KNOWN ISSUES (Last update: November 14th, 2022)

[HiFlyer]

Just an FYI...

KNOWN ISSUES (Last update: November 14th, 2022)

 

 

 

[pmb]

Thanks, this is helpful. Unfortunately the Traffic Paragraph is a little short given all the issues and the solutions/workarounds are none.

Kind regards, Michael

[Dillon]

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Just an FYI...

KNOWN ISSUES (Last update: November 14th, 2022)

Much of what's on the list is not what people are reporting their having issues with.🥴

[Lange_666]

1 hour ago, pmb said:

Thanks, this is helpful. Unfortunately the Traffic Paragraph is a little short given all the issues and the solutions/workarounds are none.

Kind regards, Michael

It just proves "again" that this issue isn't high on the to do list. As long as there are a lot of aircraft to choose from and the scenery eye-candy is there to show off, all seems fine.

[vin747]

and how come the biggest issue on A310 (fast WASM compilation and resulting bad fps) is not even on that list under A310?

[MarcG]

Where's the rest of the list? There's a lot more bugs/issues than that, many that have been "Logged" on the official forums aren't on there for starters, kinda makes that list a bit pointless doesn't it? 🤔

[Swe_Richard]

Yeah, um… that list was kind of underwhelming. 

[bobcat999]

2 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Where's the rest of the list? There's a lot more bugs/issues than that, many that have been "Logged" on the official forums aren't on there for starters, kinda makes that list a bit pointless doesn't it? 🤔

Yes, they need need to tie the two things together or it doesn't give much confidence to people.

[micstatic]

+1 on fadt wasm a310 issue. Also how long can asobo ignore the incorrect snow coverage issues?

[Farlis]

50 minutes ago, micstatic said:

 Also how long can asobo ignore the incorrect snow coverage issues?

Currently 2 years on the clock...

[Sylvenzo]

15 hours ago, Lange_666 said:

It just proves "again" that this issue isn't high on the to do list. As long as there are a lot of aircraft to choose from and the scenery eye-candy is there to show off, all seems fine.

Unfortunately you are right and Jorg Neumann himself can confirm that on an interview he made with VGC 

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/phil-spencer-thought-there-was-no-fing-way-flight-sim-was-running-in-real-time/

Quote from Neumann:

“When we launched, we found people that liked or had some respect for airplanes, but they really liked the planet. That’s the killer app. That’s what brought in new people,” he explained.

“If this had been an exceptionally well-executed physics simulator with an atmosphere and airlines, I don’t think it would have gone anywhere near as far.”

[HiFlyer]

4 hours ago, Sylvenzo said:

Unfortunately you are right and Jorg Neumann himself can confirm that on an interview he made with VGC 

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/phil-spencer-thought-there-was-no-fing-way-flight-sim-was-running-in-real-time/

Quote from Neumann:

“When we launched, we found people that liked or had some respect for airplanes, but they really liked the planet. That’s the killer app. That’s what brought in new people,” he explained.

“If this had been an exceptionally well-executed physics simulator with an atmosphere and airlines, I don’t think it would have gone anywhere near as far.”

I've said a few times over the years that I believe there are at least two main ways to approach making a simulator.

One is, as Jorg said, as physics simulator of the type many on sites like this would prefer; and the other is a world simulator with a focus on airplanes.

One makes enough money (at least so far, apparently) to support all the resources going into MSFS, and the other tends, historically, to lead to increasingly dated niche product(s) in niche community's of hardcore enthusiasts.

To me, MSFS actually seems a bit of a hopeful hybrid, because as something made by a gaming company, it has a popular and approachable focus, while still attempting to placate the legacy market (us here) even though we've proven to be, essentially and historically, pretty much impossible to ever satisfy.

(Proof of that is that even after several decades of development, we are still niggling over minutia in our legacy sims on pretty much a daily basis) 

They will never move fast enough, or be technical enough for us here.

No one is now, or ever has been.

But they are using their resources to advance at a rate we've never ever seen before, even if that doesn't seem fast enough, for many.

For myself, I try not to forget that just a few short years ago, almost none of what we are seeing today was even remotely imaginable except as a fevered fantasy....

 

[foxgolfbravo]

I fully agree with this analysis, we are often very demanding and sometimes intolerant, MSFS is planned to be developed for 10 years, there are still 8 years left in theory, so I am happy to have a simulator that has never reached this level of realism in 40 years and I have 74, I started with FS4 in 1989

This is only my humble opinion.

👍

[MarcG]

6 minutes ago, foxgolfbravo said:

MSFS is planned to be developed for 10 years, there are still 8 years left in theory,

Just FYI that initial comment about a "ten year plan" was taken out of context, Jorg has since explained in a Q&A about it.

[HFBHercules1280]

I find it interesting the oil cooler flap interaction on the Hercules was mentioned. The oil cooler flaps on the H-4 were primarily an automatic system determined by the temperature of the engine oil. There was a manual override which is what the tool tip attempts to interact with.