On 3/12/2023 at 10:49 PM, Stearmandriver said:

But historical weather is meaningless for training purposes.

No pilot would make this statement.  Visibility needs to be very accurate for training and historical weather data is used for flight training ... it's how one learns the process of flight in all conditions.

On 3/13/2023 at 7:25 AM, lwt1971 said:

. WASM is not a layer that all aircraft add-ons need to use or develop on top of.

Never said it was for "all aircraft", why are you injecting what wasn't said?  However, if you want to do any sort of serious aircraft development for MSFS, one will need to use WASM.

On 3/13/2023 at 7:25 AM, lwt1971 said:

if that were the case, why would they be wasting their dev effort on all these features like CFD being used in flight models

Because it's a checkbox, like "weather" ... the implementation is significantly lacking and that's a result of not implementing computational loads that would significant reduce performance (those who measure FPS) ... and that is mostly likely due to the computational restrictions of the XBox hardware.  If you feel the CFD as implemented in MSFS is good, then you haven't flown an aircraft to know the difference.

On 3/13/2023 at 8:13 AM, Noel said:

But make no mistake:  they're all games.

Sure, whatever you want to decide ... but there are differences between "games" that are used by the FAA and the US Navy to train pilots vs. "games" that don't have any of the features necessary to accomplish such training.  Like I said, MSFS is a good "average" game, my opinion and based on ratings it's a very common opinion.

On 3/13/2023 at 3:25 AM, Lucky38i said:

It's funny that you'd argue we should have no weather modelling because we can't have weather radar

I never suggested that, again you really need to stop implicit injection of false information and re-read what I said.

On 3/13/2023 at 3:25 AM, Lucky38i said:

Have you done any kind of development for MSFS

Yes I have, I guess you didn't understand the phone call reference pre-release.  You're not trying to debate the MSFS, you're simply deflecting to "qualifications".  You don't know me and I don't know you, doesn't change my statements if you'd read them correctly and not inject or imply things I never written.

On 3/13/2023 at 3:25 AM, Lucky38i said:

WASM was chosen because of the security it provides over compiled DLLs, do you know what WASM is? I have no idea what you mean abstraction layer to the hardware.

If you have no idea, then you really shouldn't be name calling me "silly"?  Odd, there are numerous games and professional applications and trainers that don't use WASM and are very secure.  But ask yourself how does a "sandbox" become "more secure" ... you get it now?  And what exactly is being "secured" in a game/sim.

On 3/9/2023 at 9:17 PM, jarmstro said:

Ah! yes. If you change the time it's still using the current weather.  I see what Ray means now. 

Basically, at the time of day (night) I have for flying, if I wanted real-time weather and didn't want to just fly at night, I'd have be running the time-zone twelve hours from my own. In other words, a choice of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the U.A.E., Oman, or the Seychelles. 

5 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

decide ... but there are differences between "games" that are used by the FAA and the US Navy to train pilots

There are no games that that do this. 

6 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

No pilot would make this statement.  Visibility needs to be very accurate for training and historical weather data is used for flight training ... it's how one learns the process of flight in all conditions.

Never said it was for "all aircraft", why are you injecting what wasn't said?  However, if you want to do any sort of serious aircraft development for MSFS, one will need to use WASM.

Except you don't, that was the entire purpose of the avionics SDK that working title has been developing, to provide an alternative to using WASM. Just because previously high-fidelity aircraft were developed on C++ compiled to executable .DLLs, doesn't mean it is the only way to develop aircraft now. Just look at FBW using Rust, Typescript and C++ (among a few other language) in various paradigms offered by MSFS. However, I'm gonna make a guess that you probably don't think FBW is a "serious" aircraft, based on your childish elitism to "FAA certification", so I'm probably talking to a brick wall there.

 

6 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Sure, whatever you want to decide ... but there are differences between "games" that are used by the FAA and the US Navy to train pilots vs. "games" that don't have any of the features necessary to accomplish such training.  Like I said, MSFS is a good "average" game, my opinion and based on ratings it's a very common opinion.

idk what that argument has to do with anything, xplane, MSFS, P3D, DCS, none of the versions of these games that you can buy are FAA certified so what is this strawman argument even trying to get at? Still sticking to the MS Store rating system I see?

6 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Because it's a checkbox, like "weather" ... the implementation is significantly lacking and that's a result of not implementing computational loads that would significant reduce performance (those who measure FPS) ... and that is mostly likely due to the computational restrictions of the XBox hardware.  If you feel the CFD as implemented in MSFS is good, then you haven't flown an aircraft to know the difference.

Here we go again lol. Because it's a checkbox? Honestly you're grasping now. Everyone know *actual* CFD would barely even run on consumer PCs much less an xbox. It's an abstraction of it, but it doesn't make it a pointless implementation. You know what, since MSFS is sooo terrible with it's flight modelling, just go back to whatever sim was your preference, everyone here as-well as the type rated pilots here who enjoy MSFS will continue to do so with blissful "ignorance".

6 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

I never suggested that, again you really need to stop implicit injection of false information and re-read what I said.

Feel free to go back and read what you said and tell me how it could be interpreted differently. However, in-case you forgot, and I quote, "Weather modeling is frankly horrible in MSFS (both visually and in it's accuracy) ... but what's the point in modeling any weather if it can't be scanned to a weather radar". Now I imagine anyone with a decent grasp of english would interpret that as..? Hopefully you can fill in the blank 🙂

6 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Yes I have, I guess you didn't understand the phone call reference pre-release.  You're not trying to debate the MSFS, you're simply deflecting to "qualifications".  You don't know me and I don't know you, doesn't change my statements if you'd read them correctly and not inject or imply things I never written.

I haven't injected anything? I've taken your comments at face value and gone from there, just like everyone else has in this forum, reading your ridiculous comments.

6 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

If you have no idea, then you really shouldn't be name calling me "silly"?  Odd, there are numerous games and professional applications and trainers that don't use WASM and are very secure. 

This was a lot of word salad, but I'll try my best to understand it. There are numerous games that run on various different frameworks for script injection. However, that doesn't matter because what MSFS uses (you know, the word not allowed focus of this conversation) is, CoherentGT UI, that's what it uses and arguing about what other applications or games use (even though a word not allowed ton of game use coherent), is a waste of time.

It's a web framework based on a fairly old version of the safari engine. You don't want DLL injection occuring on the web engine because it opens up security vulnerabilities to your own users. WASM, Web Assembly as the name implies is an assembly compiled module to run code (Whether it be Rust, C++, or quite frankly any language that can target WASM because its just an assembly target) on a web engine. Sandboxing prevents nefarious script from executing on a host environment.

It's confusing to me that you admit you have developed for MSFS while not being knowledgeable to understand the reasoning behind these choices that Asobo has made to accomodate DLL based aircraft from the P3D and FSX era. It's even more confusing to me that you claimed to develop for MSFS while making your original comment about PC users being limited by Xbox and how WASM is a product of this limitation, ignoring it's actual purpose. I've lost all efforts at being amicable here, you clearly don't understand what development for MSFS entails despite your claims. Cause if you did, this entire discussion wouldn't have been brought up.

6 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

But ask yourself how does a "sandbox" become "more secure" ... you get it now?

By being in a sandbox, the code cannot execute anything on the host environment. That's... literally what a sandbox is.

6 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

And what exactly is being "secured" in a game/sim.

The host environment whereby which the game is running on? Do I have to break these things down for you or are you just intentionally being word not allowed.

This all ropes back to, none of these arguments actually tie back to your original "xBoX bAd" argument. I guess you thought continuing to branch into various arguments would suddenly mean people would forget your comment right? You have yet to actually acknowledge any counters to your original argument.

I will say this: as a P3D user who only uses MSFS for sight seeing and low-level VFR flights, this is the biggest issue holding me back. 

Historical weather is by far the biggest need (for me) in MSFS. With AS in P3D, this is perfect. Even if it's January IRL, i can load up the sim in July and play slalom with thunderstorm cells in the late afternoon on the east coast of the US. 

MSFS is a great platform for certain things, and in many ways far superior to P3D, but the fact that we're coming up on three years after release and not only do we not have historical weather, but the developers don't seem have it as a priority to implement (or even open up the platform for third parties!!!) is concerning.

Keep in mind: P3D doesn't have historical weather, either. But the weather system is open to third parties and that's what makes the difference. 

10 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Sure, whatever you want to decide ... but there are differences between "games" that are used by the FAA and the US Navy to train pilots vs. "games" that don't have any of the features necessary to accomplish such training.  Like I said, MSFS is a good "average" game, my opinion and based on ratings it's a very common opinion.

Whatever it takes to keep one's ego intact is all good.  As for MSFS as game, as w/ all flight sims the fun factor might tend to be lost on many in the amount of knowledge and skill required to launch that PMDG 738/FBW A320NX/Fenix A320 and take it gate to gate--and those skills and knowledge are IDENTICAL to what is required in any of the other sims including XP12. <<< Read that again.  In fact even in MSFS' current state the lion's share of what can come out of ANY desktop flight simulator is already there in terms of "training".  No pilot in training will ever depend on any desktop simulator to deliver the experience goods it's just not there, period, end of story, and if one thinks otherwise their still stuck in their ego-based fantasy world. 

And while we're here, currently in Steam MSFS currently sits at 76.78% average user rating with 10,419 users "in-game".  XP12 now gets an average user rating of 71.98% with a grand total of 419 users "in-game".   So you're right, XP-12 is definitey worse, as a "game" 🤣🤣🤣

I know, most buy XP on their site, but that is likely true for MSFS as well.

 

13 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Never said it was for "all aircraft", why are you injecting what wasn't said?  However, if you want to do any sort of serious aircraft development for MSFS, one will need to use WASM.

No one is "injecting" anything except calling out the misinfo you seem intent on spreading.. And wrong again, WASM is not required to do "serious aircraft development" for MSFS. Exhibit A is the Fenix A320, whose complex systems code runs completely outside the sim. If you're trying to imply that serious aircraft development can only be done in C++ then that also shows your apparent lack of knowledge of software development & frameworks, languages, etc. But regardless, even if C++ is required, that can still be compiled directly to DLLs and run external of MSFS, for the PC only... the only time WASM is required is if those C++ aircraft developers *also* want to support XBox in addition to the PC and be sold on the MSFS marketplace, i.e. PMDG. I suspect this line of misguided reasoning and wrong conclusions are coming from a mindset stuck in the past, of legacy flight sims and legacy add-in development. Bottom line, MSFS allows for multiple ways to develop aircraft, and no development framework is technically superior to the other, nor does one favor more "serious aircraft development" vs the other.
 

13 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Because it's a checkbox, like "weather" ... the implementation is significantly lacking and that's a result of not implementing computational loads that would significant reduce performance (those who measure FPS) ... and that is mostly likely due to the computational restrictions of the XBox hardware.  If you feel the CFD as implemented in MSFS is good, then you haven't flown an aircraft to know the difference.

Lol ok, really hard to take you seriously with these comical statements and conclusions, not that we needed more reasons. I'll go by actual expert aircraft devs (iniBuilds etc) and pilots who like I quoted seem quite sold on CFD, rather than your grasping at straws to keep pushing a narrative.  And aside from CFD, it's also the great amount of work MS/Asobo put into atmospheric airflow simulation using CFD, and all systems and flight modelling work done in AAU1 to the CJ4, Longitude, etc... if they're spending all this effort just to tick a "checkbox" and they really are catering to the XBox like you keep insisting, then that is some very expensive checkbox ticking  

And re: computational restrictions, you do realize the computational granularity and other parameters can be tuned to whatever the aircraft dev wants right? (https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Content_Configuration/SimObjects/Aircraft_SimO/flight_model/aerodynamics.htm, and https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Developer_Mode/Aircraft_Editor/Debug/Debug_Aircraft_CFD.htm have tonnes of details, note the 'CFD_VoxelNbVoxels' parameter in particular) ... so no, it's not because XBox hardware is restricting anything here. As with the visuals, so too can the CFD computations be tuned to scale to the hardware platform being used, whether it be PC or XBox. Those aircraft devs only choosing to target the PC obviously have more latitude, as do the PC users with much more visual fidelity tuning options in the PC version of the sim.
 

13 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Like I said, MSFS is a good "average" game, my opinion and based on ratings it's a very common opinion.

You keep telling yourself whatever it is that comforts you. Given that you keep talking about ratings, let's take the latest Navigraph survey as one example of many, whose participants are some of the most "serious" simmers, and who called out both flight/aerodynamics realism and world depiction as two of the most important factors in flight simming, and then went on to rate MSFS as their preferred platform of choice by a wide margin over all other sims. My opinion and that of the vast majority of us here (and it is a vast majority given the various forums' activity isn't it), based on what we see with our own eyes, a lot of us having used all the sim platforms over the years, and based on various tangible ratings by various experts and IRL pilots, and based on the huge level of interest and buy-in by so many 3rd party devs, etc etc... kind of easy to see what the actual common opinon is :)

 

Edited March 19, 20233 yr by lwt1971

I thought the weather API lock was because of Meteoblue.

3 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

 

You keep telling yourself whatever it is that comforts you. Given that you keep talking about ratings, let's take the latest Navigraph survey as one example of many, whose participants are some of the most "serious" simmers, and who called out both flight/aerodynamics realism and world depiction as two of the most important factors in flight simming, and then went on to rate MSFS as their preferred platform of choice by a wide margin over all other sims. My opinion and that of the vast majority of us here (and it is a vast majority given the various forums' activity isn't it), based on what we see with our own eyes, a lot of us having used all the sim platforms over the years, and based on various tangible ratings by various experts and IRL pilots, and based on the huge level of interest and buy-in by so many 3rd party devs, etc etc... kind of easy to see what the actual common opinon is 🙂

 

I think there may be a bit of a misconception here. 

A lot of us (who still use multiple sims) are sitting here recognizing the potential that MSFS has and how far superior it is to other sims in many ways. But, we see some features missing that are important factors for flight simulation (this thread having to do with historical weather but there are others). 

What is frustrating about these discussions on the forum is that people come here and say "MSFS is great but it's missing these key feature and that would make it so much better" and it's met with 10 responses "LMAO HAVE YOU SEEN THE NAVIGRAPH SURVEY MSFS RULEZ GO BACK TO P3D LOSER" 

This doesn't need to be tribal.

15 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Like I said, MSFS is a good "average" game, my opinion and based on ratings it's a very common opinion.

Software that simulates flight is a flight simulator - such software tries to accurately simulate accurate flight models and aircraft systems  Software that has aircraft in, that make no attempt to be accurate in flight modelling or systems, are indeed games. 

2 minutes ago, DChockey08 said:

This doesn't need to be tribal.

So true.  I have both MSFS and XP12 on my PC.  I currently use XP12 more often because there are certain aspects of XP12 that suit me better - even though there are aspects of MSFS that are superior.

There is so much scope for great flight simulation discussions that are lost through tribalism,

4 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

There is so much scope for great flight simulation discussions that are lost through tribalism,

Er….yes, possibly but what are we to make of this;

9 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Software that simulates flight is a flight simulator - such software tries to accurately simulate accurate flight models and aircraft systems  Software that has aircraft in, that make no attempt to be accurate in flight modelling or systems, are indeed games. 

?

40 minutes ago, DChockey08 said:

A lot of us (who still use multiple sims) are sitting here recognizing the potential that MSFS has and how far superior it is to other sims in many ways. But, we see some features missing that are important factors for flight simulation (this thread having to do with historical weather but there are others). 

What is frustrating about these discussions on the forum is that people come here and say "MSFS is great but it's missing these key feature and that would make it so much better" and it's met with 10 responses "LMAO HAVE YOU SEEN THE NAVIGRAPH SURVEY MSFS RULEZ GO BACK TO P3D LOSER" 

This doesn't need to be tribal.

Ya well that's not what's happening here is it, and of course it doesn't need to be tribal... but if some keep coming here and keep harping on about ms store ratings and making claims about common opinions, then they're likely to be responded to with other ratings like from the Navigraph survey, and others' opinions :)  That sort of response does not then equate to the silly "LMAO ..." quote you conjured up there. If folks also keep coming here with nonsensical claims and misinformation about WASM and how MS/Asobo are catering to the XBox crowd and being hampered by it, and whatever else, that'll also be responded to naturally.

Yes MSFS obviously is missing features like historic weather, and the weather SDK is not as open as it could be due to either legal/contractual reasons and/or technical reasons due to the client/server architecture of MSFS, etc. But to a lot of us that is not a deal breaker, especially when the sim provides so much in its default state, in our opinion. Of course some features not being there could be deal breakers to some, and that's perfectly fine of course. But coming in here spreading misinformation, or trying to pass off one's own conclusions (or own reasons as to why MS/Asobo didn't do feature X) as fact, is going to get responded to.

 

Edited March 19, 20233 yr by lwt1971

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Software that simulates flight is a flight simulator - such software tries to accurately simulate accurate flight models and aircraft systems  Software that has aircraft in, that make no attempt to be accurate in flight modelling or systems, are indeed games. 

All the current flight simulators could be "games" or "simulators" or whatever else to whomever, based on their usage styles. So going by your definition, I guess the one flight software I currently use, MSFS, is a simulator since it certainly tries to accurately simulate flight models, aircraft systems, and as a bonus also accurately depicts the planet and weather.  And as a further bonus, I can get all that in its default form with some of its default aircraft and systems, but certainly more so when I factor in all the high fidelity 3rd party aircraft out there. But wait, if I fire up the Halo Pelican in MSFS and romp about in that controlled by keyboard, or fly around in some poorly implemented aircraft like a Captain Sim offering, then I guess it's a game! Well, guess it's both a simulator and a game then 😐
 

Edited March 19, 20233 yr by lwt1971

2 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

But wait, if I fire up the Halo Pelican in MSFS and romp about in that controlled by keyboard, or fly around in some poorly implemented aircraft like a Captain Sim offering, then I guess it's a game! Well, guess it's both a simulator and a game then

I took a ride in a level D 'game' in that case, because they did nothing but romp over the sky and gained zero training from it.