MSFS Forum surpasses Prepar3D post count…

[Sethos 4,357]

20 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Well you could say the same thing for electricity, so my MSDOS-games back in the days were in a subscription model, too, I guess? 😄

Let's not forget rent and the food to sustain yourself 😅 Now subscriptions don't exist and they exist everywhere! Dang that's some oxygen deprived line of logic 😁

[Fiorentoni 4,248]

6 minutes ago, Sethos said:

This is the most intellectually dishonest, bordering on criminally unintelligent take on something I've read on Avsim to date. That is quite the feat. 

You might want to delete that before you embarass yourself any further. And you might want to read all of those 16,092 posts of Chock, because you will learn a lot.

[Sethos 4,357]

7 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

And you might want to read all of those 16,092 posts of Chock, because you will learn a lot.

I'll get right on that 🤣

[turbomax 3,286]

13 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

you want the environment to reflect real life as best as possible.

if that is true, x-plane's or P3D's only option would have been to partner up with GoogleMaps and add a modern graphics engine BEFORE MSFS was launched. they did not have that foresight all the while MSFS/Asobo worked 5 years secretly in their Bordeaux wine cellars. In vino veritas. 😊

[Dillon 2,197]

8 hours ago, Cognita said:

But this aside, even if LM did this, would it work? Even if they launch the next version with basically the same scenery, the same graphics quality, the same weather capability -- even if it was a little better than MSFS -- would  we all switch back to P3D? What would motivate me to do that, it would just be the same thing I already have in MSFS. Why would I spend the money and invest the time to switch back? LM would have to come up with something far, far better in quality and depth than what MSFS has already developed and plans to develop.

The point was if Microsoft dropped Flight Simulator with a new CEO on board (like what we saw with Steve Ballmer) and/or dumbed down FS2020 thanks to new leadership on the Flight Simulator team we'd have options. Flight Simulator is constantly changing and it's under the XBOX 'Game' banner.  You get some uninformed ID&^T in charge like what we saw with FLIGHT coming in with bright ideas to justify their job this can all get blew up. With other vendors with comparable products, we'd have options as a community.  If you've been in this community for awhile you'd know you have to look at the long game and not just what we have today.😐

Edited June 6, 2022 by Dillon

[GSalden 4,665]

23 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Having terrain, objects, and landmarks that follows real life is the holy grail for a "flight simulator."  Heck, not just for a flight simulator. But the same for train simulator, truck simulator, etc.

Whether it's a flight simulator, train simulator, or truck simulator, you want the environment to reflect real life as best as possible.

So no, for a simulator, the only route is try better to match the environment in real life. This also includes the accurate placement of objects, landmarks, etc, in the simulator, as they appear in real life.

When I was flying P3D I had Europe completely photo realistic + custom made AG + POIs.

Every once in a while I mentioned it I was overruled by many that it was about flying the plane and that it was not scenery simulator ….

Reading many posts here : how many of them now have a 180 degree opposite opinion…

🧐

[Alaaar 34]

Still way behind FSXs 

[abrams_tank 7,426]

6 minutes ago, GSalden said:

When I was flying P3D I had Europe completely photo realistic + custom made AG + POIs.

Every once in a while I mentioned it I was overruled by many that it was about flying the plane and that it was not scenery simulator ….

Reading many posts here : how many of them now have a 180 degree opposite opinion…

🧐

Satellite scenery is definitely good, but my only gripe about using raw satellite scenery are the flattened "2D" objects. This is why it's important for a company like Blackshark AI to come in, to detect the flattened 2D satellite objects, and convert them to 3D objects.  With MSFS, we have the best of both worlds - satellite scenery, and the 2D buildings/houses converted to 3D buildings/houses by Blackshark AI's algorithm.

Edited June 6, 2022 by abrams_tank

[Chock 17,769]

16 minutes ago, Dillon said:

The point was if Microsoft dropped Flight Simulator with a new CEO on board (like what we saw with Steve Ballmer) and/or dumbed down FS2020 thanks to new leadership on the Flight Simulator team we'd have options. Flight Simulator is constantly changing and it's under the XBOX 'Game' banner.  You get some uninformed ID&^T in charge like what we saw with FLIGHT coming in with bright ideas to justify their job this can all get blew up. With other vendors with comparable products, we'd have options as a community.  If you've been in this community for awhile you'd know you have to look at the long game and not just what we have today.😐

MS has pretty much got past its numpty stage these days. The powers that be at MS have recognised that what Steve Ballmer did was very self-destructive, whereas when Bill Gates threw money at FS, it created a very good PR image. But more than this, the streaming technology it has been the vanguard of, has tons of additional applications - a very rare case of a true win-win for MS. They're not about to let that one go.

[Matchstick 1,886]

52 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Having terrain, objects, and landmarks that follows real life is the holy grail for a "flight simulator."  Heck, not just for a flight simulator. But the same for train simulator, truck simulator, etc.

Whether it's a flight simulator, train simulator, or truck simulator, you want the environment to reflect real life as best as possible.

So no, for a simulator, the only route is try better to match the environment in real life. This also includes the accurate placement of objects, landmarks, etc, in the simulator, as they appear in real life.

I disagree to an extent, to me the holy grail is about the experience of flying, scenery is part of that but not the only thing that matters and a sim that spends more time and effort on other aspects can work,

It's a balancing act for sure and there is definitely no guarantee XP12 can get things right but not going down the photorealistic scenery route isn't automatically a problem for me.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Matchstick

[abrams_tank 7,426]

1 minute ago, Matchstick said:

I disagree to an extent, to me the holy grail is about the experience of flying, scenery is part of that but not the only thing that matters and a sim that spends more time and effort on other aspects can work,

It's a balancing act for sure and there is definitely no guarantee XP12 can get things right but not going down the photorealistic scenery route isn't automatically a problem for me.

Nobody is disputing other aspects are not important in a flight simulator.

But for the terrain/environment aspect of a simulator, you want the terrain/environment to be as close to real life as possible.  When I said, "Having terrain, objects, and landmarks that follows real life is the holy grail for a 'flight simulator,'" I meant from the terrain/environment aspect only, the holy grail is to have terrain/environment that matches real life terrain/environment.

Of course, there are other "holy grail" objectives for other aspects of a flight simulator, such as holy grail for weather,  holy grail for flight modeling, holy grail for ATC, etc.

[Matchstick 1,886]

3 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Nobody is disputing other aspects are not important in a flight simulator.

But for the terrain/environment aspect of a simulator, you want the terrain/environment to be as close to real life as possible.  When I said, "Having terrain, objects, and landmarks that follows real life is the holy grail for a 'flight simulator,'" I meant from the terrain/environment aspect only, the holy grail is to have terrain/environment that matches real life terrain/environment.

Of course, there are other "holy grail" objectives for other aspects of a flight simulator, such as holy grail for weather,  holy grail for flight modeling, holy grail for ATC, etc.

That's your Holy Grail, mine has somewhat different priorities leaning more towards the experience and sensation of flying.

That's not a problem for me and personally I'm happy to see sims concentrating on different aspects to provide different people the experiences they want.

So I don't want an MSFS clone, I want other sims to go their own way, show us other ways of doing things. Maybe they'll find an audience, maybe they won't, but at least we get to make a choice.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Matchstick

[Fiorentoni 4,248]

54 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Having terrain, objects, and landmarks that follows real life is the holy grail for a "flight simulator."  Heck, not just for a flight simulator. But the same for train simulator, truck simulator, etc.

Whether it's a flight simulator, train simulator, or truck simulator, you want the environment to reflect real life as best as possible.

So no, for a simulator, the only route is try better to match the environment in real life. This also includes the accurate placement of objects, landmarks, etc, in the simulator, as they appear in real life.

I disagree: Landmarks, objects etc. only have importance if you need them for the type of simulation. This might be the case for a VFR flight simulator, but not for an IFR flight simulator, and certainly not for a train simulator.
What is important for a simulator is the thing it is supposed to simulate, including anything else you need (like roads for a truck simulator etc.), but excludin anything else that is "cosmetic-only" (like clouds for a truck simulator).
In terms of IFR simulation MSFS is still inferior to X-Plane and P3D, because of a couple of well noted things. However for many - including me - those (by now) rather small deficits are more than offset by the immersion due to the visuals, so MSFS as a hobby-sim is superior. (Most commercials sims will however stick with P3D for the time being)

[abrams_tank 7,426]

14 minutes ago, Chock said:

MS has pretty much got past its numpty stage these days. The powers that be at MS have recognised that what Steve Ballmer did was very self-destructive, whereas when Bill Gates threw money at FS, it created a very good PR image. But more than this, the streaming technology it has been the vanguard of, has tons of additional applications - a very rare case of a true win-win for MS. They're not about to let that one go.

Yes, Microsoft is sitting on a golden goose at the moment.  I suspect Microsoft has long term aspirations to enter the commercial flight simulator market.  They tried with ESP before (and then gave Lockheed Martin the rights to modify the FSX code), they may try again with MSFS. I believe when the MSFS engine is more advanced and more mature, Microsoft may attempt such an entry into the commercial flight simulator market.

I also think Microsoft wants to enhance their satellite & photogrammetry engine further, so that's it more detailed at the ground level.  There would be so many uses for a satellite & photogrammetry engine if it could provide a highly detailed looking environment at the ground level (we aren't there yet, but this is version 1 of their satellite & photogrammetry engine).  A lot of game companies would be potentially interested in such an engine, as well as non-gaming companies too.

[Fiorentoni 4,248]

Just now, abrams_tank said:

Yes, Microsoft is sitting on a golden goose at the moment.  I suspect Microsoft has long term aspirations to enter the commercial flight simulator market.  They tried with ESP before (and then gave Lockheed Martin the rights to modify the FSX code), they may try again with MSFS. I believe when the MSFS engine is more advanced and more mature, Microsoft may attempt such an entry into the commercial flight simulator market.

I also think Microsoft wants to enhance their satellite & photogrammetry engine further, so that's it more detailed at the ground level.  There would be so many uses for a satellite & photogrammetry engine if it could provide a highly detailed looking environment at the ground level (we aren't there yet, but this is version 1 of their satellite & photogrammetry engine).  A lot of game companies would be potentially interested in such an engine, as well as non-gaming companies too.

Now imagine them giving MSFS to Lockheed Martin... again 😄 To be honest I wouldn't rule that out after the 10 years are over.