sat down, edited a bunch of .cfg files to fix aircraft Asobo broke, flight tested said fixes to make sure the numbers that I fly to still work, planned my flight, checked the real world weather, and I get 1/4 of the way along my route and all of the sudden the entire thing looks like word not allowed, and then I'm left wondering why I didn't just do it in another sim where I wouldn't have to deal with the "fixing whatever Asobo broke" part of things, and it would have looked largely the same....

Edited February 23, 20215 yr by marsman2020

6 hours ago, sightseer said:

who said you weren't?  not me.  I merely suggest you find positive things.

No "Sightseer" that's not all you do. A page back you took a jab at me personally ..not cool. You say you are all about positivity, but it doesn't really feel like from my end. 

10 hours ago, Ron Attwood said:

Chock, I'm getting sick to death of you talking sense. Give it a rest will you!

About talking sense, Ron, explain me something.

Chock wonders why the thread goes on and on (why indeed ?) 11 hours ago and gives us a wall of text feeding the frenzy 3 hours after 😆. 

I could have ask him directly of course but I am afraid he will give us another wall of text . 

Edited February 23, 20215 yr by Dominique_K

Microsoft Flight Sim X,  never fixed the Windshield compass of the C208 Caravan, regardless of complaints... so who knows.  

 

I just wish they would not break the sim worse messing with it.  They really need to get a Beta group going again, and let them test it for another month before releasing it on the public, it was functioning ok before, now I get all sorts of freezing of the screen in LA area,  starting with approach of KLGB and moving north through CPT airport, let alone the throttle issues on ground they did with king air, and the flaps fiasco...

 

 

6 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

Often the only way to know the mesh is bad in an area is to have already invested a bunch of time flying into that area. 

I've been following the route of the 1924 Douglas World Cruiser flight around the world, between Shanghai and Xaimen in China  

I flew in real life between Ningbo to Shanghai in a Short 360, long ago 😃. 

Your post sums up a way of flying that obviously some of our fellow simmers here have some difficulty to understand. Exotism and authenticity.

I respect those who love flying a broken turboprop over their home State  to admire a MFS sunset. How relaxing ! We are a motley crew, to each his or her own. Sensation over authenticity. One can make a case for it. Not for me but if you like it, why not ?

What I don't understand is that some of the same come to this thread to lecture us how we should react to something bothering us. Why in the world should you fly over Nunukan or Iquitos when you could fly over Tampa or South Bend which are perfectly fine ? This is a 10 year project, everything will be fine in 2030, can't you wait ? They react as if the thread was threatening in some way, if they could lose something from it. 

What makes sense for some can be nonsensical for others. And the other way round.  And, again,  this thread is not about loving or hating MFS, it is about a dysfunctional and weak mesh that needs to be mended.  I can like MFS and be irritated by its flaws. And say it. 

Edited February 23, 20215 yr by Dominique_K