1 hour ago, Brandon01110 said:

but would they actually delay a release because of some big issues

They've delayed updates before because of issues they found.

So yes, I think they would.

Edited April 2, 20215 yr by Tuskin38

2 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

That there would be a means of using existing aircraft from FSX and P3d in the new sim as a result of the "legacy" flight model.

The devs said it might work, as there is some backwards compatibility, but they even said most planes probably wouldn't and they never said ported planes would work perfectly.

It was also never part of the advertising campaign, they were just comments on backwards compatibility when asked by the community/interviewers.

  

8 hours ago, Donka said:

Will be interesting to see what the livery samples provides us with. Would be good for an official way of producing liveries. 

I'm curious as well, because Asobo's official liveries are modelled decals on the plane, they're not textures. If you open any of the folders of the liveries they've released, you'll find no textures just model files. That's why their 787 and 747 liveries aren't mirrored. Each livery has the entire plane model in the folder.

For example here's the Emerald Harbor Air livery for the Grand Caravan

And one of the Flight Sim liveries on the Baron

 

 

Edited April 2, 20215 yr by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

the public does not need to know about the state of a product months before its official release.

Nor, it would seem, for several months after release.

 

1 hour ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

they did not claim that it would look like the trailers

You may be right--I just don't remember watching the trailers every week and then being informed that the real product would not look anything like them.

1 hour ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

First one was an assumption by most people who were not part of the Alpha,

No it wasn't.  As many may recall, it was an express and unequivocal statement.

Seriously, as long as there are those who are willing to attempt these kinds of excuses for these developers, to apologize on their behalf and to point out how foolish we were to believe them, what hope do we have that they will find the necessary motivation to deliver what they promised?

 

 

52 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

I'm curious as well, because Asobo's official liveries are modelled decals on the plane, they're not textures. If you open any of the folders of the liveries they've released, you'll find no textures just model files. That's why their 787 and 747 liveries aren't mirrored. Each livery has the entire plane model in the folder.

Asobo do use textures but the base colours are a simple texture with the detail added via a separate higher res texture applied as decals. I saw all this with my Grand Caravan repaint. It’s the decals that I’m hoping to learn more about so we can create higher quality liveries with smaller file sizes. 

2 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

I remember reading several representations during that year long advertising campaign that came before the initial release:

1. That this sim would be complete in itself  with no need for a lot of add-ons for weather, scenery and aircraft. 

2. That  the spectacular graphics that appeared in the early videos would be achievable by anyone with a fairly decent gaming rig.

3.  That there would be a means of using existing aircraft from FSX and P3d in the new sim as a result of the "legacy" flight model.

1. This is true. You can enhance it easily yourself with built-in tools, but as it stands even if you don't, you can make lots of different weather types, there is pretty good scenery for everywhere, most airports are in there by default, and there are a lot of aeroplanes in by default.

2. This is also true. but still people insist on running it with everything at full throttle at 8K and then wonder why they don't get 300 FPS. That is not what they promised. I run it at 1920x1080 and it goes like the clappers on a fairly mediocre machine, and that's with everything turned up detail-wise, so it has more than met the actual claim they made.

3. There is. Here are two of them:

Don't get me wrong, they've still buggered a few things up and I don't like everything they do, but in regards to the three points you mention, they have pretty much delivered on those.

Edited April 2, 20215 yr by Chock

46 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

Nor, it would seem, for several months after release.

But why? NDAs are usually never lifted at release. The product is available for everyone, there is no reason for all the rough beta footage to be let out.

46 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

You may be right--I just don't remember watching the trailers every week and then being informed that the real product would not look anything like them.

Now you are just misquoting me, and probably on purpose as I made my point very clear. I said that they didn't claim the simulator would look like the trailers on a mid-range system. If you compare its current state at Ultra settings to the trailers, there are a few regressions (mostly limited tree draw distance), but also some improvements (photogrammetry trees and pop-in). The biggest offender was the water masks in the Around the World trailers but that's been largely corrected by now, and I made a substantial effort to try and get Asobo to do so.

46 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

No it wasn't.  As many may recall, it was an express and unequivocal statement.

Where? They've been partnering with third-party developers since the simulator's reveal, and they are still working heavily on the SDK and promoting add-ons. They never said the simulator would be complete, especially at release. "Launch" was a mere point on their roadmap.

46 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

Seriously, as long as there are those who are willing to attempt these kinds of excuses for these developers, to apologize on their behalf and to point out how foolish we were to believe them, what hope do we have that they will find the necessary motivation to deliver what they promised?

If you check out my post history you'll see that I do not tolerate those who make silly excuses on their behalf, and I am very critical when I think they're not delivering on what they've promised. But I'm afraid they have not promised anything you have claimed so far.

32 minutes ago, Donka said:

It’s the decals that I’m hoping to learn more about so we can create higher quality liveries with smaller file sizes. 

They said in the last Q&A that they plan to create a video tutorial to show people how to use the new livery creation system.

Edited April 2, 20215 yr by ChaoticBeauty

3 hours ago, Langeveldt said:

Just want my tree LOD back 😞 

Yes, I was flying around Sweden yesterday and that was all I was thinking about. Tried not to but...
How much better this would/could look with the trees drawn out like they were. 
I am surprised how much of a difference it makes. 
Cheers, 

RB

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

If you open any of the folders of the liveries they've released, you'll find no textures just model files

You might want to look there instead:

Official\OneStore\fs-base\texture\LIVERY

These are what looks like 4 color checker textures which most likely are the color base which is then applying to decals painted on the fuselage.

PS: the livery system doesn't seem different to me than what you do in Forza

Edited April 2, 20215 yr by RXP

So, they're telling us in advance they'll break the sim again on April 13th? 😆

Cheers, Ed

32 minutes ago, KJANRBeard said:

Yes, I was flying around Sweden yesterday and that was all I was thinking about. Tried not to but...
How much better this would/could look with the trees drawn out like they were. 
I am surprised how much of a difference it makes. 
Cheers, 

RB

Yep, can't fly VFR because of the LOD.  Can't fly at night because of the ridiculously blurry cities.

So daytime IFR it is then..  Desperately resisting the urge to go back to XP. 

Just now, Langeveldt said:

Desperately resisting the urge to go back to XP. 

It's not because my first name is Jean-Luc, but I can't help saying in this case: "resistance is futile" 😉

 

5 minutes ago, Langeveldt said:

Desperately resisting the urge to go back to XP. 

Why? XP sucks and didn't they stop supporting it?

17 hours ago, Twenty6 said:

300 beta testers? April Fools?

Would you like to explain that comment? Remember this release probably is already going out to third parties like the last release did.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

but in regards to the three points you mention, they have pretty much delivered on those.

 

58 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

But I'm afraid they have not promised anything you have claimed so far.

Gentlemen,

With respect and without any intention to give offense, I ask:  Which is it --that they have delivered on the three points promised or that they never promised them to begin with?

When I have to re-purchase the Waco (shown in your picture), It doesn't seem to meet any definition of "backward compatibility" that makes sense to me.

Chock, you have recently created a most interesting and informative review of the new Corsair by Milviz.  But, like the Waco, the fundamental file structure  and content does not seem so different from the (admittedly excellent) P3D model as to justify a full price repurchase.  It is the additional Byzantine file structure added by Asobo that make this necessary.

There is a case to be made that I lack the patience that many have been given, yet for me the questions remain.

56 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

With respect and without any intention to give offense, I ask:  Which is it --that they have delivered on the three points promised or that they never promised them to begin with?

They never said that the simulator will be "complete" (rather that it is a work in progress) or that we will "not need add-ons" (which is something only some people said). Whether add-ons are needed or not is entirely up to you. This simulator features a much better content package than any of the previous simulators in their mediocre default state, but it does not mean it cannot be enhanced. Personally I don't feel like buying add-ons so far and I am satisfied with the default content it comes with, but I imagine that someone who needs more IFR capabilities, a specific plane, or an area in higher detail, will need an add-on, payware or freeware, or some of the excellent mods. Asobo have been encouraging the usage of add-ons, and are actively promoting them or partnering with third-party developers, but they never said they won't be needed.

About the trailers, they only said that the simulator will be able to run and look fairly good on modest systems, but they did not go as far as to claim you will not need a high-end system to get a similar experience to that of the trailers, which they clarified more recently are captured at Ultra or near-Ultra settings on an extremely high-end PC.

1 hour ago, TASCHMANN said:

When I have to re-purchase the Waco (shown in your picture), It doesn't seem to meet any definition of "backward compatibility" that makes sense to me.

They said that older aircraft can use the legacy aerodynamics engine, and that's it. They did not promise full backwards compatibility with FSX/P3D add-ons, because several other components are done in a very different way. The Carenado aircraft, as far as I know, are using the modern aerodynamics engine, and have other enhancements like PBR textures and so on (the CT182T at least is using a newer, more accurate sound set too). I don't own any of the newer Carenado or Alabeo aircraft so I don't know the full extent of the enhancements they've made to their refreshed models. If you feel that you shouldn't have to purchase those planes again at full price, you have to take it up with Carenado.