On 4/3/2021 at 7:40 PM, Dazzaboy said:

Thanks , just giving my view without getting involved in anyone elses . We are all different with different tastes , the one thing I would say though is msfs2020 isnt even a year old yet some of the negative posts on here perplex me . If you dont like the product dont use it . I prefer it over the others so use it . Not a single flight sim since I started over 20 years has managed to get me to say 'wow that is unbelievable' as many times as this one does . I know its not perfect but the potential is there just be patient people . 

 

Dazza

Fully agree,  I have a good processor but only a 1080gtx card but can still run this in 4k but on high settings not ultra. Nearly every flight has a wow moment. No going back for me.

On 4/3/2021 at 7:40 PM, Dazzaboy said:

Not a single flight sim since I started over 20 years has managed to get me to say 'wow that is unbelievable' as many times as this one does

what exactly makes you go wow? I am trying to understand. Take the default C172 or 152, put mixture fully forward, then idle the rpm at 600. spark plug fouling never occurs. there's no damage modelling, wear and tear, persistence, maintenance needs...nothing. flight model is suspicious too. I have to heavily modify the sensitivity settings to cheat and create an acceptable level of inertia. I never have to do that in p3d, xp or dcs. the weather graphically looks great but it doesn't have the realistic features and properties I get from Active Sky in P3D and XP. I'm trying to understand what it is about MSFS that should make me go wow

14 minutes ago, EvidencePlz said:

Take the default C172 or 152, put mixture fully forward, then idle the rpm at 600. spark plug fouling never occurs. there's no damage modelling, wear and tear, persistence, maintenance needs...nothing.

Only A2A in P3D simulates this for GA, no? Kind of odd to compare upper echelon payware (their stuff is amazing) to default and somehow concludes that msfs is underwhelming. 

I constantly get blown away by the ambiance and atmospherics of this game. The only reason I even launch P3D is to remain somewhat proficient in the GNS430W (RXP) for real operations...Never have fouled any plugs IRL either, it's overdone in A2A imho. 

 

26 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Only A2A in P3D simulates this for GA, no?

yes, and for some of their bigger planes as well, and so do many other devs in p3d, xp and dcs. 

 

27 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Kind of odd to compare upper echelon payware (their stuff is amazing) to default and somehow concludes that msfs is underwhelming

Microsoft can partner with Bing, Blackshark, ORBX, Gaya etc to create the amazing scenery and world simulation, but couldn't do the same for aircraft realism? Development allegedly started in 2016, and up until 2019 PMDG knew nothing about it? There was little to no reason to hide it from top-end aircraft and avionics developers. They could have partnered with developers such as A2A and @RXP (if nobody else) back in 2016-17 and made sure that at least two feature-packed and complete study level A2A-level payware aircraft, good flight model and one complete, bug-free and professional, trainer-grade GNS 530 unit were available for people to buy from the marketplace on day one. 

I'm asking: is there one A2A-level payware aircraft for MSFS 2020 after 7 months? No. Is there a single RXP-level GNS 530 or GTN 750 for MSFS 2020 after 7 months? Again...no. Jorg, the head producer of this video-game and not a "flight simulator" has completely misunderstood what it means to simulate "flight". IMO someone who understands flight simulation and has professional experience in this industry should replace him immediately, or else MSFS 2020 will soon go down the same path that MS Flight, FSX and Dovetail Flight Sim World went.

2 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

what exactly makes you go wow? I am trying to understand. Take the default C172 or 152, put mixture fully forward, then idle the rpm at 600. spark plug fouling never occurs.

Mr. Negativity lives! 🙂

Sorry, but no, you will never understand since you are using a program that goes backwards in every respect compared to every other flight simulation program (you said that in another thread) and doesn't even have spark plug fouling in default planes.

You still use MSFS, right? Because you absolutely love to get disappointed every single day. Your question is purely rhetorical. 

Edited April 5, 20215 yr by crimplene

7 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

I'm asking: is there one A2A-level payware aircraft for MSFS 2020 after 7 months? No

Was it for any sim? No! 

7 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

Is there a single RXP-level GNS 530 or GTN 750 for MSFS 2020 after 7 months? Again...no.

Was it for any sim? No!

So what? 

I give you some homeworks: find out how long after P3D release, GTN750 was released for it (hint: it was closer to 7 years than 7 months). So why do you measure by different standards in case of MSFS? If people would grant MSFS the time to mature, that they had to give P3D, critical posts like yours should really not appear before 2025 or so. So if you truly compare like-for-like (the stock product), MSFS beats P3D nearly in every aspect. And by a long shot in many aspects.

B.t.w. you got the wording wrong. MSFS is the perfect, unmatched, from the first day on in a league of its own "flight" simulator. What you are describing on the other hand is the perfect "aircraft system" simulator. If anything, MSFS is lacking in aircraft system simulation. But the sense of flying (= flight simulator), you get without doubt in a near perfect way.

 

3 hours ago, mrueedi said:

I give you some homeworks

And I decided to do so. Here are some results:

P3D version 1 was released on November 2010.

Using Wayback Machine (WM) website, I found out it took A2A until 2014-15 to port the majority of their FSX products to P3D. By 2016-17 almost all of their stuff was available for P3D.

Using WM site and Avsim, I see that even in as late as 2016, neither RXP GTN 750 nor any of their product was ready for FSX: SE, and apparently, at that time they were merely wondering as to whether to port stuff to FSX:SE and P3D or not.  

PMDG released P3D's first addon the 737 in March 2015, and for XPlane 10 - which was released in 2012 - they released the DC-6 in 2016.

According to their Facebook and p3d's official forum, FSLabs released their first addon for P3D, the Concorde, on 27th January, 2016, and the A320-X, on 20th January 2017.

At this point I have to concede defeat and admit you are right...LOL.

I would like to issue an sincere apology to you and anyone else who might been offended by what I said above and anywhere else, and take back most of what I said. I still believe it would have been better if Microsoft partnered with top-end developers like PMDG, A2A, FSLabs, RXP etc earlier so that we could buy and use these addons sooner instead of waiting like how we are doing now. 

 

22 minutes ago, EvidencePlz said:

 

I would like to issue an sincere apology to you and anyone else who might been offended by what I said above and anywhere else, and take back most of what I said. I still believe it would have been better if Microsoft partnered with top-end developers like PMDG, A2A, FSLabs, RXP etc earlier so that we could buy and use these addons sooner instead of waiting like how we are doing now. 

 

I think the issue would have been though is the development tools and the sdk would not have been up to scratch for 3rd parties.

During early development there are many major changes and iterations of things.  Trying to work with third party developers in this stage would have been a nightmare.

24 minutes ago, EvidencePlz said:

I still believe it would have been better if Microsoft partnered with top-end developers like PMDG, A2A, FSLabs, RXP etc earlier so that we could buy and use these addons sooner instead of waiting like how we are doing now. 

That part I can agree with. If you were around in the month or so before the sim released, something peculiar was going on. We were all under the impression the sim was still far from release - many of us thinking probably a year based on what MS/Asobo were saying. Then suddenly it went public beta for, I think a little less than a month, and then went gold. So the release schedule was very obviously moved way up with almost no notice. Probably because LM had just announced P3d 5, and MS probably got nervous that people would blow their new-sim budget with them and then not buy MSFS. They may not have realized that many of us buy almost every flight sim out there, and that dual or even triple-simming is barely a blip on our radar. After all, before MSFS, my main sim was p3d, but I also spent a lot of time in DCS, and even fired up Xplane from time to time.

 I suspect had they kept to their original release schedule we might have seen more pre-release collaboration with the 3pds. Instead, they released it early and now have a bunch of howling customers (many justified, many not) angry at this or that deficiency in the sim that needs to be fixed right now because I paid my @#!$# $60 and I can't believe this isn't a level-D sim! So they're having to divert resources to heavily favor fixing stuff and probably don't have quite as much bandwidth to work toward the 3pd's needs as they otherwise would have. 

I don't claim to approve of the rushed release. I'm tired of software in general using customers as the QA team. But it's unfair to single out Asobo/MS for it. Heck, look at Cyberpunk. That's from the developer that made the Witcher series, which is one of the greatest achievements in gaming history. CDPR could do no wrong after Witcher 3 came out, and that lasted until about an hour after people started playing Cyberpunk and discovered it was a bug-ridden mess. 

Unfortunately what it will take to fix this is for people to stop buying pre-release games, or even launch-day games, so that devs get the message that no one's gonna buy their stuff until their stuff works properly out of the box. That's how it used to work pre-internet, because bug patches involved spending a fortune to mail disks out to people.  (In fairness, games were also a lot less complex back then). But people refusing to buy games until it's known they're mostly bug free is never going to happen. Even I'm guilty, and I have a (mostly) firm personal no pre-order policy. I broke it for MSFS, mainly because even though I figured the sim would be a hot mess on release, they'd fix it down the road and I wanted to support the hobby.

Remember that until MSFS was announced, flight sim interest had waned to the point that for the most part, only us hardcore nerds were still in it. And that led to a dearth of hardware offerings, such that you could either spend $100 and get junk or spend a fortune to get good stuff. There wasn't much in-between. So I broke my own rule, which big-picture I shouldn't have done (not that it would have made a difference).  

So that's the world we're stuck in generally, for games, sims, and even productivity software. And when you're stuck there the best tactic isn't to try and convince other people that the product sucks. The best tactic is to convince people to continue sending feedback to the developers so that stuff gets fixed.

 

 

 

One day, and this day may only arise as the result of well-programmed game-building AI, but one day we will see the end of release-now-fix-later culture.

Here's what made me think to say Wow!  Twelve pages of comments, some civil disagreements, and it hasn't required a lock.  Well done ladies and gents!

5 hours ago, mrueedi said:

I give you some homeworks: find out how long after P3D release, GTN750 was released for it (hint: it was closer to 7 years than 7 months). So why do you measure by different standards in case of MSFS?

I can answer this part regarding RXP products!

The RXP GNS 530 WAAS and GNS 430 WAAS products (now referred to as Legacy GNS) were available from day one on FS9, from day one on FSX, from day one on Microsoft ESP and from day one on P3D1 and P3D2 (for our professional customers). The GNS 540/430 V2 were not released on day 1 for the other P3D version because there was an unfortunate "gap" in our delivery, but it wasn't a technical problem due to the simulator platform.

The RXP GTN 750/650 were released on day 1 of XP11 and the GNS V2 following shortly after, not because of any technical difficulty with the SDK, on the contrary, only because you can release ever so much products at once and ensure proper support to customers.

Please note some of the following product launching differences:

- FSX: nearly ALL 3rd party developers were invited by Microsoft around 2007 to meet the ACE Studio devs presenting the upcoming FSX and the SDK. This was a great event to also meet our peers. It was fantastic to meet everyone by the way. The whole who's who of 3rd party developers was there.

- ESP: we were also presented the professional direction in the form of ESP. I remember I've invited people from the professional aviation training industry to join and participate to the event as well.

- P3D: we were in contact early on with LM. They were contacting most 3rd party vendors as well and we've even released our GNS for an internal, unreleased version of ESP.

- FS2020: they've invited YouTubers and bloggers to be the first discovering the new version of the franchise. Most 3rd party developers seem to have been discovering the news at the same time as everyone else. I've no doubt a few of us got access to Microsoft and Asobo earlier than most because some of the assets are from well known 3rd party vendors in this industry and this is therefore expected, but the vast majority didn't.

 

There is no doubt being in the insider group early on gives you a competitive advantage and makes releasing products on day 1 more easily:

Quote

 

As you all know we were in many ways involved with the release of MFS. We did the boxed version, have been one of the first add-on developers to see it and we have been able to give some advice based on our nearly 30 years of experience with flightsim. After the release we had access to the first versions of the SDK (together with some other selected partners). This allowed us to have add-ons like OnAir ready on release.

We very early decided that we would use the CRJ made by Hans Hartmann as our first aircraft. It has just the right complexity to really task the developing SDK. The Airbusses would be too complex, the Twin Otter too easy. As Asobo had zero experience with running the far more complex code in their simulator, it was rather easy to set up a system where Hans would show them what was needed and Asobo basically would try to get the code running. Of course knowledge flows both ways. We learned a lot about the sim, how to use it efficiently. Of course the comment will be that the SDK and the sim will be made to get the CRJ running. And yes, to some degree that is true. Hans and Asobo worked together every day, often until very late in the evening.

 

 

I can assure you with the same level of insider knowledge and direct collaboration with Asobo developers, I have no doubt both the RXP GNS V2 and the RXP GTN would have been made available on day 1 as well.

1 hour ago, RXP said:

The RXP GNS 530 WAAS and GNS 430 WAAS products (now referred to as Legacy GNS) were available from day one on FS9, from day one on FSX, from day one on Microsoft ESP and from day one on P3D1 and P3D2 (for our professional customers).

FSX was only an update of an established platform, which had already thousands of existing addons, that were compatible with the new version. FSX for this reason is not really comparable with MSFS. Large portions of the SDK had matured for many years at that point.

Therefore P3D is more similar to the MSFS launch than FSX. And therefore my argument stands:

None of the mentioned products in the post that triggered my reply were released earlier than 5-7 years after P3D launch. I would not consider GNS 530 as "available" early when reading this. About 7 months after P3D launch, one guy commented as such:

If you are trying to install the FSX version RXP that you can buy from the Reality-XP web site, it will not work. And currently the commercial version of Reality-XP GNS IS NOT capable of running on Prepar3d v1.1. Yes you can install it and get it running however it does not do anything. When you put in a flight plan using the GNS and select autopilot, you aircraft will more than likely take a 360 heading and keep on going. Unless someone out there has figured out how to get it running on Prepar3d v1.1, then RXP is a dead product until the RXP team gets to work on fixing it.

Sounds similar like complaints about MSFS today...

1 hour ago, RXP said:

I've no doubt a few of us got access to Microsoft and Asobo earlier than most because some of the assets are from well known 3rd party vendors in this industry and this is therefore expected, but the vast majority didn't.

Strange, I have read comments that embracing 3rd party devs by MS/ASobo was unprecedented compared to anything before. I think you would find such comments from the same man, whom you quoted.

Edited April 6, 20215 yr by mrueedi

13 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

I would not consider GNS 530 as "available" early when reading this.

I'm fine, you have an opinion and I respect this. The fact is the discussion you're referring to is clearly corroborating what I've said: the GNS (legacy) was available from day 1* to professional customers. There were however some P3D and other software licensing terms I will not comment on here, affecting a wider availability to general public. P3D was brand new at that time and since then the licensing models have evolved too.

 

*I agree with you: day 1 doesn't mean right the same day P3D1 was released, but shortly after nonetheless, much shortly than the 5 to 7 years time span you're writing.

Quote

Strange, I have read comments that embracing 3rd party devs by MS/ASobo was unprecedented compared to anything before.

Quote

After the release we had access to the first versions of the SDK (together with some other selected partners). This allowed us to have add-ons like OnAir ready on release.

It might be my english, but I'm not reading "embracing was unprecedented" and "some selected partners" with the same "scale" level. I shall stand corrected.

Edited April 6, 20215 yr by RXP
level scale --> scale level