MSFS 2020 is really getting there!

[ca_metal 2,025]

58 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

I have never understood why LR as spent so many resources in the mobile app development, on the other side of the coin, if you think about it, it may make sense. Each year technology is moving at an unbelievable pace, and maybe in the distant future there will be no more PC's but very sophisticated and technologically advanced mobile apps, who knows maybe LR is thinking about the future.

Really?! The words money and user coverage don’t ring a bell? They are not thinking about future, they are thinking about the present. The majority of gamers are on the mobile platforms.

Edited June 2, 2021 by ca_metal

[cobalt 798]

A simple observation (hopefully not a simple-minded one) on the issue of competition of MSFS2020 vs. the older sims: From many posts on this and other forums, it is clear that some users of X-plane, FSX, and P3D will stick with those sims (at least for now), and some will not. But that's not the important question. What really matters is which sim program is chosen by new flight-simmers from those available, because this is what will ultimately determine the future direction of this hobby. I know I am biased, but frankly, it is hard to imagine many new simmers picking one of the older sims over 2020, once they have checked them all out. Indeed, I have yet to see a single example of this in any forum so far (there may be some, but based on my sampling they must be very few). Well, time will tell!

[CarlosF 1,241]

24 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

 The majority of gamers are on the mobile platforms.

I highly doubt the majority of XP users are on a mobile platform, but I do think some are. I tried it,  removed it after 5 min, I found it to be not practical and useless even as a game. 

[RobJC 2,069]

54 minutes ago, cobalt said:

A simple observation (hopefully not a simple-minded one) on the issue of competition of MSFS2020 vs. the older sims: From many posts on this and other forums, it is clear that some users of X-plane, FSX, and P3D will stick with those sims (at least for now), and some will not. But that's not the important question. What really matters is which sim program is chosen by new flight-simmers from those available, because this is what will ultimately determine the future direction of this hobby. I know I am biased, but frankly, it is hard to imagine many new simmers picking one of the older sims over 2020, once they have checked them all out. Indeed, I have yet to see a single example of this in any forum so far (there may be some, but based on my sampling they must be very few). Well, time will tell!

What really matters is which sim/platform the 3rd party developers get behind. The new flight-simmers and holdouts will follow their lead. 

[cobalt 798]

11 minutes ago, RobJC said:

What really matters is which sim/platform the 3rd party developers get behind. The new flight-simmers and holdouts will follow their lead. 

In that case, we already know the answer. The number of addons available for MSFS2020 is enormous, and growing rapidly, for a sim that is only 9 months old.

[JBDB-MD80 1,473]

Another thread derailed by X-Plane or P3D users "again" and the mods on this subforum do nothing about it. If I wanted to know more about those platforms and development I would just visit the appropriate forums no need for it here but here we go again. Whats there not enough attention over there they have to bring chatter over here?. Typical Avsim just ruin another positive topic here on the MSFS forum. I probably just log out for a year or 2.

Edited June 2, 2021 by jbdbow1970

[ca_metal 2,025]

1 hour ago, RobJC said:

What really matters is which sim/platform the 3rd party developers get behind. The new flight-simmers and holdouts will follow their lead. 

Well, last time I heard/read a 3rd party saying something about that matter, it was stated the other way around. 3rd party developers follow the costumers, they go where the market is. No professional developer would start a project without reseraching the viability of such project and the number of potencial users, and the maket size of an specific platform is really important.

What market would you get behind based on those sales:

This chart was shared By Mathjis Kok, on an webinar hosted by the Flight Simulation Association. This chart shows the sales of each base simulator on the last 12 months. As he said, those are stimates, but he has the knowledge to do it very accurately. On what simulator would you focus to develop?

Edited June 2, 2021 by ca_metal

[abrams_tank 7,426]

18 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Well, last time I heard/read a 3rd party saying something about that matter, it was stated the other way around. 3rd party developers follow the costumers, they go where the market is. No professional developer would start a project without reseraching the viability of such project and the number of potencial users, and the maket size of an specific platform is really important.

What market would you get behind based on those sales:

This chart was shared By Mathjis Kok, on an webinar hosted by the Flight Simulation Association. This chart shows the sales of each base simulator on the last 12 months. As he said, those are stimates, but he has the knowledge to do it very accurately. On what simulator would you focus to develop?

Is there a direct link for this chart?  I would love to see the direct link for this chart.  And is the number of sales of copies of MSFS, or the sales of add-ons by Aerosoft across each flight simulator?  And  if these are add-on sales, I assume those are Aerosoft sales only (if those sales are for the other 3rd party devs, wow, X-Plane and P3D 3rd party devs are screwed).  And I also assume the height of the bars are proportional because it looks like the MSFS sales is about 15 times more than X-Plane sales. Thanks!

Edited June 2, 2021 by abrams_tank

[ca_metal 2,025]

29 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Is there a direct link for this chart?  I would love to see the direct link for this chart.  And is the number of sales of copies of MSFS, or the sales of add-ons by Aerosoft across each flight simulator?  And  if these are add-on sales, I assume those are Aerosoft sales only (if those sales are for the other 3rd party devs, wow, X-Plane and P3D 3rd party devs are screwed).  And I also assume the height of the bars are proportional because it looks like the MSFS sales is about 15 times more than X-Plane sales. Thanks!

https://flightsimassociation.com/webinars/a-tale-of-twin-otters-and-xboxes

The chart is about the sales of the base simulators, not the add-ons. As Mathjis says in the webinar, those are estimates based on their numbers. About that last part, I couldn’t point out any other 3rd party more capable to make those estimates.

P.S.: you have to sign up to have access. That part of his presentation is in the beginning of the video.

Edited June 2, 2021 by ca_metal

[bean_sprout 1,201]

2 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Another thread derailed by X-Plane or P3D users "again" and the mods on this subforum do nothing about it. If I wanted to know more about those platforms and development I would just visit the appropriate forums no need for it here but here we go again. Whats there not enough attention over there they have to bring chatter over here?. Typical Avsim just ruin another positive topic here on the MSFS forum. I probably just log out for a year or 2.

I get the simmers passion thing but the constant, pointless comparison of MSFS to the dying / dead sims is getting to be a drag.

Regards

bs

Edited June 2, 2021 by bean_sprout

[abrams_tank 7,426]

3 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

https://flightsimassociation.com/webinars/a-tale-of-twin-otters-and-xboxes
 

P.S.: you have to sign up to have access. That part of his presentation is in the beginning of the video.

Oh, thanks!  I'll sign up later.

About the chart, if that chart is the number of copies sold for MSFS in the last 12 months, that chart makes sense because MSFS is a new product, so it's expected to have a large number of sales in the last 12 months because it's new. If that chart is the sales of Aerosoft add-ons though by simulator, then that's bad news for P3D and X-Plane.

[ca_metal 2,025]

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

Oh, thanks!  I'll sign up later.

About the chart, if that chart is the number of copies sold for MSFS in the last 12 months, that chart makes sense because MSFS is a new product, so it's expected to have a large number of sales in the last 12 months because it's new. If that chart is the sales of Aerosoft add-ons though by simulator, then that's bad news for P3D and X-Plane.

That chart is specifically about base simulator sales, but Mathjis is clear about P3D and X-Plane add-on sales. Sales for P3D have their lowest and X-planes add-ons have still a healthy environment of sales. 
 

If I remember correctly, MSFS and P3D v5 were released very closely in time and you can see their sales numbers are in completely different positions in this chart.

I’m not saying all the other simulators are dead since august 2020. But it’s clear to me there’s a trend here.

[Scottoest 1,561]

7 hours ago, akita said:

Microsoft experts really has no "hidden secrets" when it comes to graphics, industry standart graphics features all over the place just like P3D DCS XP and others will catch it up soon. So the quoting by Microsoft 50 super ultra talents really is just a marketing hype. Anyone claiming otherwise is: 1) marketing, so you and others will quote those articles here.  or 2) have no idea how gaming industry works when it comes to graphics features. 

Computer code isn't secret magic, and MSFS is the product of lots of modern graphical techniques.

However, what MSFS has that an outfit like LR does not, is the funding and access to worldwide data centers, AI-powered post-processing of global data, an in-house repository of global data and photography, etc.  These things all affect the ultimate visual output of the sim.

Even if a company like Google for some reason decided to let LR license access to their Google Earth data (which they wouldn't), you're still left trying to find a way to deliver that data economically to your users (Microsoft have much more scale, own their own cloud infrastructure, and own their own global map data), and process it in a way that won't bring anything less than a supercomputer to it's knees.

And that's only the beginning.  You then move on to things like accumulated technical debt for XP over the decades it's been around, and how efficiently your engine can even integrate some of those modern graphical techniques and APIs.  I suspect the move to Vulkan was at least in part an effort to clean up some of that.

As for wishful thinking - an interesting choice of words for someone assuming that two programs that have been extremely behind the times graphically for years, will now "catch up soon".  A lot of hopes sure are being placed on XP12 - perhaps unfairly.

And none of this is even shade at XP or P3D, by the way.  It's the reality of building on an existing platform from a particular time, versus starting fresh and picking and choosing to retain some bits of FSX.  Microsoft used the same engine for Halo for 15 years, and then had to take a couple of years just to upgrade their development tools to be up to a remotely modern standard.

[abrams_tank 7,426]

21 minutes ago, Scottoest said:

And that's only the beginning.  You then move on to things like accumulated technical debt for XP over the decades it's been around, and how efficiently your engine can even integrate some of those modern graphical techniques and APIs.  I suspect the move to Vulkan was at least in part an effort to clean up some of that.

 

What Scottoest said.  X-Plane likely has incurred a lot of technical debt over the decades added to its code base.  The one advantage that Asobo had was to write new code targeting modern processors, modern graphics, and modern architecture.

If the the technical debt for X-Plane is high, it’s not easy for LR to improve the graphics and keep the FPS the same.  Attempts to improve the graphics can lead to an increase of FPS.  What is remarkable about MSFS is that the graphics is so good with decent FPS on a mediocre computer.

It’s possible that LR has to do further refactoring of their code and further optimization if they want X-Plane to “catch up” to the graphics of MSFS at the same FPS on the same hardware.  We will see how X-Plane 12 performs and the graphics improvements in it, and how the FPS compares to MSFS on the same set of hardware.   But if the technical debt is high for X-Plane, X-Plane 12 will still lag behind MSFS for some time graphically on mid to low end computers.

[Bobsk8 12,754]

1 hour ago, Scottoest said:

Computer code isn't secret magic, and MSFS is the product of lots of modern graphical techniques.

However, what MSFS has that an outfit like LR does not, is the funding and access to worldwide data centers, AI-powered post-processing of global data, an in-house repository of global data and photography, etc.  These things all affect the ultimate visual output of the sim.

Even if a company like Google for some reason decided to let LR license access to their Google Earth data (which they wouldn't), you're still left trying to find a way to deliver that data economically to your users (Microsoft have much more scale, own their own cloud infrastructure, and own their own global map data), and process it in a way that won't bring anything less than a supercomputer to it's knees.

And that's only the beginning.  You then move on to things like accumulated technical debt for XP over the decades it's been around, and how efficiently your engine can even integrate some of those modern graphical techniques and APIs.  I suspect the move to Vulkan was at least in part an effort to clean up some of that.

As for wishful thinking - an interesting choice of words for someone assuming that two programs that have been extremely behind the times graphically for years, will now "catch up soon".  A lot of hopes sure are being placed on XP12 - perhaps unfairly.

And none of this is even shade at XP or P3D, by the way.  It's the reality of building on an existing platform from a particular time, versus starting fresh and picking and choosing to retain some bits of FSX.  Microsoft used the same engine for Halo for 15 years, and then had to take a couple of years just to upgrade their development tools to be up to a remotely modern standard.

My guess is going from XP 11 to Xp12 will be like going from P3D 4 to P3D 5.  A few added bells and whistles, but nothing that will knock your socks off.