Flight model, upcoming CFD/physics enhancements, etc

[Delta558 50]

The simple thing to ask for is for all the parameters that were available in FSX to be restored in their entirity. Otherwise, we still have a piecemeal mish-mash that might work for some aircraft but not for others.

 

The problem with asking for items to be put on a wishlist and voted for when they are as specific as this is that, understandably, the vast majority of people will not vote for it because they will not see that they would ever 'use' it, despite the fact that it directly affects the ability of others to bring them the 3rd party addons they may want. People will vote for the things they see - weather, ATC, ground textures, birds etc. They see 3rd party aircraft being produced but do not see the struggle that is going on behind the scenes with this one specific area of addon creation. It's likely you'd get about twenty votes for this topic, almost all of them being 3rd party devs.

 

This is a fundamental base for a flight simulation. It should not be at the mercy of the general public to try and get it to the top of some list, it should be looked at simply because you have respected Flight Dynamics Engineers such as Robert (amongst others) saying "Here's a problem . . . "

 

[abrams_tank 7,426]

41 minutes ago, Delta558 said:

The problem with asking for items to be put on a wishlist and voted for when they are as specific as this is that, understandably, the vast majority of people will not vote for it because they will not see that they would ever 'use' it, despite the fact that it directly affects the ability of others to bring them the 3rd party addons they may want. People will vote for the things they see - weather, ATC, ground textures, birds etc. They see 3rd party aircraft being produced but do not see the struggle that is going on behind the scenes with this one specific area of addon creation. It's likely you'd get about twenty votes for this topic, almost all of them being 3rd party devs.

 

This is absolute hogwash.  It doesn't take much to get 100 votes for a Twitch Q&A question.  About 100 votes, and the question will be asked at the Twitch Q&A.  And for example, if Robert Young wrote the question, he could easily get a lot of votes because people will know him as the creator of the Bonanza mod.

Not to mention that this question also applies for the SDK Twitch Q&A. For the SDK Twitch Q&A, questions with even 15 upvotes get asked.

Not even trying, when the bar is freakin low (100 votes only for the normal Twitch Q&A, it's easy, or even 15 upvotes for the SDK Q&A, the bar is low), is kind of sad.

Edited February 25, 2022 by abrams_tank

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

I think the trap too many people fall into occurs when too much weight is given to how an aircraft "feels".  Its one thing to fly it by the numbers and see how well the performance matches the manufacturer's specs.  It's another to make claims that XXX feels to sluggish or has too much or too little inertia.  As soon as you do that you're getting into subjective opinion and if you ask 10 people you'll get 10 responses.  Just compare Robert's assessment of the 747 to another who directly compared their experience on a level D sim.  One said it was too sluggish, the other said not enough.  You don't have to be a flight dynamics engineer to have an opinion on feel, and honestly, I'd go with a type rated pilot who flies a given plane everyday over an engineer in that department anyway.

"Feel" is always going to be subjective.  We are sitting at a desk with PC peripherals and are missing all of the g-forces of being on the real thing.  It's always going to "feel" harder/heavier if you are making your input in opposition to the inertial force exhibited upon you in a turn, for example.  Its the equivalent of comparing the "feel" of your finger movements doing a layup on a basketball court where you release right at the apex of your running jump, to the same from a standing free throw.  Its never going to be the same. 

I also see a lot of self contradictory responses above.  I read an entire discussion about how the base flight model is less important than having a direct access to every parameter so that "experts" can tune it into a functioning aircraft.  When pressed for detail, the answer seems to switch to the opposite, that the perfection of the base flight model is so critical that it's unworthiness makes a discussion of missing parameters useless.  Which is it?

I'm all for giving feedback to Asobo on desired parameters to make a developer's job easier.  But if the only answer is to throw up your arms and say "why bother, its all bunk" then your relevance to the conversation rapidly wanes.  Others are working with the sim, even its "less than ideal" state, and producing stellar results.  If, as you say, it was a tougher challenge to achieve than it was in the past, then I have even more respect for those who are pulling it off, and honestly value their opinion more as a result.

MSFS is here to stay and to me it's the best simulation of the experience of being in flight that I've seen in all my years since the Bruce Atwick days.  The enthusiasm that I see in the community is enormous as can be readily seen in a visit to flightsim.to.  MS/Asobo has been more responsive to community requests than any company I've seen in the past, even compared to smaller groups like LR who you'ld expect would be more agile based on their size.  If someone here were to draft a list of parameter requests, I'm pretty sure it would get their attention, because that's exactly what has been happening repeatedly in many other areas of the sim.  By all means, if there is constructive criticism to add, let em have it.  But if the only contribution is more metaphors about piano's not in tune or a car delivered without an engine, then there are others who are already proving that to be wrong and will be the ones that I (for one) will pay more attention to.

Edited February 25, 2022 by VFXSimmer

[abrams_tank 7,426]

19 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

I'm all for giving feedback to Asobo on desired parameters to make a developer's job easier.  But if the only answer is to throw up your arms and say "why bother, its all bunk" then your relevance to the conversation rapidly wanes.  Others are working with the sim, even its "less than ideal" state, and producing stellar results.  If, as you say, it was a tougher challenge to achieve than it was in the past, then I have even more respect for those who are pulling off, and honestly value their opinion more as a result.

Absolutely agree. Just throwing up your arms and saying, "why bother, it's all bunk," is not a productive use of our time.

I play other video games and I can say that for those video games, the developers do not hold a monthly Twitch Q&A.  The developers of those other video games also do not have a forum where you can upvote features and changes you want to see in their game.  Microsoft/Asobo have provided us a forum where we can upvote topics on changes or features we want to see.  They also have a separate forum for upvoting questions that are asked at the monthly Twitch Q&A.  On top of this, they have an SDK Twitch Q&A where more questions can be asked, if the monthly Twitch Q&A isn't enough (and for the SDK Q&A, it takes about 15 upvotes for a topic and it will be asked, it's very easy to get 15 upvotes, and Jorg is at the SDK Q&A as well).  

So not only is Jorg/Sebastian/Martial going above and beyond what the competition is doing for feedback (LM doesn't even respond to home customers, and I'm not aware that LR has monthly live streamed Q&As either, or as frequent as MSFS), but Jorg/Sebastian/Martial are going above and beyond what other video game publishers do.  The options are out there for us to give the MSFS team feedback and even get our questions answered live on stream, and it's easy to use these options.

 

[Adrian123 1,015]

Never voted, been to their forum or watched their Quitchy thing. Who cares. Less talkin more doing!

Edited February 25, 2022 by Adrian123

[robert young 2,897]

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

.....but you are just dragging your feet.  No offense, but while I originally thought that you had valid points, I am beginning to doubt it.  You come across as someone who complains but when offered the opportunity to fix the problem, you then run away.

Well maybe you are unaware of what I've been getting up to for the last 25 years, 20 of them as a professional sim developer and also a co-producer of a very large number of freeware projects, including initially volunteering to re-design the entire fleet of a well known simulator in the distant past, and subsequently being employed by them to redesign yet again the official standard aircraft for version 2, then offering a large amount of freeware and payware for FS9 then FS2002 then FSX then P3d. So while I do have criticisms I don't just sit by and do nothing. The Turbo Bonanza for MSFS (now version 4)  was first released a long time ago and with all the updates it has taken well over 1000 hours of work. It is free. I'm also working on another free project that has so far taken 700 hours.

They have "fixed" the problem by presenting an alternative flight model to the standard Bonanza, and shortly the DA62 also. I don't think this is "dragging my feet"! Or running away. As the poster above mentions: less talking, more doing. I think I've done my bit.  😉

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by robert young

[abrams_tank 7,426]

1 minute ago, robert young said:

Well maybe you are unaware of what I've been getting up to for the last 25 years, 20 of them as a professional sim developer and also a co-producer of a very large number of freeware projects, including initially volunteering to re-design the entire fleet of a well known simulator in the distant past, and subsequently being employed by them to redesign yet again the official standard aircraft for version 2, then offering a large amount of freeware for FS9 then FS2002 the FSX. So while I do have criticisms I don't just sit by and do nothing. The Turbo Bonanza FOR msfs (now version 4)  was first released a long time ago and with all the updates it has taken well over 1000 hours of work. It is free. I'm also working on another free project that has so far taken 700 hours.

They have "fixed" the problem by presenting an alternative flight model to the standard Bonanza, and shortly the DA62 also. I don't think this is "dragging my feet"!

I’m not saying you haven’t contributed to MSFS. Obviously, you have with your Bonanza mod. And the MSFS community has greatly benefited from your mod.

I’m saying that there is an option to get your complaints in front of Jorg/Seb/Martial, and perhaps at least get a response from them.  A lot of times, they may act on the topics that we upvote. And like I said, for the SDK Twitch Q&A, it may take as few as 15 upvotes to get them to respond to your question. But you don’t even want to do that.

I just find it weird and non productive, that people can complain about something, but when they are offered the option that the  problem they are complaining about can be improved with very little cost and time on their behalf, they then shy away from it. 

If you feel strongly about MSFS’s deficiencies, especially with respect to tweaking the flight models of individual planes, we can get your concerns in front of Jorg/Seb/Martial (or the SDK team).  This is the best constructive way to address the problem. But you don’t want to do this, so whatever.

 

[robert young 2,897]

11 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

If you feel strongly about MSFS’s deficiencies, especially with respect to tweaking the flight models of individual planes, we can get your concerns in front of Jorg/Seb/Martial (or the SDK team).  This is the best constructive way to address the problem. But you don’t want to do this, so whatever.

 

Actually you do not know what I have done! In fact I wrote a long email directly to the team very soon after MSFS's release and I got a standard acknowledgement from someone at Asobo, but not from the team I addressed. It was polite but there was no response to my points. I've also tried to communicate with Asobo through other channels via a developer's forum, privately and through other means. I wasn't expecting anything and do not feel entitled to a response either. I thought it was worth a try. I don't share your faith or optimism in the official channels you want to encourage me to use.

Edited February 26, 2022 by robert young

[abrams_tank 7,426]

46 minutes ago, robert young said:

Actually you do not know what I have done! In fact I wrote a long email directly to the team very soon after MSFS's release and I got a standard acknowledgement from someone at Asobo, but not from the team I addressed. It was polite but there was no response to my points. I've also tried to communicate with Asobo through other channels via a developer's forum, privately and through other means. I wasn't expecting anything and do not feel entitled to a response either. I thought it was worth a try. I don't share your faith or optimism in the official channels you want to encourage me to use.

Some things take persistence though. And in your case, if you can convince the community that your problem has merit, it will help to get your concerns acted on and upvoted.  That’s why there is the upvote system, if enough people upvote the issue, Jorg/Seb/Martial are more likely to act on it.  It doesn’t guarantee that they will act on it, but it increases the chance they might.

And for persistence, we have nagged Microsoft/Asobo for over an entire year to implement opt-in beta testing,  I was part of the nagging, upvoting, and sometimes also posted questions for the Twitch Q&A related to opt-in beta testing.  The persistence from the community paid off, Microsoft/Asobo were convinced, and we have had two opt-in beta tests thus far. 

I think if you present a reasonable request, and it gets upvoted, Jorg/Seb/Martial may act on it.  They are more likely to act on upvoted topics because they will see the community wants this done for MSFS. If you write the request in a nice, PR way, (PR way meaning you don’t harshly offend Microsoft/Asobo)  and ask for something reasonable, it may be considered. And if you present your question in a way that the community understands they can benefit from the change, they are more likely to upvote it.  Of course, Microsoft/Asobo  can’t make all the changes we want and they probably won’t make a very complex, and time consuming change either.  If your request is a very complex and time consuming change, you can break it down into smaller tasks to convince Jorg/Seb/Martial to act on it.

Finally, if what you request is also highly requested by other 3rd party devs, I can’t see why Microsoft/Asobo won’t act on it.  They might not act on it immediately, but they will probably eventually act on it, if a lot of other 3rd party developers are requesting the same thing.

Edited February 26, 2022 by abrams_tank

[HeavyHemi 0]

Addressing Jorg directly in a meeting resulted in private lobbies being released for testing, is an example of communication getting results. He was unaware that had not already happened.

[irocx 293]

29 minutes ago, HeavyHemi said:

Addressing Jorg directly in a meeting resulted in private lobbies being released for testing, is an example of communication getting results.

Nice first post, welcome to Avsim. 

Do you by any chance go by Rob?  Robert Randazzo?

Edited February 26, 2022 by irocx

[Tom_L 541]

9 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

if what you request is also highly requested by other 3rd party devs, I can’t see why Microsoft/Asobo won’t act on it.

There seems to be a selective attention that I can't understand from my consumers perspective: on one hand they were very supportive for groups like Working Title to the point of hiring those guys, others seem to get along okay. And then there are some who are completely ignored despite their expressed willingness to support the platform, like Robert. Jean-Luc ( @RXP ) comes to mind as another prime example.

Maybe involving some 3rd parties with tons of experience in developing METAR based weather addons would have spared us and them the embarrassing attempt to "improve" Live Weather with SU7 - but they seem determined to invent the wheel from scratch and leave the customer for a prolonged time with a product that doesn't live up to the shiny promo videos we were shown.

[abrams_tank 7,426]

1 hour ago, Tom_L said:

There seems to be a selective attention that I can't understand from my consumers perspective: on one hand they were very supportive for groups like Working Title to the point of hiring those guys, others seem to get along okay. And then there are some who are completely ignored despite their expressed willingness to support the platform, like Robert. Jean-Luc ( @RXP ) comes to mind as another prime example.

Maybe involving some 3rd parties with tons of experience in developing METAR based weather addons would have spared us and them the embarrassing attempt to "improve" Live Weather with SU7 - but they seem determined to invent the wheel from scratch and leave the customer for a prolonged time with a product that doesn't live up to the shiny promo videos we were shown.

I don't want to relitigate the issue with RXP, but I read it was because of licensing issues for Garmin in MSFS, so they wouldn't even work with RXP because of this.  My understanding is, Microsoft was worried about the licensing issues regarding RXP's Garmin products, because Microsoft already has an existing agreement with Garmin.  In other words, it came down to legal mayhem and legal conflicts.  And I believe RXP claimed to have those licenses, which made it weirder.  For Microsoft to officially work with you, you need to have cleared all the legal hurdles - for this reason, they were very slow to officially recognize the FBW A320 project, and allow the FBW A320 on the MSFS marketplace, because of legal hurdles. Anyways, I don't know the whole story between RXP and Microsoft, just what I have read on the forums.  There may be more to the story so you may want to check up yourself.

PS. Please note that I am not taking sides on RXP vs Microsoft.  But based on what I have read, it wasn't a technical issue.  It was down to legal issues, from what I read. And there may be more to the story.

Edited February 26, 2022 by abrams_tank

[snglecoil 1,828]

….meanwhile at TDS headquarters 😛

[March Hare 720]

6 hours ago, Tom_L said:

And then there are some who are completely ignored despite their expressed willingness to support the platform, like Robert.

They didn't ignore Robert at all. All the while he was claiming that, his self-contradictions were clear to me, as he was also saying things that made it clear they were talking to him, he just refused to accept their responses. They were in constant contact, but he kept insisting to them that there was something fundamentally wrong with their underlying code, halting his progress, which it turned out there wasn't, and so progress resumed once they finally got on the same page.