2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

There was a thread about this here in the MSFS Avsim forum but based on the information in that thread, there wasn’t a beta test for SU7

The main beta test was cancelled but a smaller one was run pretty much at the last minute with a specific group of testers.

Edited December 6, 20214 yr by Matchstick

42 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

Are we ready to hang the beta testers when problems arise in the release?  I can't wait.

Just kidding.

bs

From newbies that don't have clue how things work lol

So far no CTD Also military TCAS works better than before LOL

If they can't dial in the weather in the next two updates, I think it's time we put some pressure on them to reach out to Damien and his team to get some help. 

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by Drumcode

6 hours ago, Drumcode said:

If they can't dial in the weather in the next two updates, I think it's time we put some pressure on them to reach out to Damien and his team to get some help. 

I wouldn't take anything away from what HiFi have done as modders for other sims, but what they have done is very different from the proprietary engine that Asobo have developed and are still improving (regardless of occasional bugs, which are currently in the process of being fixed, just as any future bugs will be fixed by them).

HiFi have not developed a perfect nor bug-free system themselves. I see reports of incorrect weather, odd cloud shapes (rectangular, in one post I've seen), issues with haze... Several posts I've seen about weather being "wrong", not matching up with METAR, etc.

As for the latest iteration of their product with volumetric clouds, they have licensed third-party software to achieve that, and it's behind what Asobo have done with volumetric cloud rendering, so it would appear they don't have the programming skills to develop such technology in-house, unlike Asobo.

Again, I'm not taking anything away from HiFi or criticising them as such. They have obviously done good things for the other simulators. But a) MSFS has a fundamentally different, and proprietary, weather engine at the core; and b) HiFI have apparently not produced an entirely bug/issue-free product themselves.

 

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by March Hare

9 hours ago, Drumcode said:

If they can't dial in the weather in the next two updates, I think it's time we put some pressure on them to reach out to Damien and his team to get some help. 

If you're talking about the complaints that the clouds were too low, those people did not look at the METAR reports before they spoke.

I personally think the weather system is a thing of outstanding beauty. Coming from XP and before that FS9, its a million miles ahead. 

14 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

So far no CTD Also military TCAS works better than before LOL

 

@sd_flyer, does it simulate the slight torque moment due to the powerful turbine, when more aggressive thrust inputs are applied ? It should tend to roll anti-clockwise as you suddenly add thrust, and clockwise when you reduce, and real F-104 fighter pilots describe that effect as noticeable...

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by jcomm

32 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I personally think the weather system is a thing of outstanding beauty. Coming from XP and before that FS9, its a million miles ahead. 

Most of us, myself included, are not complaining about beauty. 

21 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Most of us, myself included, are not complaining about beauty. 

Indeed, however it also does a pretty good job of representing what is outside, most of the time. Sure it might not be down to the exact second or exact cloud, but who cares? It's just a game. 

Just now, Ianrivaldosmith said:

but who cares? It's just a game

It is the new kid on the block and it is not up to snuff with what has been out there for years for predecessors.  Yes. I am speaking of predecessors with 3rd party addons.  But the technology used was and is available and not implemented in a new product.  And after a year the tight lock on the MSFS SDK has perpetuated the gap.  

It is a game to some, and a simulation to others.  That it is not the same to all has become obvious.

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

 

@sd_flyer, does it simulate the slight torque moment due to the powerful turbine, when more aggressive thrust inputs are applied ? It should tend to roll anti-clockwise as you suddenly add thrust, and clockwise when you reduce, and real F-104 fighter pilots describe that effect as noticeable...

Well I'm still learning how to fly F-104 properly. It definitely behave differently based when slow and when fast ! SSW put original manual of F104G and there is much to learn! l What I can tell I do feel difference when I carry drop tanks because SSW modeled dynamic drag. There is also inertia coupling BLC system implemented, which give great deal of pitching up/down moments depending on speed and configuration. If I turn off stability (inside the cockpit) things goes awkward very quickly! So stability "automation" is a must for me!

As far as torque I have to check. My hands and legs automatically compensate, so I need to release all controls in order see what is going. All I can tell you F-104 definitely stick and rudder plane just like F-14 requires proper rudder a lot. Also I trim aggressively all the time. 

This beta build definitely brought F-104 full AA radar functionality for me. It was not working good for me before at all.  My biggest issue right now is long range. I'm using real performance table for endurance flight. And so far I can't go passed 550 miles with four extra tanks. I don't know if I do anything wrong or it's a bug!

3 hours ago, fppilot said:

That it is not the same to all has become obvious.

But hasn't this always been true for desktop flight simulation? We have airline pilots preparing for simulator check rides and we have nine-year-olds who are as crazy about flying as so many of us were uncountable decades ago.

MSFS has created a broad-based platform that doesn't throw up a barrier to entry in the form of thousands of dollars (2021 value) in build-it-yourself hardware, endless configuration files, add-ons galore, etc. Kudos to all concerned. Endless speculation about the configuration of the SDK and the implementation of the weather engine seems fruitless, since none of us has a clue as to the internals of this incredibly complex product. And I wouldn't be surprised that those few who actually do have access to this kind of detailed information are laughing themselves silly reading so much of what's posted.

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by jrw4
Typo

33 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

I wouldn't be surprised that those few who actually do have access to this kind of detailed information are laughing themselves silly reading so much of what's posted.

Being related to a games developer, I can confirm that laughter is a common reaction to many forum posts, or groaning in disbelief. Laughter is the best medicine, as they say.

6 hours ago, jcomm said:

 

@sd_flyer, does it simulate the slight torque moment due to the powerful turbine, when more aggressive thrust inputs are applied ? It should tend to roll anti-clockwise as you suddenly add thrust, and clockwise when you reduce, and real F-104 fighter pilots describe that effect as noticeable...

OK, Part 2 of my response! LOL I just loaded up sim. Level off at 22000 ft. I cracked afterburners F-104 jittered, started pitching up. I let go of controls and noticed very slight roll to the left (counter clockwise). So yes it seems toque is there but barely noticeble.

Note AFC was on