2 hours ago, The Moose said:

With all due respect,  One robs developers of a large portion  of their profits whilst purchasing direct does not. 

 Microsoft aren't running out of money anytime soon.  I'm quite sure the sim will survive just fine.  There's a large proportion of MSFS'ers who refuse to use Marketplace and I don't hear anyone from MS whining about how poorly the sim doing.

I loose nothing  fella.   There's already more top quality planes in my hangar than I'll ever have the hours to fully enjoy 😉    Only one person looses out of this decision and it isn't me!

 

This is a horrible, horrible, take.  Microsoft, like any company, will pull the developers working on MSFS if MSFS is not profitable for them. I don't think they will turn off the servers, the streaming, or photogrammetry, because it's pretty cheap to keep it running because they own the Azure servers.

But as for Sim Updates, World Updates, and continual improvement of MSFS, that will stop.  The 30% cut Microsoft gets, keeps MSFS going.  We all want MSFS to get better.  And the devs still get the majority of the money, if it's a 30/70 split.

Sorry, I am very frustrated with people that think like you do.  We waited over 10 years for MSFS to pull flight simulation into the modern era.  Before that, the competition to MSFS was a decade behind in technology.  And you want to stop the progress that flight simulation has made in the last few years.  SMH.

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

3 minutes ago, simbol said:

although I warned them during SU9 but they never listened..

I find this rather disappointing that the Devs who design aircraft in their (Asobo's) medium and providing real-time feedback to what their airframes are experiencing in their virtual environment and how jacked-up it is vs real world observations, and they just ignore it.

It almost seems like, to us lay-people, that Asobo, if they even acknowledge it, just pat you on the head and say "there, there, we know what we're doing, and its obvious its your faulty coding that is causing unrealistic reactions to our CFD-designed airflow models."

Has to be a little frustrating? 🙂 

 

2 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

I'm afraid I've stopped flying it because I only fly Onair and the weight limitation doesn't make it manageable on Onair.

Try skypark 😉

4 minutes ago, Steve Dra said:

I find this rather disappointing that the Devs who design aircraft in their (Asobo's) medium and providing real-time feedback to what their airframes are experiencing in their virtual environment and how jacked-up it is vs real world observations, and they just ignore it.

It almost seems like, to us lay-people, that Asobo, if they even acknowledge it, just pat you on the head and say "there, there, we know what we're doing, and its obvious its your faulty coding that is causing unrealistic reactions to our CFD-designed airflow models."

Has to be a little frustrating? 🙂 

 

What can I say.. there is a full open discussion about it here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/turbulence-excessive-or-real-world-realistic/513879

R.

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by simbol

30 minutes ago, simbol said:

Prueba skypark 😉

I have both but Onair seems to me a much more complete solution, I have spoken to Onair support to see if they can adjust the MTOW as in POH instead of MFS. 

25 minutes ago, simbol said:

What can I say.. there is a full open discussion about it here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/turbulence-excessive-or-real-world-realistic/513879

R.

Wow...just wow.  Just finished reading the thread with the guy sparring you on every comment you made. Who do I trust is making accurate and balanced comments on the state of the turbulence model in MSFS?

1. A highly talented aircraft developer with inner knowledge of how MSFS code works, and is a real life pilot who's flown over the area he's referencing in the real plane, comparing it to the sim....or
2. Some simmer who's trying to debunk every comment you make with a terrible video of him flying a plane in MSFS with a laptop keyboard?

After careful consideration...I'm going with option 1.  😉

This is exactly like the same decision I made recently when faced with a cancer-rectifying surgical operation.

1. I consulted the top surgeon in Texas, who's performed hundreds of this operation successfully from one of the top surgical hospitals in the state.
2. I asked a homeless guy on the street outside the surgeon's office as I was heading to my car to see if he had a differing opinion on the operation.

After careful consideration, I picked number 1 as my final opinion for this life-altering operation. 😉 

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

But as for Sim Updates, World Updates, and continual improvement of MSFS, that will stop.  The 30% cut Microsoft gets, keeps MSFS going.  We all want MSFS to get better.  And the devs still get the majority of the money, if it's a 30/70 split.

Sorry, I am very frustrated with people that think like you do.  We waited over 10 years for MSFS to pull flight simulation into the modern era.  Before that, the competition to MSFS was a decade behind in technology.  And you want to stop the progress that flight simulation has made in the last few years.  SMH.

Microsoft committed to a 10 year development of MSFS before it was even released. They are one of the wealthiest entities to exist in the history of our planet.  Development of the sim will be fine.  If it all shuts down in the next few years because of lack of marketplace sales then feel free to blame me 😄...  or they could blame themselves for making such a word not allowed Marketplace in the first place I guess...

 

..as for the bolded bit,   lmao!  drama much???

1 hour ago, The Moose said:

Microsoft committed to a 10 year development of MSFS before it was even released. They are one of the wealthiest entities to exist in the history of our planet.  Development of the sim will be fine.  If it all shuts down in the next few years because of lack of marketplace sales then feel free to blame me 😄...  or they could blame themselves for making such a word not allowed Marketplace in the first place I guess...

 

..as for the bolded bit,   lmao!  drama much???

Of course Microsoft will say it's a 10 year project.  But like any public company, they are accountable to shareholders who demand a profit on all the products Microsoft sells.

No company will continually subsidize a product that continually loses them money.  Microsoft will just stop development of MSFS if it's unprofitable for them, and just keep the servers and streams running for MSFS because it's cheap. The expensive part of MSFS is probably the salaries paid to Asobo developers to keep advancing and developing MSFS.

Your way of thinking is that MSFS should stop progressing. Yeah, many of us want MSFS to keep advancing, because we all benefit from MSFS advancing and getting better.

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

2 hours ago, simbol said:

Try skypark 😉

I also use Onair and this weight discrepancy is unexpected. Hopefully it can be fixed by their team directly.

what's the weight discrepancies? Don't understand 

2 hours ago, simbol said:

This is MSFS SU9 convection thermal depiction. The S4 is more affected by it because it is being an ultralight and being CFD enabled. If you fly over water or early morning / dusk when the ground is supposed not to be hot and the thermals are easier, you will find more smooth atmospheric conditions.

The cesnna CFD enabled behaves simular, other light aircraft even without CFD enabled also have this behavior.

In my view, Asobo over did the convection despiction. There is a big discussion about this on Msfs forums, Sebastian said they are doing something about it for SU10, although I warned them during SU9 beta but they never listened..

R.

Ahhhh, makes sense!

The effect is usually pretty realistic, although you're right from time to time (conditions permitting) it can feel a little overdone; as some of the movement lacks any inertia.  Great to know!   PS.....  I have 28 hours on the Hobbs of my FS Reborn Sting S4 already!   (and it got a 5 star rating in hte Marketplace from me). 😉

18 minutes ago, simbol said:

what's the weight discrepancies? Don't understand 

The max gross weight of the Sting on MSFS is set to 1042lbs/472kg and that does not allow us to take passengers when using OnAir, as just with the pilot and a bit of fuel the aircraft approaches that maximum weight. 

As seen here and here, the real specifications for the Sting S4 point out a max gross weight of about 1400lb or 600kg.

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by GCBraun

22 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

The max gross weight of the Sting on MSFS is set to 1042lbs/472kg and that does not allow us to take passengers when using OnAir, as just with the pilot and a bit of fuel the aircraft approaches that maximum weight. 

As seen here and here, the real specifications for the Sting S4 point out a max gross weight of about 1400lb or 600kg.

Right let me clarify something, you are quoting the LSA (Light Sport Aircraft) category weights.. not the UL (Ultra Light) category weights.

The Sting S4 under Ultralight classification maximum weight is 472Kg. This is because under European and FAA rules any ultralight vehicle fitted with a ballistic rescue system, the maximum weight must be 472 kilograms. If you go to the aircraft manufacturer website, you will find 2 POH's one is for LSA and one for UL. The aircraft modeled in MSFS is under UL (Ultra Light) classification, link to the POH here: https://www.tl-ultralight.cz/file/edee/prilohy/ke-stazeni/sting-s4_poh_ul.pdf,

Check page number 9:

Page 43:

Since the aircraft manufacturer granted me permission to create this aircraft under the condition that I had to do it up to their standard's, and they wanted me to simulate the aircraft with all systems, including a fully operational parachute, I had to comply with their rules and restrictions from EASA and FAA and therefore the maximum weight is 472.5 Kg or 1042lbs.

As I have said before, I have done this airplane as close as it can get to real world, with even TL-Ultralight performing checks on my flight model, 3D model, and many other things. We also had real Sting S4 pilots testing it.

I did my research boys, I would not have made such a silly mistake on building my first airplane for MSFS. The S4 LSA version do not have any BRS fitted, it would be against EASA or FAA laws and you are pretty much close to the structural limits of the aircraft at 600Kgs.. 

Best,
Raul

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by simbol

39 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

The max gross weight of the Sting on MSFS is set to 1042lbs/472kg and that does not allow us to take passengers when using OnAir, as just with the pilot and a bit of fuel the aircraft approaches that maximum weight. 

As seen here and here, the real specifications for the Sting S4 point out a max gross weight of about 1400lb or 600kg.

There are 2 versions available of the Sting S4;   a 474Kg version for EASA ULA and a 600Kg version for the US LSA market.

He hasn't got it wrong - he's just modelled the core Sting S4 model - the US LSA version is an adaption, for the heavier US market*.     It is assembled and sold by SportAircraft of Charleston, SC.

So he modelled the main market version of a European designed and built ultralight.

*I didn't mean Americans are heavier there, just that the US LSA max weight is heavier.

[EDIT:  Simbol beat me to it].

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by JYW

Okay, thanks for clarifying.