23 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Whereas Martial gives the impression the whole thing is just a pain in the rear end for him.

It may very well be just that. Maybe he isn't even interested in Flightsim and it's just a good paying job for him? Who knows. 

41 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Now now, negativity is frowned upon here. Don't forget we have a shiny new plane and more world updates to come 😉 

That's quite a blunt generalization of course. To prove my point: say something negative. I won't frown at all! 😁 

1 hour ago, RALF9636 said:

Obviously that is just their way to say:

"We had to pull the A320 because there are some severe copyright issues going on with inibuilds but for legal reasons we can not put it that way."

 

It is not a “copyright” issue. FBW’s A320 is published under the GNU General Public License (GPL). The entire project is available on GitHub and iniBuilds (or any other developer) is free to use all or part of FBW’s code in their own project. They do not need permission from FBW, but they should give proper attribution.

If in fact, iniBuild used some of FBW’s code in their own A320, they are legally and morally entitled to do so, and FBW has not been “wronged” in any way. There is no theft or piracy involved.

The issue is the legal obligations that come with the GPL license. If any GPL code from developer “A” is used in a project by developer “B”, then developer “B”’s project itself becomes subject to the terms of the GPL license, meaning it must be made open source. IB would have to publish the source code to their A320 if they want to use any of FBW’s code, (or code from any other GPL project.)

The remedy would be to remove any code covered by the GPL. By so doing, the project can remain closed source and proprietary.

Ordinarily an independent developer is perfectly free to make their software open source. But, since IB developed their A320 under contract to Microsoft, (as they did with their A310), MS may not want the source code to the aircraft to be published.

12 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

What's wrong with these clouds?

https://imgur.com/a/qE3q0PY

Those look good, cloud formations in general look good however static screenshots dont show the fringes of the clouds skipping and dancing around as they pass by your window due to whatever post processing asobo is using. It's not something that Ive seen in any other simulator title. It's a known issue that has also been put to vote on the main MSFS forums. It needs to get fixed.

5 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

Another example, for SU15, I would like to see some progress on static aircraft sitting two feet above the ground or spinning on their roofs!  what use is better lighting if you are faced with that after you land.  Surely they must see these issues.

I haven’t seen anything like that in a long time 

Edited December 1, 20232 yr by Tuskin38

5 hours ago, Tom_L said:

And asking the community to provide locations other than Malta where ground tiles are swapping is ridiculous in light of an extensive thread in their forums with hundreds of examples, 500 votes and 850 contributions.

To be fair, he didn‘t say „areas other than Malta“ but areas they’re not aware of. He used Malta as an example. He also said Malta was „ONE of the affected areas“, so they‘re clearly aware that there‘s more. I guess he meant areas that haven‘t been documented yet in the respective thread or directly reported to them. But I agree, he wasn‘t very clear there. 

I wish he‘d been a bit more specific about how and when they‘re going to fix it as well. It sounded as if it was an easy fix and that it won’t happen again when rolling out future world updates, but a little more info would have been nice.

 

 

4 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

Obviously that is just their way to say:

"We had to pull the A320 because there are some severe copyright issues going on with inibuilds but for legal reasons we can not put it that way."

I suppose with my tinfoil hat on I could come to that conclusion.. or choose to believe what iniBuilds say publicly on discord:
 

Josh
It's the Xbox crashes, as Jorg very clearly said

Josh
There are people who have had crashes, additionally both Asobo and MS have their own testing teams on Xbox. For MS to sign off on something included in the base sim they need at least 93% non crash rate, which isn't what they were seeing across their data. This has all been said publicly by Jorg yesterday. He also said that it will come back in a future update. There's no need to come up with doom and gloom theories based on no evidence, when it has already been confirmed why it was delayed, and that it will come back.

Steve 
The thing is they do know. As it was stated in the dev stream, the neo is not meeting acceptable crash tolerance percentages. That's it.

Nico
be that as it may, the 787 has a lower crash rate and was fine for certification; our a320 wasn't

If the copyright issues were the actual blocker here, and both MS and iniBuilds are going out of their way to lie and put the blame on crashes, ya umm that's just silly. They could've easily said we are working through copyright issues if that was the actual reason (given that the issue is public, and given that iniBuilds and FBW have both already made public statements on it).
 

Edited December 1, 20232 yr by lwt1971

2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

He does come across as if he doesn't give a hoot sometimes, and the session is just a necessary evil for him to get through. 

I‘m not so sure. I think it was Matt from Working Title or someone else who works with him who wrote very positively about him  on this forum. I think it is the language. He often seems to misunderstand the questions and struggles more than the others to get his point across in a concise and coherent fashion. Maybe an interpreter would help. No disrespect to Martial (I wish I could speak as well French as he speaks English), but it would probably make things easier for all of us. Or maybe he could just prepare his answers more carefully. 

20 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

I haven’t seen anything like that in a long time 

I had aircraft sitting in the air at Sedona last night, and Jonathon Beckett had a Cessna spinning on its roof while taxiing out in the new Vulcan yesterday, so although you haven't seen them, it doesn't mean they aren't there.  It can depend where you fly.

Just now, Shack95 said:

I‘m not so sure. I think it was Matt from Working Title or someone else who works with him who wrote very positively about him  on this forum. I think it is the language. He often seems to misunderstand the questions and struggles more than the others to get his point across in a concise and coherent fashion. Maybe an interpreter would help. No disrespect to Martial (I wish I could speak as well French as he speaks English), but it would probably make things easier for all of us. Or maybe he could just prepare his answers more carefully. 

It must just be the way he comes across then.

24 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

To be fair, he didn‘t say „areas other than Malta“ but areas they’re not aware of. He used Malta as an example. He also said Malta was „ONE of the affected areas“, so they‘re clearly aware that there‘s more. I guess he meant areas that haven‘t been documented yet in the respective thread or directly reported to them. But I agree, he wasn‘t very clear there. 

I wish he‘d been a bit more specific about how and when they‘re going to fix it as well. It sounded as if it was an easy fix and that it won’t happen again when rolling out future world updates, but a little more info would have been nice.

It just shows you their quality control / corrective action system isn't very comprehensive though.

Identify the root cause of problem, decide on a course of action, verify the fix has worked, then, ask yourself what else may have be affected?  "If it happens in Malta, why?, and maybe we should check if it can happen in other areas." 
Simple QC, rather than just fix Malta and move on.  

Is it really that hard?  Don't they test fly themselves?  Or maybe this is just another problem that doesn't affect Bordeaux. 
  

46 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

I‘m not so sure. I think it was Matt from Working Title or someone else who works with him who wrote very positively about him  on this forum. I think it is the language. He often seems to misunderstand the questions and struggles more than the others to get his point across in a concise and coherent fashion. Maybe an interpreter would help. No disrespect to Martial (I wish I could speak as well French as he speaks English), but it would probably make things easier for all of us. Or maybe he could just prepare his answers more carefully. 

I think Martial sometimes struggles with English during the Q&A sessions. But IMO, I don't think it's a big deal because he can go back and rewatch the video, and there are other team members who can explain to him the question again.

The Twitch Q&A is in real time and Martial has to react in the spur of the moment.  But he has time to go back and rewatch the video, and even ask team members (ie. ask Jane) to clarify the issues after the Twitch Q&A. So I am pretty certain that Martial understands almost all the issues, even though at the Twitch Q&A it looks like he struggles sometimes.

I just look at the bigger picture over the last several years. And IMO, the bigger picture of the last several years is that the MSFS has largely gotten many issues resolved.  It will never be perfect, because on a large and complex software project like MSFS, it's almost impossible to get it perfect in such a short time frame.  Some issues are still left outstanding, but by in large, most of the major issues have been resolved (and hence why MSFS gained so much traction in the last few years).

Edited December 1, 20232 yr by abrams_tank

15 hours ago, chapstick said:

2 guys coding ActiveSky did it and Microsoft can’t. Disappointing. 

Historic weather, at least in Active Sky, is much more than just 24 hrs...

I don't recall exactly how much you can retrocede in date/time, but I used to go as much as 6 months back.

OFC it implies having a database of METAR, SPECI, AIRMET, PIREP, SIGMET, GAMET and TAF for all of the past days and hours, and since none of the publicly available servers has that, even less for free, it implies maintaining servers running for years... 

This is one of my major complaints in present MFS weather, and since I always had an extraordinarily good experience running AS, I would really like to see AS for MFS 2020and / or 2024 happening one day, the sooner the better...

My recent experience with ASP3D and ASP3Dv6 in P3D 5 and 6 revealed how much more coherent the weather is when injected by AS, compared to default MFS Real Weather.

There's presently only one feature lacking in P3D - geopotential height variation due to low / high temperatures.

13 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I think Martial sometimes struggles with English during the Q&A sessions. But IMO, I don't think it's a big deal because he can go back and rewatch the video, and there are other team members who can explain to him the question again.

Yes, of course. I was just talking about the Q&A sessions. It can be a bit frustrating to watch at times when questions aren’t properly answered, not only in his case, that’s all. But at the end if the day it‘s not that important.

Re: historical weather and the specific answer they gave, this was the key quote for me (copied from https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/november-dev-stream-2023-transcription/619372 ) : Microsoft has a relationship with a company called VESTAS. They have something called the VESTAS Climate Database, and we looked at this a fair bit. The issue is that they don’t have worldwide weather. It doesn’t really fit into our system.

For the data providers they work with, whatever historical weather those providers do have is not covered worldwide. Even if MS/Asobo got access to historical METAR across the globe, they'd still need global historical weather data at some decent level of granularity to be able to do similar blending as they do now. I suppose they could blend historical METAR with current live global weather but that makes no sense, but maybe a potential partial solution.

Given historical weather is not a high enough priority for them *and* for the user base given the list of submitted wishlist items, it's not going to get attention soon (I'm part of that majority of users who can live without it).

Also, given the client/server architecture of MSFS and also possibly licensing/legal issues with their weather partners like Meteoblue, they also are not able to (or don't want to) open up the MSFS weather system to write/inject into.. so that for example 3rd party devs who *do* have access to worldwide historical weather could provide an add-on.

Quite frankly (and this is of course my opinion), I'd rather MS/Asobo focus on the core areas of the sim they are focusing on now than spend effort on historical weather. And I'd much rather the default weather is kept improving (like planned in v2024) before they spend effort to open it up for writing by 3rd party devs 🤷‍♂️
 

Edited December 1, 20232 yr by lwt1971