11 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Pretty much only 2 developers (one engineer one artist) managed to create the highest fidelity and immersive aircraft from the ground up for home simulation in a manner of only 3 years due to the "competition" SDK strength. Meanwhile 4X sized teams like PMDG/FENIX are porting existing systems for almost 2 years now (assuming that MSFS did indeed reach them before an official stable release like it's claimed). PMDG is not even in beta yet. 

I don't think it's about "MSFS can't do any of that" it's more about the time and manpower that it takes to create something like the CL650 for MSFS, the competition SDK is just blazing powerful + easier and this is even before it's newest major version. 

If you want to know specifically what features it has obviously it's better to revert to the right section instead of ruining another thread here. 

Thanks for explaining. I don't intend to ruin this thread, but I know how fast things can go south whenever another flight sim is mentioned here.

It's just that this was brought up in the Q&A as a shining example of a new level of fidelity in add-ons without further explanation. 

Maybe the question was targeted at the SDK's ease of use and the power of its APIs and the dev and debug features, but at least Asobo's reply seemed like they were talking about certain features they won't be able to provide in the SDK in the near future. 

Edited February 10, 20224 yr by pstrub

13 minutes ago, pstrub said:

Thanks for explaining. I don't intend to ruin this thread, but I know how fast things can go south whenever another flight sim is mentioned here.

It's just that this was brought up in the Q&A as a shining example of a new level of fidelity in add-ons without further explanation. 

Maybe the question was targeted at the SDK's ease of use and the power of its APIs and the dev and debug features, but at least Asobo's reply seemed like they were talking about certain features they won't be able to provide in the SDK in the near future. 

It is supposed to be the nec plus ultra of the XP world, an innovative labor of love like A2A knew to make… before.

https://www.thresholdx.net/news/chl650
 

What I found interesting is, whatever the quality of the HS bird, when a question was raised about a framework to develop a high fidelity aircraft, the MSFS withdrew like a snail in its shell. I don’t mock this nor criticize it, just find it interesting. 

Edited February 10, 20224 yr by Dominique_K

13 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

MSFS withdrew like a snail in its shell. I don’t mock this nor criticize it, just find it interesting.

You don't think the phrase 'withdrew like a snail in its shell' is at all mocking...?

10 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

You don't think the phrase 'withdrew like a snail in its shell' is at all mocking...?

I don't know if it's mocking, but to me, his comment painted a realistic picture of Adobo's response. Worrying, by the way, as they basically capitulated on that one. Let's see what the future holds... but this Q&A session was kind of demotivating, particularly when it came to discussing weather. 

 XP was doing very well as a sim before Hot Stat came along and raised a bar? How many years did it take for Hot Start to develop Challenger? MSFS is practically in its infancy and we yet to se what can or can't be done.

By the way when I first purchase FSX I had no idea what was possible to create something like PMDG, Majestic, A2A  and other developers. OK so today during Q&A they say "A" and tomorrow they will change their mind and say "B". Simmers react like a stock market LOL If anyone remember very first Q&A and what was originally planned ? It is completely different today!

 

I don't think the issue here is what is or is not possible in X-Plane and how long it took to develop the Challenger (2 to 3 years, to answer the question), but whether creating something like this is at all possible in MSFS using the SDK. And Asobo's answer is definitely telling.

It's OK, though; there doesn't have to be a single simulator that does everything. The P3D vs. MSFS vs. XP comparisons are beyond old and tiring.

26 minutes ago, evaamo said:

I don't know if it's mocking, but to me, his comment painted a realistic picture of Adobo's response. Worrying, by the way, as they basically capitulated on that one. Let's see what the future holds... but this Q&A session was kind of demotivating, particularly when it came to discussing weather. 

Capitulate? Nonsense. Would you accuse XP of capitulating for not including satellite imagery in their engine, or guaranteeing Prosim integration for 3rd party?

1 hour ago, SubtotalGuide said:

Oh not this again, why do some insist on having such short memory? (yes pun intended)

 

Except it doesn't, certain objects are still unloaded. Even so, why limit the SDK to what Xbox or lower-end hardware can do?

 

Maybe you can give us the longitude and latitude of the coordinates of these trucks and we can check up this location for you to see if it's just your settings.  Is this a custom scenery too?

I have not seen a reduction in texture quality yet, but that's with the sceneries that I use, on 1080p.

2 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Capitulate? Nonsense. Would you accuse XP of capitulating for not including satellite imagery in their engine, or guaranteeing Prosim integration for 3rd party?

Maybe we just read to it differently then. To me, their answer showed that something along the lines of the CL650 was way beyond what they are capable of letting someone develop in the current state of the SDK.

And if you're into technical stuff then I'd invite you to take a walk around the MSFS sections of fsdeveloper and also through the Hot Start forums to get an informed idea on why most of the things that are included in that add-on are a big no-no in a sandboxed environment such as MSFS. Software design decisions such as those made by MS/Asobo are hardly changed (if at all possible) at this stage as they have huge implications and are costly to do after development starts. Not to mention these are deeply bound to the security model they chose for providing Xbox compatibility. 

2 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

 XP was doing very well as a sim before Hot Stat came along and raised a bar? How many years did it take for Hot Start to develop Challenger? MSFS is practically in its infancy and we yet to se what can or can't be done.

By the way when I first purchase FSX I had no idea what was possible to create something like PMDG, Majestic, A2A  and other developers. OK so today during Q&A they say "A" and tomorrow they will change their mind and say "B". Simmers react like a stock market LOL If anyone remember very first Q&A and what was originally planned ? It is completely different today!

 

The question was not about the product but about the capacity of framework of development to allow it in the future. And the answer was,  to say the least,  non committal .

The FSX framework was not designed to make the PMDG, Majestic and A2A birds. They could be done because the FSX development was stopped. and then the developers had the time to invent by-passes, and complementary modules. MSFS hectic and unruly development doesn't allow that easily.

I am quite sure, the answer on the CL was targeted at the whole FOB and walking around thing, not the possible simulation of an airplane's systems. 🤷

3 minutes ago, ConSimmer said:

I am quite sure, the answer on the CL was targeted at the whole FOB and walking around thing, not the possible simulation of an airplane's systems. 🤷

If you read about the technical details of what was required to develop the CL650 and also read about the restrictions by MSFS sandbox, you'll see it makes a similar approach impossible (at the current state of things in the SDK and the sandbox restrictions) This may change in the future although I don't see it likely - at least not by degrading the current sandbox but by creating more interfaces / APIs to interact with the outside world.

11 minutes ago, evaamo said:

If you read about the technical details of what was required to develop the CL650 and also read about the restrictions by MSFS sandbox, you'll see it makes a similar approach impossible (at the current state of things in the SDK and the sandbox restrictions) This may change in the future although I don't see it likely - at least not by degrading the current sandbox but by creating more interfaces / APIs to interact with the outside world.

Could you go into any more detail? The entire discussion about the state of the SDK is so incredibly vague that it become very hard to understand what the actual issues are supposed to be.

Edited February 10, 20224 yr by gdjak

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

If you set the off terrain pre-cache slider to Ultra, then it will load all the objects, even if they are not in view.

1 hour ago, SubtotalGuide said:

Except it doesn't, certain objects are still unloaded. Even so, why limit the SDK to what Xbox or lower-end hardware can do?

A couple of observations which I think are relevant to this matter:

1. It is true that off-screen caching does not work on some objects even when set to Ultra, and it seems to be mainly airport objects. Keep them out of view for some time, and when turning back to them they will slowly start popping-in over several seconds. I think that this is a bug however, and I reported it to Zendesk many months ago.
2. While off-screen scenery/terrain will remain in memory when set to Ultra, the CPU will not continue to render them. When switching between cockpit and external views, you will not see them pop-in because the camera will not switch until they are fully loaded (which is why you'll see a small stutter at higher LOD settings, from what I've seen in videos even a fast CPU will not completely eliminate it). However this does not apply to the fixed showcase views, when switching between those you will see the pop-in, but it only takes a split second because loading from memory is much faster of course. This could be a bug as well.

As such, what they are saying about not being able to allow simultaneous camera views is true, as it would mean giving up on some of the performance benefits that came with Sim Update 5. However it does make me wonder whether ray-tracing is going to be rather limited in scope after all.

35 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Maybe you can give us the longitude and latitude of the coordinates of these trucks and we can check up this location for you to see if it's just your settings.  Is this a custom scenery too?

 

Certainly, it's KJFK near fuel box parking 108, right at the end of the list.

Many of these airport assets have reduced textures since SU5 and yet performance on the ground is still worse than before.

The shimmering that people have been complaining about can also be observed there on the fences.