9 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Asobo Studio has considerable experience with PlayStation games (per their website) and the WASM part of the SDK is what affords multiplatform, so it was clear consoles were on the cards very early.  I would expect to see a push to PS5 in the near future to justify the WASM aspect and compromises made to be multiplatform.  The more platforms supported the more revenue potential.

Cheers, Rob.

Hmm, I doubt that MSFS will ever show up on Playstation.  Microsoft wants to push X-Box and crush Playstation. 

Are there any other triple-A title games from Microsoft that have appeared on Playstation? I don't recall Halo making it to Playstation. If other triple-A Microsoft games make it on Playstation, then I would be more inclined to believe you.

Whatever revenue MSFS would make on Playstation, Microsoft would still not allow this because Playstation is a huge threat to X-Box.

Mind you, keeping MSFS an exclusive title on X-Box is nothing new.  Nintendo also has exclusive titles (ie. Mario and Zelda) that they will never release on X-Box or Playstation.  And Playstation has exclusive titles (ie. Gran Turismo), that Sony will never release on X-Box or Nintendo.

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

28 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Average gaming PC cost is $1200-$1500

That's what I spent five years ago building a system based on a 7th generation Intel CPU, but without a graphics card (I brought a GTX 970 over from a previous system). I just priced out what it would cost to purchase a new system based on an 11th gen CPU and the GTX 3070. It was about twice the number stated above. That XBOX would look awfully good to me if I were just starting out in the hobby. Bravo to Microsoft for figuring out a way to encourage new people to join the flight sim community.

Speaking of spending a lot of money, best wishes to everyone for the best of holidays and a safe and successful 2022.

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by jrw4
Typo

5 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Bravo to Microsoft for figuring out a way to encourage new people to join the flight sim community.

As long as they don't leave the PC folks behind. Not saying g that is the case currently. But, I could see a path for it.

45 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I don't follow or know who Fabio is, but his early statement that there are more XBOX sales than PCs is not accurate (in terms of hardware).  The sales number vary but consistently show the PS5 ahead (global numbers):

XBOX series X/S sales 6-8 Million

PS5 sales at 11-13 Million

PC sales at 84 Million

My understanding of an early interview with Jorge is that Microsoft also wants to get MSFS out on PS5 (for obvious reasons).  MSFS sales numbers are reported at about 2.3 Million users (seems to have now leveled out), games pass is about 20-23 Million users.  1 Million of those 2.3 Million were at a minimum PC sales because we know that number before the XBOX launch.

XBOX X/S $300-$500

Average gaming PC cost is $1200-$1500

The economics of XBOX is 33% cheaper than PC, but the PC has 10X more unit sales.  I was unable to find any specific XBOX user sales of MSFS vs. PC user sales of MSFS.  If I were to hazard a guess I'd say it's probably close to 50/50 in XBOX sales vs. PC sales.  If MS make good on delivery to PS5 than I think it would swing in favor of consoles and is the likely focus going forward.

Cheers, Rob.

The consoles actually aren't a bad option if peripherals become more prevalent for that platform.  A console, keyboard, yoke, and peddles is far less cumbersome than a PC when you want to take it to your local flight club hanger.  People don't have to see your desktop and all your other software when loading up the sim.  It's a cleaner mobile setup and hardware issues are a thing of the past.  

22 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

As long as they don't leave the PC folks behind. Not saying g that is the case currently. But, I could see a path for it.

With the restrictions MS has on things like combat aircraft there will always be a need for the PC option. It's the nature of our hobby and if they deviate from that let's hope XPlane and P3D catch up by then to give us some alternatives.  Right now all our other options are 'Cartoon Simulator' at this point by comparison.  I was looking at a new P3D v5.3 video the other day showing what the default simulator looked like, it reminded me of Minecraft.  That's how bad the other stuff looks to me now.

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by Dillon

4 minutes ago, Dillon said:

I was looking at a new P3D v5.3 video the other day showing what the default simulator looked like, it reminded me of Minecraft. 

Not sure the US military or other commercial simulator users would;d agree. Perhaps LOOKS but that's all MSFS has going for it. The others fidelity. I very rarely spend time looking at dirt. My environment is the sky.

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by Adrian123

6 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

Not sure the US military or other commercial simulator users would;d agree. Perhaps LOOKS but that's all MSFS has going for it. The others fidelity. I very rarely spend time looking at dirt. My environment is the sky.

It's very interesting that P3D version 5.3 was mostly a graphics improvement patch. It's like P3D had many years to improve the graphics, but all of a sudden, the urgency to improve the graphics came after MSFS was released.  The same for X-Plane, because XP12 is another huge attempt at improving the graphics and IMO, it's a reaction to MSFS, just like P3D 5.3 was a reaction to MSFS.

So my question is, what functionality does P3D have over MSFS, that makes P3D better tailored for the commercial market?  I am curious about what MSFS is lacking if it wants to enter the commercial market.

If Microsoft sees a huge potential revenue stream in the commercial market, I don't think they will ignore it.  The question is, what features MSFS needs so that it's a commercially viable product that can compete against P3D.

I feel MS and Asobo (and maybe we to) should cherish the xbox players, hardcore or not.

They bring in the money, if they lose interest we all know what's going to happen.

3 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

And yet Minecraft sold 200 Million units ... so it's not always about "visuals".

Cheers, Rob.

In real life ground reference/visuals is are very important that's why you start off with VFR training.  Not sure why that fact escapes many simmers.  It's nice to have a simulator that covers both.  It's getting better every few months after the bad updates are patched.

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by Dillon

27 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

Not sure the US military or other commercial simulator users would;d agree. Perhaps LOOKS but that's all MSFS has going for it. The others fidelity. I very rarely spend time looking at dirt. My environment is the sky.

It was the best at the time.  It's a new day now, there's nothing wrong with advancing the technology.  The problem is Lockheed is hogtied by that FSX code and technology.  Hopefully they can do something to better improve it.  That being said you have VFR training to start your flying career for a reason meaning your looking out the window and in some cases the dirt below for ground reference.  

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by Dillon

18 minutes ago, hansb57 said:

I feel MS and Asobo (and maybe we to) should cherish the xbox players, hardcore or not.

They bring in the money, if they lose interest we all know what's going to happen.

I doubt Microsoft's long term plan is to rely on X-Box players.  For example, hiring Working Title is really not needed for X-Box players.  Working Title was always to placate the "hardcore simmer" market.  In addition, Jorg said he hired a developer to work on the scenery gateway system.  Again, the scenery gateway system is to make the taxiways and runways at airports more accurate.  In other words, the scenery gateway developer hiring was also to placate the "hardcore simmer" market.

The overwhelming majority of X-Box players probably don't care how accurate the G-1000 is.  The overwhelming majority of the X-Box players probably don't care about how accurate taxiways and runways are.

Microsoft is not stupid.  They are in this for the long run.  And the long run has always been the "hardcore simmer" market.  I even suspect Microsoft may make a play at the commercial market occupied by P3D.

If you are leading the business strategy at MSFS and you think X-Box is your target market, then you would be a fool to waste money on hiring Working Title and hiring the scenery gateway developer.

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

30 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

That wouldn't be considered "average gaming PC"

Totally agree, Rob, and so would my wife.

The performance of MSFS on relatively modest equipment is simply amazing compared to previous sims. My current system is totally adequate for the aircraft that are presently available, at least so far as an HD 24 inch monitor is concerned. I was thinking of eventually stepping up to something larger at 2K or even 4K, and that was what I was planning for. 

20 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

CIGI (Common Image Generator Interface) that allows on to run their own graphics rendering engine while still using the P3D underlying platform for aircraft simulation

Not sure what that means but it sounds very important! 😉

23 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

You know this is going to probably trigger this thread to get shutdown?  Anyway here some (not all):

• Multi-view/Multi-monitor support (not NVsurround or equvilant) which is important for a 360 degree experience and to operate GNS/GTN/FMC on separate displays.
• Multi-channel support with genlock - this is where you can have multiple computers operating displays that are frame sync'd with genlock device (master server with client servers) which means the ability to run many displays at 60Hz/60 FPS
• PDK with lower level access to Simulator features (Prepar3d Development Kit)
• SimDirector (build scenarios)
• CIGI (Common Image Generator Interface) that allows on to run their own graphics rendering engine while still using the P3D underlying platform for aircraft simulation
• DIS (Distributed Interactive Simulation) which is an IEEE standard from communication exchange for networking multi-user environments to communicate state information of objects/events primarily used in scenario management
•  A combat system
• FAA certification

Thanks, that's a nice list.

For FAA certification, I think it was Matt from Working Title (or another developer from Working Title) who mentioned if Microsoft wanted to get MSFS FAA certified, they could go through the steps and paperwork, and likely could get MSFS certified.  I wish I had the link to the exact quote and who it was that exactly said this from Working Title.

Multi-monitor support is planned according to the development roadmap, although I don't know if it will be to the level that meets the requirements for commercial customers.

What else in this list is a huge feature that would take a long time + a lot of resources to implement? 

Edited December 23, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

22 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

You know this is going to probably trigger this thread to get shutdown?  Anyway here some (not all):

• Multi-view/Multi-monitor support (not NVsurround or equvilant) which is important for a 360 degree experience and to operate GNS/GTN/FMC on separate displays.
• Multi-channel support with genlock - this is where you can have multiple computers operating displays that are frame sync'd with genlock device (master server with client servers) which means the ability to run many displays at 60Hz/60 FPS
• PDK with lower level access to Simulator features (Prepar3d Development Kit)
• SimDirector (build scenarios)
• CIGI (Common Image Generator Interface) that allows on to run their own graphics rendering engine while still using the P3D underlying platform for aircraft simulation
• DIS (Distributed Interactive Simulation) which is an IEEE standard from communication exchange for networking multi-user environments to communicate state information of objects/events primarily used in scenario management
•  A combat system
• FAA certification

If you take the time to browse thru the P3D SDK and the MSFS SDK the difference will be apparent.

Not accurate, all these features happened before MSFS was announced:

• PBR was introduced in P3D V4.4+ (long before MSFS) - this is better overall light response provided the objects are created to support PBR materials  
• High resolution terrain tile texture support (512 and 1024) was added in P3D V4.x 
• Dynamic Lights was introduced in P3D V4.x  (what some call volumetric lighting)
• Dynamic Reflections was introduced in P3D V4.x (i.e. reflections on any object represents the actual world not a generic terrain texture)
• Volumetric fog was introduced in P3D V3.x
• DX11 was introduced in P3D V2.0
• DX12 was introduced in P3D V5.0
• Triton water P3D V3.x provided for more realistic water 
• SpeedTrees (Dynamic 3D Autogen vegetation) was introduced in P3D V3.x (no more X trees but fully animated season trees that respond to wind)
• More shadow options were introduced in P3D V3.x (cloud shadows, cockpit, etc.)
• Avatar mode in P3D V3.0 (ability to exit and enter a vehicle/aircraft) and walk around as a person
• TrueSky/EA was introduced in V5.0 (better atmospherics and cloud rendering is volumetric)
• Water Works (nVidia) in V5.0 provided for more realistic water with better foam/wave simulation leverage hardware

Cheers, Rob.

Wow all that and it still looks like a cartoon by comparison, fascinating.  😶