30 minutes ago, Car147 said:

No pat on the back for using a 15 year old flight model, sorry!

1 + 1 equals 2 already 15 years ago, so were the equations of motion and gravity that flight model calculations are based on. and no pat on the back for using totally outdated Newton's laws, 400 years old, sorry!

Edited January 27, 20224 yr by turbomax

6 minutes ago, tup61 said:

no wonder he shot this video in the dark because at day things would look even worse than they do already in this video

😊

All cats are grey in the dark

There are no such definable groups of people as Casual and Hardcore simmers. It's a fallacy to think there are. That kind of thinking says more about fragile egos than it does about rational thinking. IMO

We are all on a spectrum.



 

Edited January 27, 20224 yr by GaryK
clarity

12 minutes ago, turbomax said:

1 + 1 equals 2 already 15 years ago, so were the equations of motion and gravity that flight model calculations are based on. and no pat on the back for using totally outdated Newton's laws, 400 years old, sorry!

Yes, but how you get to the answer of 1 + 1 has evolved over the years. As you can see by the way they have changed the turbo prop model from the 15 year old one!. So again another really silly answer in the blind need to defend the indefensible!  Stop trying to be smart becuase you look everything but smart!!!1 Sorry!

1 hour ago, rka said:

No one is patting them on the back for the 15 yo flight model, did you watch the video or at least read some of the comments?

 

Not necessary, but it would be nice if you could clarify if XP or P3D or both had all that within two years 😄

No but you are claiming it is mind boggling evolution that deserves awe for playing catch up! That is like parsing a dog owner for feeding the dog!

the new flight model in MSFS was already refined and different from the one in fsx 15 years ago. that doesn't mean you can't tweak and always add more subtleties, like they do now with prop airflow calculations, vortices etc. in MSFS they can use GPU programming to determine airflow over airfoils at hundreds of points, that was not possible at 60 fps in fsx times, and for that I do pat them on the back.

Edited January 27, 20224 yr by turbomax

23 minutes ago, turbomax said:

1 + 1 equals 2 already 15 years ago, so were the equations of motion and gravity that flight model calculations are based on. and no pat on the back for using totally outdated Newton's laws, 400 years old, sorry!

I'd like to know where did i say and i quote, your quote.  " No pat on the back for using a flight model 15 yrs old "

7 minutes ago, Car147 said:

I'd like to know where did i say and i quote, your quote.  " No pat on the back for using a flight model 15 yrs old "

sorry, my mistake. I quoted rka who quoted a321 😊

23 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

comparing Melissa McCarthy and Kylie Jenner with the lights out.

what's the difference? they both can't fly.

1 minute ago, turbomax said:

sorry, my mistake. I quoted rka who quoted a321 😊

No probs, just had me baffled lol.

If MFS is better or inferior to other tittles is a question of focus / interests basically.

I found it remarkable visuals-wise, but so far pretty much not up to my expectations regarding flight and systems modelling.

It is still under development, so, I'll have to give it the benefit of the doubt.

I'll reconsider evaluating MFS when a sound & stable weather system finally get's available and a better flight dynamics engine + SDK made available for 3pds.

2 hours ago, a321 said:

FS2004 had 3 Study Level Airbus planes, from PSS in 6 months

Yeah but the differences from one version of FS to the next one were incremental, up to FSX (and P3d). Most of the time, you could just use an older aircraft in the new sim. "Study Level" planes coded most of their logic outside of FS9 / FSX anyway and interfaced with it, which isn't possible in MSFS anymore (for various reasons, some of them better than others).

While it's true that MSFS still uses legacy code from FSX, the engine is a complete rewrite, so are the APIs and they require different programming techniques. Not so simple to just plug in an old aircraft and update some textures and the model. 

2 hours ago, a321 said:

Nobody blames the XBOX, this point keeps getting missed! We (those who moan)  blame ASOBO/MS for the dumbing down, as stated by some DEVS! Why not get the sim into shape first. Now we have issue's across the board. Did you see the guys response when Jorg suggested he talks about the Weather API in the last live stream!

What we have is FSX reskinned and minus a whole load of functionality so it works on the XBOX! 

No, we have a new Flight Simulator that uses some code sections from FSX. Most parts of it are a rewrite. Of course it takes a while to reach the previous level of functionality. While you seem to argue they should've built upon FSX and put in some improvements, I don't think that would've worked. The render pipeline was already outdated in 2006, relying heavily on the CPU instead of utilising the ever increasing power of GPUs. While it can be good to re-use well-tested and reliable code, sometimes a rewrite from scratch is the better solutions, with all the issues this creates.

 

2 hours ago, a321 said:

All of these things should of been ready and available at day 1. Did they not look at other sims and think we need to allow the same functionality! No doubt it will improve, but its nothing to shout about at the moment. its disappointing to say the least.

Why? 90% of the crowd (or more) have been enjoying MSFS since day one. There have been issues, many of which seemed avoidable, but still I spent plenty of good time with MSFS. If it isn't ready for your needs, don't use it. Get back to it when it has the functionality you would've expected from day 1. In the meantime, I keep flying.

The only thing I can agree on is that they promised too much pre-release and in the early days, and that some bugs took a ridiculously large number of fixes before they were resolved (e.g. the autopilot issues), including the resurfacing of bugs in SU5 that had been long fixed previously.

 

 

Edited January 27, 20224 yr by pstrub

We will have soon PMDG in MSFS! So then we talk again! 😃

5 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Time and time again, when I look at the features being added, and the time & money Microsoft/Asobo is spending on, it's features and changes geared towards the hard core flight sim market.  Microsoft is not stupid.  They know that X-Box users of MSFS are very casual and will get bored of MSFS after a few months.  The long term spenders in MSFS has always been the hard core flight sim market and that's what their focus has been on, given the changes/features they keep making to MSFS.  

Since Day 1 I've always maintained the really hard part was putting the entire cloud-based scenery engine to work in multiple OS' which for now is Windows and its cousin Xbox OS,. You would never attract Xbox users w/o jaw-dropping worldwide scenery including the incredible array of absolutely fabulous default airports and a slew of very decent basic planes, all in a very performance-friendly package.  Most Xbox users will become bored but a percentage of them will get bitten by Flight Simulation as a hobby a so become part of the long term spenders niche. The naysayers often downplay this ginormous component of the package as if this is a given. The rest of the sim, developing the SDK for 3rd party planes etc--there is little to nothing new here, this is just a repeat of FSX/P3D/Xplane. 

4 hours ago, Car147 said:

think we need to stop blaming Xbox

Actually...you can credit Xbox for helping MSFS to become sustainable, period!  Plus, as said, some Xbox users will become part of the harder core user base.  IOW, be THANKFUL for the Xbox port 😉

Edited January 27, 20224 yr by Noel