what improved, what got worse since launch

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

21 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

No. I am arguing that the point of a simulator is to simulate real life as closely as possible. A lot of people use simulators for training purposes, and part of that training also includes flight planning, and flight planning includes weather planning. Currently, that is not possible inside FS2020. Furthermore, what's the point of partnering with Meteoblue if you're going to feed quasi-random weather in the sim?

Your argument style is very much "despite what you or anyone said, here is my interpretation coming from reading between the lines". You have spent three posts making broad connections and blanket interpretations about what Asobo developers have said. I hardly see any point continuing this argument with you since you seem to put more weight on your interpretation rather than on what was said. No reasonable argument can be had under such conditions.

I am basing it on the CODE that EXISTS right now, not what someone said. People have already created their own flight models, what part of that is unclear. I never said the goal wasn't to simulate the real world as closely as possible, but a simulation has natural limitations that make some things less important than others. That is unless you'd like to hook yourself to an electrical shock that goes off every time you crash, there are limitations to what can be simulated.

Simulating a real forecast in the sim will not give you an idea of how well you predicted the weather for that location, since it will NOT be that perfectly accurate, at least not RIGHT NOW unless they really dump some serious code changes into that side of it. Even so, even if they do it, it doesn't change the CAUSE/EFFECT factor of Real Life vs. Simulation. 

I would argue that simulating landings and instruments more accurately is definitely more important in a SIM than getting the arrival weather conditions perfectly synch'd to the real world. Hence, because you still know the weather you are landing at regardless of the forecast, the procedure of doing a holding pattern or trying the next airport will be the same regardless, the only difference will be when it happens and if it happens. 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[scotchegg 4,170]

44 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

Did you even read the post i was  responding to? You know, the one that introduced unwarranted hyperbole first? The one to which i was responding with an example of said hyperbole which no one was talking about? Don't you think your outrage is better aimed at that post instead?

1) I did read the post; exactly which of Kaosfere’s comments did you take as hyperbole?

2) From exactly which of my comments do you infer outrage?

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

9 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

IF you did, then you'd want a plane crash in the SIM to end your life, understand (I know you still will refuse to give any point up, as this argument is pointless).

Please stop using such hyperbole and putting words in my mouth. Funny how you're talking in one sentence about "as much as possible" and then in the next you try to back that up by giving an example of the impossible. You are literally equating wanting a weather simulation in FS2020 as accurate as we've had in FS9 and FSX and P3D for decades with wanting plane crashes to be fatal in the sim. Not only is that an incredibly crass and disgusting example to bring up considering the real loss of life in aviation, it's also a straw man fallacy. Rather than actually addressing my argument, you are propping up straw men that have nothing to do with anything i said.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

3 hours ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

Please stop using such hyperbole and putting words in my mouth. Funny how you're talking in one sentence about "as much as possible" and then in the next you try to back that up by giving an example of the impossible. You are literally equating wanting a weather simulation in FS2020 as accurate as we've had in FS9 and FSX and P3D for decades with wanting plane crashes to be fatal in the sim. Not only is that an incredibly crass and disgusting example to bring up considering the real loss of life in aviation, it's also a straw man fallacy. Rather than actually addressing my argument, you are propping up straw men that have nothing to do with anything i said.

They may get right whether or not it's raining but the simulation will NOT get right whether or not that flight under those conditions put your plane or your passengers in danger. That is why it does not have that much importance, it's simply a convenience thing unless the code were in an entirely different state.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

6 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

It's not a straw man argument, because the direct and non-hyperbolic correlation between the weather is that the weather is so complex to recreate exactly as it would be in real life.

It is a straw man argument, because:

1. I never asked for such ridiculous features, and

2. I specifically said: "weather simulation in FS2020 as accurate as we've had in FS9 and FSX and P3D for decades"

I am done discussing this with you. You keep twisting my words and everyone else's. It is impossible to have any sensible argument under such conditions. Have a nice day.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

22 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

It is a straw man argument, because:

1. I never asked for such ridiculous features, and

2. I specifically said: "weather simulation in FS2020 as accurate as we've had in FS9 and FSX and P3D for decades"

I am done discussing this with you. You keep twisting my words and everyone else's. It is impossible to have any sensible argument under such conditions. Have a nice day.

That would mean no-one could bring up their own points to argue their own facts or it would always be a straw man argument. Strawman is generally more like changing the core of the argument's intention to be totally invalidated by a single statement. In some cases, this could be a strawman attempt, but in this case we are discussing real world vs simulation, so it's not intentionally a hyperbole about life vs death, but by necessity it becomes ABOUT simulating real life or not, and a crash is the best example of when a sim fails to simulate real life.

We never changed the argument, which always remained "how important is the weather to be accurate upon arrival in a simulation". I see it has some benefit, but not as much on the simulation as it is just a convenience, at least not right now.

If it cannot be simulated accurately, than it is less important than fixing the "neutral weather" landings which can be simulated more accurately. I never said it had ZERO importance, it would be nice to have, I just don't see it as part of the simulation side of things due to all the pre-existing conditions in the code in its current state.

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[crimplene 631]

8 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

It is impossible to have any sensible argument under such conditions.

An orderly withdrawal is always a good idea in a lost battle. 🙂

[mazex 419]

Well - with a fairly high spec computer (that is needed for a next gen title like this) - I am having a blast flying the TBM with the G3000 mod in VR. It is mind boggling all the places I have flown over where I can navigate easily in VFR based on the fact that I know the actual place IRL. It is simply amazing compared to previous simulators to fly over my old hoods immediately finding the old path I used to run, the beach where we used to party as teenagers, the restaurant where we had a nice dinner on the last vacation etc...

The performance sure has improved for me since the release and I almost never have any CTDs that happened very rarely with the initial version. The autogen landscapes work a lot better now and the flight models seem less twitchy. Sure - you do not get the same feeling as in DCS when you pull 20+ alpha with a Hornet but for the civilian application it works OK. VR really is the immersion booster ++ for me. Had the sim moment of my life trying to land at Annecy (LFLP) in heavy rain with clouds down to 150 feet...

Not that it has every worked but better implementation of prop drag and ground effects is what I am lacking right now. And a decent mission generator / campaign mode like Neofly integrated.

 

[Ricardo41 5,936]

3 hours ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

 I am arguing that the point of a simulator is to simulate real life as closely as possible.

Every gaming and entertainment flight simulation,  P3D, XPlane, MSFS 2020, etc., is as far from real life as you can possibly get.

Because if it were to simulate real life, most of us would be sitting in ground school and taking flying lessons in the C 152, not pretending to be "airline pilots" by spending $$$$ on a so-called "study-level" addon.

Imagine a "true to life" simulator that won't allow you to progress unless and until you've completed the various ratings. How many copies do you think a simulator of this kind would sell? I'll tell you: exactly 0.

[Janov 2,383]

7 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Every gaming and entertainment flight simulation,  P3D, XPlane, MSFS 2020, etc., is as far from real life as you can possibly get.

We had to read a lot of nonsense from you in the past - but this one beats everything you wrote so far. 🙄

[Nyxx 6,993]

8 minutes ago, Janov said:

We had to read a lot of nonsense from you in the past - but this one beats everything you wrote so far. 🙄

I dont know! 😉

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

18 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Every gaming and entertainment flight simulation,  P3D, XPlane, MSFS 2020, etc., is as far from real life as you can possibly get.

1. Which is why i said "the point of a simulator is to simulate real life as closely as possible" rather than "a simulator is real life"... Why are you telling me what a simulator is when i am talking about what the GOAL of a simulator is?

2. Saying they're "as far from real life as you can possibly get" is a massive exaggeration. P3D is closer to real life than FSX, which is closer to real life than FS9, which are all closer to real life than a drawing i can make on a paper tissue.

22 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Because if it were to simulate real life, most of us would be sitting in ground school and taking flying lessons in the C 152, not pretending to be "airline pilots" by spending $$$$ on a so-called "study-level" addon.

Imagine a "true to life" simulator that won't allow you to progress unless and until you've completed the various ratings. How many copies do you think a simulator of this kind would sell? I'll tell you: exactly 0.

Why is it that when talking about flight simulators which are supposed to simulate flight, people start bringing in simulating death in a crash, or sitting in ground school... What is the point of these over the top comments? We are talking about Flight Simulator, not Job Simulator. Furthermore, would it surprise you to learn that FS9 did have quite an extensive flight school featuring Rod Machado, and you could get ratings from it? Or that a lot of other simulators out there do simulate this kind of progress? Or that there are quite a few people who would like FS2020 to feature a career simulation?

Either way, these attempts at deviating from the topic of "a flight simulator should try and simulate real life conditions as close as possible" by bringing up silly examples as above are extremely disingenuous.

[Ricardo41 5,936]

28 minutes ago, Janov said:

We had to read a lot of nonsense from you in the past - but this one beats everything you wrote so far. 🙄

The only one who spouts constant nonsense and trollish comments - is you. It says it right there, in one way or another, on the various flight sim boxes - for entertainment purposes only.

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

@Ricardo41 "For entertainment purposes only" and "as far from real life as possible" are two VASTLY different things. For example, PMDG give out with their products real Boeing manuals, but they still write "For entertainment purposes only". Navigraph does the same with real world charts. And to say a Navigraph chart is "as far from real life as possible" because it says "Navigraph charts intended for flight simulation only - not for navigational use" is frankly ridiculous.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Cristi_Neagu

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

There was no disingenuity in any of this discussion.  I think you took it too serious. We were just stating our beliefs. The reason I mentioned the crash was more about how the sim could not yet simulate weather dangers. No hard feelings, I just don't see the arrival weather being in perfect synch as being important beyond entertainment, until they vastly improve the simulation of how the weather affects the plane (and as complex as that is, I'm not sure it will ever happen, hopefully one day).

Yes, Flight Sims are a great learning tool for a lot of the ground school stuff, IFR & GPS equipment, and navigational charts. They get really close to being good in other areas, which is why it gets frustrating when they miss the mark. I doubt anyone said Navaids are unrealistic, but I could have missed it.

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Alpine Scenery