Original pre-launch videos vs. current state?

[CarlosF 1,234]

Beating the dead horse again.

 

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

9 minutes ago, z06z33 said:

I think I'll stick with my outdated version for now thanks.... No reason to downgrade to worse graphics for better performance when performance wasn't even an issue on a laptop from 2017

Just go ahead!

[enright 496]

43 minutes ago, turner112 said:

I haven't had the sim since last September. I tried it for the first month on XBOX Live. 

So, I'll go look, though based on the many negative comments around the sim's operation…

But I'll try to remain optimistic that this will end up differently than Flight.

The short answer is that all major features are implemented - there’s nothing shown in the prerelease trailer that doesn’t exist in the sim - unless you are pixel peeping / nitpicking.

Despite the occasional rant on forums - the sim has universal acclaim. The vast majority of vendors and people that have been using FS for decades will tell you MSFS is about as far from the flight fiasco as it gets, and one of the biggest leaps forward in the history of the franchise. 

In other words, there’s no reason to keep your hopes up - it has already ended up differently than flight. 
 

 

[turner112 52]

37 minutes ago, enright said:

The short answer is that all major features are implemented - there’s nothing shown in the prerelease trailer that doesn’t exist in the sim - unless you are pixel peeping / nitpicking.

Despite the occasional rant on forums - the sim has universal acclaim. The vast majority of vendors and people that have been using FS for decades will tell you MSFS is about as far from the flight fiasco as it gets, and one of the biggest leaps forward in the history of the franchise. 

In other words, there’s no reason to keep your hopes up - it has already ended up differently than flight. 
 

 

Thanks - what do you mean by pixel peeping / nitpicking?

Hopefully a properly functional GPS is neither. (Note that I don't mean "fully-functional" as compared to real-world, but with Garmin's name on it, the original snaking/meandering flight paths were... suboptimal.)

Based on what I've read, unfortunately, "implemented" doesn't indicate "functional".

As far as MSFS being a leap forward, this appears to only apply to the visuals (obviously) and the weather, if we're discussing its native capabilities. I'm curious as to which other of its native capabilities have surpassed other current sims.

Come to think of it, I have to read up on updates to the SDK.

[enright 496]

2 hours ago, turner112 said:

Thanks - what do you mean by pixel peeping / nitpicking?

Hopefully a properly functional GPS is neither.

As far as MSFS being a leap forward, this appears to only apply to the visuals (obviously) and the weather, if we're discussing its native capabilities. I'm curious as to which other of its native capabilities have surpassed other current sims.

Come to think of it, I have to read up on updates to the SDK.

Correct, that’s not what I meant by pixel peeping and many of the GPS issues have been resolved. It’s not perfect - but that and the WT FMS on the a320 are the most advanced avionics simulations in a default sim. And before you say something about third parties - you may have missed the news - WT is not a third party anymore. 

In terms of the leap forward in the franchise - you got me there - FSX’s default garmin avionics replication was much better. So was the FMS on the Boeings. And the live traffic simulation on FSX - light years ahead of MSFS. And the effect of mountains on turbulence and wind - and the multi surface flight model - and the number of accurately modeled airports was of course far superior - and those accurate 3D clouds - and the dynamic weather system, and the… wait a minute…. I think I have the two versions confused.

[turner112 52]

7 minutes ago, enright said:

Correct, that’s not what I meant by pixel peeping and many of the GPS issues have been resolved. It’s not perfect - but that and the WT FMS on the a320 are the most advanced avionics simulations in a default sim. And before you say something about third parties - you may have missed the news - WT is not a third party anymore. 

In terms of the leap forward in the franchise - you got me there - FSX’s default garmin avionics replication was much better. So was the FMS on the Boeings. And the live traffic simulation on FSX - light years ahead of MSFS. And the effect of mountains on turbulence and wind - and the multi surface flight model - and the number of accurately modeled airports was of course far superior - and those accurate 3D clouds - and the dynamic weather system, and the… wait a minute…. I think I have the two versions confused.

GPS - ok, I'll take a look to see which issues have been resolved.

WT - sorry, don't know what that is. I'm sure I know, but not by the description here - I mostly fly GA so it may not be something I've tried.

I wasn't speaking about a leap forward in the franchise - as noted, I was comparing what I experienced (a year ago) to other current sims, which in this case, for me, is XP11. Out of the box, XP11 had issues too, but certain areas (GPS again) were pretty solid. I did eventually start using Navigraph for reasonably current databases, though.

Dynamic weather system - is it fixed? I couldn't get it to work properly, or report weather properly. 3D clouds looked great though.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,825]

6 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Please! For gods sake! Not again one of these posts!

Calm down and go flying!

Why did you enter the thread if you knew you would burst a blood vessel?

[MrBitstFlyer 3,825]

5 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Yes i am excited about SU5 and really enjoying it. Thanks!

Maybe the OP should just give it a go and see for himself whats new and has been or has not been fixed?

Or the poster could go to an MSFS forum and ask?  You're in this thread far too long for somebody who can't stand the subject.