On 5/21/2022 at 4:15 PM, sidfadc said:

I dont have Powerpoint on my PC but I did download the PDF, very insightful.  Its too easy to forget that we launch the sim, spawn at airfield and away we go - complain about a load of stuff but completely forget how much a fantastic technical achievement this sim really is.  

I'm not sure I understand. So when SU5 kills most of the beauty of the sim, or when another "update" makes clouds ugly, and another one fills Italy with tall trees everywhere, not to mention the spikes in the terrain we experienced with associated stutters, and I am forgetting many more examples, I should refrain from complaining because the sim is a fantastic technical achievement?

Sorry, no. And I am not buying any addon for exactly the same reason: I don't understand where this thing is going; before SU5 I was totally happy and going to buy addons. After SU5 and other mishaps, I decided not to buy a single addon, because it is possible that in a few months I will no longer use MSFS2020.

A.

On 5/21/2022 at 12:04 PM, ADamiani said:

Different priorities. Number one for me is the flight model, which includes absolute smoothness under all circumstances and the right feeling of inertia. Then Cockpit graphics and ergonomics, Systems, Airport and Runway visuals, ATC Simulation, Weather simulation with accurate clouds, rain, and seasons. 

Not saying that buzzing your own house or overflying some interesting places is not fun, because it is. But it's just that, fun. Which is something we also need after a stressful day, but is pretty limited. Unfortunately, it is also the most important attractor for big numbers, so the simulator of my dreams is probably never going to happen.

A.

Completely agree with you.  I personally dislike photogrammetry in its current form.  I turn that off in MSFS because smoothness is improved, lighting on the buildings is improved but the buildings are still in the right place and the correct size.  Satellite scenery is good to have, but is last on my list behind all the things you list above.  If the landclass is good, then VFR navigation is possible and accurate. 

MSFS is almost there and may indeed get to the point it is doing everything perfectly. I personally would not dismiss another sim if it did everything to a high standard without satellite imagery.  XP11 is falling behind the times as is P3d.  If XP12 has great lighting, weather, flight modal, landclass and ATC it will certainly find a home on my PC alongside the excellent MSFS. 

 

On 5/21/2022 at 1:30 PM, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Photo textures don’t really work with seasons though?

Seasons mostly dont't depend on aerial imagery. Doing season specific detail maps and vegetation should enable seasons without much dependency on the photo textures. See page 88, 89 and 90 in the PDF to see, how basically everything that you see is modelled ontop of the ground layers. The aerial images primarily serve as data source to put the correct things at the correct places. No other data source will offer the fidelity and versatility of ground tiles used just as "data source".

On 5/21/2022 at 1:04 PM, ADamiani said:

Different priorities. Number one for me is the flight model, which includes absolute smoothness under all circumstances and the right feeling of inertia. Then Cockpit graphics and ergonomics, Systems, Airport and Runway visuals, ATC Simulation, Weather simulation with accurate clouds, rain, and seasons. 

Implementing these things is scut work (= the easy part of the problem, besides lots of diligence a very limited amount of science will accomplish it).

The MSFS world simulation is like art on the other hand. MSFS is the best digital model of the whole earth ever created by mankind. More than any other type of application, a flight simulator depends on a realistic model of the world. Getting the world right means, that the hard part for a core sim is done. The rest typically and to a large degree is provided by addon devs.

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

Implementing these things is scut work (= the easy part of the problem, besides lots of diligence a very limited amount of science will accomplish it).

The MSFS world simulation is like art on the other hand. MSFS is the best digital model of the whole earth ever created by mankind. More than any other type of application, a flight simulator depends on a realistic model of the world. Getting the world right means, that the hard part for a core sim is done. The rest typically and to a large degree is provided by addon devs.

Sorry, I totally disagree.

If you say that is "the easy part of the problem", I can't understand why there is no commercially available flightsim that solves it. Some of them solve some aspects, only to fail spectacularly with others. So as you can see I am no fan of any of the sims out there. 

If you think that this is "the best digital model of the whole earth ever created by mankind" I am afraid you need to do some more research. 

Best

A.

2 hours ago, ADamiani said:

If you think that this is "the best digital model of the whole earth ever created by mankind" I am afraid you need to do some more research. 

 

for a game/simulator it could be,, or what else is out there (i am not a gamer btw)

2 hours ago, ADamiani said:

If you say that is "the easy part of the problem", I can't understand why there is no commercially available flightsim that solves it.

Oh, I consider it as "solved" in the context of a PC on a desktop with plastic controllers. If you are thinking outside of whats possible within that hardware scope, then I fear you are right.

 

2 hours ago, ADamiani said:

So as you can see I am no fan of any of the sims out there.

 If between the fenix and the default C152 nothing suits your taste, enjoying PC flight simming will become very hard imho.

 

2 hours ago, ADamiani said:

If you think that this is "the best digital model of the whole earth ever created by mankind" I am afraid you need to do some more research. 

The "whole" earth is the keyword here. So please educate me about a better digital model of the whole earth. If it exists, it should be very famous. Also lets stick with 3D models.

 

 

15 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

Oh, I consider it as "solved" in the context of a PC on a desktop with plastic controllers. If you are thinking outside of whats possible within that hardware scope, then I fear you are right.

 

 If between the fenix and the default C152 nothing suits your taste, enjoying PC flight simming will become very hard imho.

 

The "whole" earth is the keyword here. So please educate me about a better digital model of the whole earth. If it exists, it should be very famous. Also lets stick with 3D models.

 

 

That's exactly what I wrote. I do not consider it solved at all, I think it should not be too hard to do (although not so easy as someone may think) and for this reason PC flight simming is becoming increasingly less appealing to me. Absolutely. I enjoy a lot Aerowinx PSX which is the closest I can get to my ideal sim, but that's about it. 

A better digital model of the whole Earth exists. More than one in fact. It is not famous, and I am not going to say anything more. But I think it is easy to figure, and some research on the web may be useful. MSFS is not "the best digital model of the whole earth ever created by mankind". Maybe the only one available to gamers. Anyway I think that Google Maps can get better than that if they want to. They have the technology, the infrastructure, the know-how and the data. 

A.

1 hour ago, icewater5 said:

for a game/simulator it could be,, or what else is out there (i am not a gamer btw)

But he didn't say "for a game/simulator" ...

A.

20 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

More than one in fact. It is not famous, and I am not going to say anything more.

That's a cheap excuse. Name it. The burden to present a better one is on you.

"Google can get better" is a fallacy. MSFS is far more than google maps. Have you read the PDF? Google has hardly any of the special features that MSFS applies for terrain generation. They could of course (though their geodata business would not pay it) do the same, but "they could do" is far from "they did".

Edited May 23, 20224 yr by mrueedi

🌼

41 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

 

 

41 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

But he didn't say "for a game/simulator" ...

A.

Anyway this is the best game for global representation without doubt, in the air or on foot,. Prove me wrong. People all over twitch , discord , YT ....  and so on are saying msfs2020 is a 'walking simulator' and flight simulator right now, already 🙂 . What other game has that? .

And iff you mean google earth or whatever that is neither game nor simulator  🌞 🌼 peace out bruh

Edited May 23, 20224 yr by icewater5

Man this is absolutely breath-taking the level of work and creativity they had to create MSFS.

I don't see how on Earth (ha) they can create an equally amazing, twin-world weather model. Is it even possible to make a weather engine that can create lenticular clouds, tornado's, hurricanes with an eye, natural temp inversions, freezing rain that hits you from below, etc? I'd love to be surprised, as we desperately need a "Weather twin" as much as we need an Earth twin for a flight sim, but I just don't ever imagine we'll see something like this in our twin Earth.

Fingers crossed, though.

19 hours ago, icewater5 said:

Anyway this is the best game for global representation without doubt, in the air or on foot,. Prove me wrong. People all over twitch , discord , YT ....  and so on are saying msfs2020 is a 'walking simulator' and flight simulator right now, already 🙂 . What other game has that? .

Yup exactly. I also would like to know what other software system exists out there that's accessible for the public at a price like MSFS, that simulates and renders the whole globe like MSFS does, with weather and atmospheric simulation added on top of that, accurate sun/moon/stars/etc movements, realistic lighting, etc.

Copy that total  !

I am looking forward to this so much, having not had a flight sim since around 7 years which wasnt FSX but FS9. My nieces boys play a lot of the popular series and whilst they look very good (graphics), its the world realism, and skies stars and weather/atmospheric  conditions of MSFS 2020 that really appeals the most..

From Spain e.g (couple of hols there as a child) to revisit places like Denia, and Calpe... all the way to Papua New Guinea/Australia/NZ

Also i was seriously into airliners, atc, ai cabin announcements last time, and whilst will likely do that again ,am more than happy to use MSFS 2020

as a vfr GA flyer, and just explores   🙂

21 hours ago, mrueedi said:

That's a cheap excuse. Name it. The burden to present a better one is on you.

"Google can get better" is a fallacy. MSFS is far more than google maps. Have you read the PDF? Google has hardly any of the special features that MSFS applies for terrain generation. They could of course (though their geodata business would not pay it) do the same, but "they could do" is far from "they did".

Believe what you prefer. Not my problem really. Not only I have read the PDF, I have the maths skills and experience to understand that what they are doing is really cool. And I showed the same appreciation for the flightmodel info they published a year ago. 

Which doesn't mean I need to believe that this is the best flight model or the best representation of the world ever made by Mankind. There are others, some of which are far more accurate. Which is good, because this means that we can probably have something better in the future.

If we limit ourselves to flightsimming games, then yes, in that context this is the best world model available. In general, no, it isn't.

Cheers

A.

I would also like to know what better representation of the earth is available (it doesn’t need to be for a flight simulator). Legit question here.

Edited May 24, 20224 yr by ca_metal