1 hour ago, jcomm said:

 

I'll reconsider evaluating MFS when a sound & stable weather system finally get's available

Curious... which alternative flight simulator are you using that has this sound & stable (ie improved over MSFS) weather system?

44 minutes ago, rob0203 said:

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

Whaddya mean ? My PMDG DC-6 is on the threshold of runway 03L in SVMC Maracaibo right now ! 

43 minutes ago, PlumCrazy said:

Curious... which alternative flight simulator are you using that has this sound & stable (ie improved over MSFS) weather system?

None is perfect... ofc

All I have used have limitations...

Some do stuff better than others...

I'm not using any civil flightsim right now. Awaiting the release of XP12, and now also SU9 of MFS !

I should point out that after watching yesterday's twitch I am VERY POSITIVELLY - Like WOW !!! -  IMPRESSED by prop simulation that Seb demonstrates. Looks really interesting and sophisticated ! Looking fwd into it !

NOTE(s):

.) In the section of the Q&A where the new prop effects are demonstrated with the Kingair, I did notice that there's no lift varition with propwash. When Seb has one of the props stopped and feathered while the other engine is running and the prop spinning, apparently the propwash over the section of the wing which is exposed to the propwash doesn't show any variation in lift compared to the other ( stopped prop on the port side in the case ). Those of you with access to the flightsimulator forum and feedback threads might want to comment on this...

 

 

Edited January 27, 20224 yr by jcomm

Microsoft is committed to PC gaming.  You can tell because they put all their games out on PC that launch on Xbox, including games that put Xbox on the map like Halo.  If they were looking to shift people from PC to Xbox, they would not be putting every game out there. 

MSFS has also had limitations over the years.  It is a sim that often relies on 3rd party add-ons to enhance the realism.  This is nothing new.  Anyone who's ever played a previous version of the sim probably remembers planes flying "on rails".  It took 3rd party developers to make anything that flew with any sort of realism. 

For anyone "worried" about Xbox, I wouldn't bother.  Heck, people need to remember that there was a time where we thought FSX was "it" and many of us moved to other sims. 

2 hours ago, a321 said:

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!

No, it was a simple comparison with the competition which took far longer to do comparable stuff and additionally had us pay several times for that.

4 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

Microsoft is committed to PC gaming.

Now that I am retired I don't use Windows for anything except gaming, and for that only MSFS & Ghost Recon:  Wildlands.  So when MS sells me the premium edition of MSFS, they also have sold me a copy of Windows 10 OS.

2 hours ago, a321 said:

Stop trying to be smart becuase you look everything but smart!!!1

Quoted for irony.  😁

Anyway...

Nice post, @abrams_tank.   And @Noel, you're absolutely correct.  It's Xbox sales that are going to make the game viable in the long run.   All the folks gnashing their teeth about things being "dumbed down" for the console -- beyond making assertions that, in aggregate, look thin against serious scrutiny -- are missing the point that, even if they were correct, the alternative would be not having a groundbreaking game at all.

And no one can look at the real-time force vector diagrams they showed yesterday and say they're putting all that effort in for the casuals.

Edited January 27, 20224 yr by DeepestRed

7 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

Anyone who's ever played a previous version of the sim probably remembers planes flying "on rails"

Quite frankly I hope we get a little closer to flying on rails myself.  I've always felt the flight model in MSFS is a little too bouncy/bobbing for lack of the right descriptor:  there is a certain rebound effect when for example if I bank left even slightly too aggressively the plane will rebound to the right slightly and this effect seems overdone to me.

2 hours ago, pstrub said:

"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).

I'd disagree that this isn't possible in MSFS - we already have external flight models like AirlandFS and for systems modelling Fenix are building their A320 around Prosim rather than the MSFS internals.

There are definitely new limits on some things like interfacing with the desktop Garmin Simulators but at least some other things do appear to be possible,

3 hours ago, a321 said:

playing catch up!

I'm assuming you didn't actually watch the video. Because playing catch insinuates that this type of modelling existed in FSX...🙄

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

.) In the section of the Q&A where the new prop effects are demonstrated with the Kingair, I did notice that there's no lift varition with propwash. When Seb has one of the props stopped and feathered while the other engine is running and the prop spinning, apparently the propwash over the section of the wing which is exposed to the propwash doesn't show any variation in lift compared to the other ( stopped prop on the port side in the case ). Those of you with access to the flightsimulator forum and feedback threads might want to comment on this...

Both engines were off when they showed the feathered props.

Source: Matt from WT

I think a lot of the anxiety I have seen over the past few days regarding X-Box has been thanks to Kok of Aerosoft commenting on the Twotters lack of animated trim wheel and his 'doors' comment. Folks need to remember he was talking word not allowede.

Also, devs can release to whoever or wherever they want (PC or X-Box, Marketplace or their own site etc.). Therefore, you could have two different releases if things get a little too much for the lowly X-Box.

Lastly, X-Box revenue helps keeps the lights on. I have no doubt it also acts as a gateway drug for folks getting into aviation. They might become the cockpit builders of tomorrow..

27 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

I'd disagree that this isn't possible in MSFS - we already have external flight models like AirlandFS and for systems modelling Fenix are building their A320 around Prosim rather than the MSFS internals.

There are definitely new limits on some things like interfacing with the desktop Garmin Simulators but at least some other things do appear to be possible,

Ok, that's true.

Still, my point was that it's different from the way it was done with a new version of Flight Simulator up to FSX / P3D - you can't just port the old code over to MSFS without major changes, you have to make a much larger effort now to get it running.

I watched parts of the Milviz video someone posted here a couple of days ago - many simvars that were read/write till FSX are now read-only, which makes it a lot harder to implement certain things such as an external flight model.

To be clear: I'm pretty sure they had good reasons for this, but this means it takes longer till 3PDs figure out how to do stuff in the new environment. It's not just a "reskinned FSX" as the user a321 suggested, I totally understand why it takes some time before study-level (whatever that means) aircraft become available for MSFS. 

 

Edited January 27, 20224 yr by pstrub

2 minutes ago, pstrub said:

Ok, that's true.

Still, my point was that it's different from the way it was done with a new version of Flight Simulator up to FSX / P3D - you can't just port the old code over to MSFS without major changes, you have to make a much larger effort now to get it running.

I watched parts of the Milviz video someone posted here a couple of days ago - many simvars that were read/write till FSX are now read-only, which makes it a lot harder to implement certain things such as an external flight model.

To be clear: I'm pretty sure they had good reasons for this, but this means it takes longer till 3PDs figure out how to do stuff in the new environment. It's not just a "reskinned FSX" as a321 suggested, I totally understand why it takes some time before study-level (whatever that means) aircraft become available for MSFS. 

 

Oh absolutely, there are definitely changes that have to be made to the old ways of doing things (and I'm definitely not in any position to judge the merits of those changes) and that is slowing down third party devs but ultimately I suspect (hope ?) these things can be overcome (with the help of SDK changes).

Edited January 27, 20224 yr by Matchstick

Just now, Matchstick said:

Oh absolutely, there are definitely changes that have to be made to the old ways of doing things (and I'm definitely not in any position to judge the merits of those changes) and that is slowing down third party devs but ultimately I suspect (hope ?) these things can be overcome (with the help of SDK changes).

I read some comments from the FBW team on Avsim about the state of the SDK, and they seem very confident that it has all the functionality needed for implementing a highly detailed airliner with a high level of systems depth. The only piece that's still missing is the API for weather data (and ground mesh data? not sure...). There are probably lots of quality-of-life improvements coming in the next years that will benefit the development process, but it seems like nothing essential are missing.

While some people keep saying that the progress is slow with the development of MSFS, I suggest they take a look at the SDK. A lot has happened behind the scenes that isn't immediately visible to the average user. I had my own share of frustrating experiences with MSFS, but in the end I'm a happy simmer most of the time, and I see we're moving forward despite all the setbacks that hit us from time to time.