MSFS tops Navigraph 2023 survey results

[Ricardo41 5,959]

This thread is pure Avsim gold. 

Mentioning the term "casual simmers" within the Avsim filter bubble is like dangling garlic in front of a vampire's face of sprinkling him with "holy water". Folks literally explode!

Why is anyone getting agitated about the fact that the majority of people who use MSFS 2020 are using it to have fun? I bet many of those casual simmers are "real world pilots" who just like to flop down on their sofas and noodle around with their xbox controller. 

[abrams_tank 7,474]

2 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

This thread is pure Avsim gold. 

Mentioning the term "casual simmers" within the Avsim filter bubble is like dangling garlic in front of a vampire's face of sprinkling him with "holy water". Folks literally explode!

Why is anyone getting agitated about the fact that the majority of people who use MSFS 2020 are using it to have fun? I bet many of those casual simmers are "real world pilots" who just like to flop down on their sofas and noodle around with their xbox controller. 

Yes, this is what g-liner said earlier about how the real life pilots in their airline are using MSFS:

 

[abrams_tank 7,474]

8 hours ago, Scottoest said:

I would imagine it goes beyond just sheer cost.  It would require a level of direct access to Google's satellite data that I don't believe Google really give anyone - and yes, it would be expensive too.  And because XP's overall userbase is a small fraction of the size of MSFS, you can't dilute the cost through economy of scale.

MSFS having streamed mapping data was a very specific synergy that is pretty much unique to Microsoft alone - a company that owns Bing Maps, plus Azure cloud to distribute the information to a large userbase, plus makes their own flight simulator.  And because they're all "in house", they can choose to eat these costs, or price them at cost.  Plus work done to expand or improve Bing Maps feeds into better data for MSFS, and work done to process that information for MSFS can flow the other way back to Bing Maps.

LR would be Google's customer, and Google would demand a pretty penny for that kind of access PLUS the server infrastructure to disseminate it to end-users.

I also want to add that the MSFS team and Blackshark AI do treat the satellite map data, to make the scenery even better when it's used in MSFS. Blackshark AI replaces the 2D satellite houses in the satellite data with 3D houses. I believe Blackshark AI is also replacing some of the vegetation (ie. bushes) in the 2D satellite data with 3D vegetation. Mind you, when I say Blackshark AI, it may be a combination of Blackshark AI and the MSFS team that is doing this - I don't know exactly where the responsibility is divided between Blackshark AI and the MSFS team.

I just checked auto-ortho for XP 12 and while it is definitely an improvement over the default scenery, it has a lot of issues. For example, the terrain and bushes are flattened because there is no Blackshark AI treatment. Then you have tile misplacement like this. Still, it's pretty decent for something that is free. 

The Google mod for MSFS also has its share of problems.  Here is an example of sudden tile switching at a certain height that really breaks immersion. I think I have also seen issues with shorelines in the Google mod where the water/waves was just a snapshot image of the satellite data and the water/waves did not blend with the shoreline at all. The default MSFS terrain using Bing data does not have these issues.

That's not to say the terrain in MSFS generated by Blackshark AI and the MSFS doesn't have it fair share of problems.  For example, there is still the problem of flattened ships and yachts in various marinas in MSFS from the satellite data that the Blackshark AI and MSFS team have not fixed yet. And while Blackshark AI and/or the MSFS team have removed some of the flattened 2D cars in the satellite data, you can still see the flattened 2D cars from time to time (as well as some flattened planes once in a while).

However, I believe these issues with flattened ships, flattened cars, and other issues with the terrain, will get better over time because Blackshark AI and the MSFS team are being paid to massage the satellite data better, as well as improving the photogrammetry. IMO, this is the difference between having a paid professional team improve it versus not having a paid team to improve it (it's uncertain if Google will replace the flattened cars - the flattened cars are very, very, noticeable in the Google mod and it's very immersion breaking).  For me at least, the default terrain for MSFS when Bing data is enabled, is the best experience - the terrain has been treated by Blackshark AI and the MSFS team, and immersion wise, it's the most immersive - but this is expected since a paid professional team has worked to make it better.  Already, it seems like in the MSFS 2024 terrain demo, there is an improvement with the terrain, and that is another perk of having a paid team working to improve the terrain in MSFS 2024. I think that Microsoft may use the MSFS engine for other applications (ie. train simulator, truck simulator, etc), so I think that's why Microsoft is working on making the terrain more and more realistic, and MSFS will benefit from further enhancements to the terrain engine as time progresses.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by abrams_tank

[Christopher Low 5,393]

17 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

.....That's not to say the terrain in MSFS generated by Blackshark AI and the MSFS doesn't have it fair share of problems.  For example, there is still the problem of flattened ships and yachts in various marinas in MSFS from the satellite data that the Blackshark AI and MSFS team have not fixed yet. And while Blackshark AI and/or the MSFS team have removed some of the flattened 2D cars in the satellite data, you can still see the flattened 2D cars from time to time (as well as some flattened planes once in a while)......

Displaying standard autogen buildings at oil terminals instead of circular tanks is one aspect that has surprised me. I would have thought that this would be a relatively easy fix.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Christopher Low

[Ricardo41 5,959]

IMHO, flight simulation is about so much more than just "is this switch modeled correctly" or "real hardcore simmers vs. casual simmers".

Simulation of flight is an excellent tool to teach about the following:

- flight physics - why do planes fly at all?
- technology
- weather
- navigation
- geography
- history
- literature
- art
- architecture (airport design)
- Light
- customer service
- team work aka crew resource management
- communication
- air traffic control (at least the rough basics)
- languages
- time
- Culture
I bet you could put together an entire high school / college curriculum based on a flight simulator (it doesn't really matter which one).

I think that's a hell of a bargain for a game that costs roughly 70 bucks!

Edited December 31, 2023 by Ricardo41

[Grisu 23]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:12 PM, ryanbatc said:

I'm a father with 4 kids, a real world pilot and ATC.  I wrote casual gaming on my response.  At this stage in my life I don't need every single switch and button operational...nor do I have time for it.  It doesn't mean I don't buy the high end addons or don't try to simulate real flight...I just means that I'm typically on for a short flight where I probably start on the runway.  4 years ago I was in a different place and I did want to simulate more.  And in 4 more years when my older kids are out of the house maybe I'll be back to that.

The point is - everyone is in a different state of flightsim - it's not bad if you're casual.

Additionally the sim, with certain addons, will absolutely support incredibly in depth simulation.  MSFS2020 has come a long way since release!

Yea, I can understand you !!!  For me as a former professional heli-pilot I can say: the more you have to deal with procedures, checklists, ATC and all this stuff in your real life, the more I got annoyed by all these "bondages" and retards.

Pure flying in its essence has nothing to do with "study-level-simming and procedure stuff ".  Look at the birds: they don't care about any clearance or ATC.  With their "build-in" avionics they even don't bother about instruments.

During the "Golden Age of Aviation", which I would call the period from the beginnings/WWI till the mid-/late 1930's pilots could do whatever they want and land wherever they want in most cases.  Even refuling during this times of FREEDOM was quite easy, because aircrafts and cars run the same gas.

The more aviation progresses into the future, the less freedom a pilot has, and the more he evolves away from a pilot into some kind of PC-system-manager or "drone-supervisor".

It's really sad 😟 .  But here lies the beauty of good flight-simulators.  In a flightsim you can still choose to fly without the boundaries of modern aviation, some call it casual .... I would call it the "Longing for Freedom" 🤩.

All the best to all of you dear hardcore and casual simmers,

and a happy new year 2024 💥

[tonywob 4,770]

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Displaying standard autogen buildings at oil terminals instead of circular tanks is one aspect that has surprised me. I would have thought that this would be a relatively easy fix.

This was something I got working to some degree for the Orbx TrueEarth XP and World2XPlane (Used in Simheaven) sceneries. If the building was round and in an industrial zone, there was a high probability it was a tank. It worked pretty well, but also there were occasionally funny ones such as unusually shaped houses becoming oil tanks. 

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Blackshark AI replaces the 2D satellite houses in the satellite data with 3D houses. I believe Blackshark AI is also replacing some of the vegetation (ie. bushes) in the 2D satellite data with 3D vegetation

Correction on this.. it doesn't replace anything. Blackshark.ai created an additional 3D layer that sits on top of Bing aerial imagery. In fact, Blackshark's tech is now being used outside of MFS and is no longer exclusive: These should look familiar to anyone used to MFS's autogen, and other developers can also use it (for a license fee of course).

 

[JRBarrett 3,128]

4 hours ago, jarmstro said:

That's very interesting. Thanks.

However, even at £10000 per aircraft its still a minor part of the overall running costs. Whereas in a flight sim Navigraph is by far the greatest cost way above the cost of the plane itself.

 

True, but that cost is spread out. Charts aside, if you have a Navigraph nav data subscription, that one subscription allows you to update nav data for almost every 3rd party aircraft in multiple sim platforms. In my case, I update the core nav data for MSFS itself as well as XPlane core nav data, and custom AIRACS for Little Nav Map, PMDG, Fenix,  Aerosoft CRJ, Leonardo Maddog and Aerowinx PSX (which is a stand-alone sim). It also automatically gives you the latest AIRAC when logged into SimBrief.

The yearly cost for my Navigraph Ultimate subscription is less than what I pay my ISP monthly just to have access to the internet, which of course is a prerequisite to use MSFS.

[abrams_tank 7,474]

6 hours ago, tonywob said:

Correction on this.. it doesn't replace anything. Blackshark.ai created an additional 3D layer that sits on top of Bing aerial imagery. In fact, Blackshark's tech is now being used outside of MFS and is no longer exclusive: These should look familiar to anyone used to MFS's autogen, and other developers can also use it (for a license fee of course).

Ahh, thanks for this information. In any case, I think this still reinforces my point.  The Google satellite data isn't enough. A company like Blackshark AI is still needed to massage the satellite data.

So even if Lockheed Martin, or Laminar Research, or whatever company wants to get into flight simulation, if they want a more comprehensive and more immersive world and they already have the base satellite data (ie. Google satellite data), they would still probably need to massage the satellite data the way that Blackshark AI is massaging it, so they would need to hire a company like Blackshark AI, on top of the satellite data that they already have access to.

[David Mills 4,774]

26 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Ahh, thanks for this information. In any case, I think this still reinforces my point.  The Google satellite data isn't enough. A company like Blackshark AI is still needed to massage the satellite data.

So even if Lockheed Martin, or Laminar Research, or whatever company wants to get into flight simulation, if they want a more comprehensive and more immersive world and they already have the base satellite data (ie. Google satellite data), they would still probably need to massage the satellite data the way that Blackshark AI is massaging it, so they would need to hire a company like Blackshark AI, on top of the satellite data that they already have access to.

I rarely go into an XP forum. But whenever I do read their websites and postings, they're almost invariably discussing some tortured, highly-contrived, ankle-behind-the-ear, Rube Goldberg method of trying to replace XP's default scenery to look like MSFS. 

[JBDB-MD80 1,487]

1 hour ago, David Mills said:

I rarely go into an XP forum. But whenever I do read their websites and postings, they're almost invariably discussing some tortured, highly-contrived, ankle-behind-the-ear, Rube Goldberg method of trying to replace XP's default scenery to look like MSFS. 

I and other folks here should not have not problem with that, should they? I'm pretty sure P3D users try to make their simulators look the best they can too.

Edited December 31, 2023 by JBDB-MD80

[simbol 5,832]

13 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

This thread is pure Avsim gold. 

Mentioning the term "casual simmers" within the Avsim filter bubble is like dangling garlic in front of a vampire's face of sprinkling him with "holy water". Folks literally explode!

Why is anyone getting agitated about the fact that the majority of people who use MSFS 2020 are using it to have fun? I bet many of those casual simmers are "real world pilots" who just like to flop down on their sofas and noodle around with their xbox controller. 

I think is a miss conception of the data/ question. I mean when was the last time someone loaded P3D, XP or MSFS and said I am not going to have fun this time 🙃. 

Also who said training is not fun? For someone that loves aviation receiving training or providing it is just pure pleasure.

So when people say they using the platform to have fun, it just means that, flight simulators are amazing, what else you can respond lol.

R.

[JBDB-MD80 1,487]

Flightsims are a entertainment product PERIOD and I question those who think otherwise unless you go out and purchase a Professional licensed copy only available for (XP or P3D) and use the necessary hardware for actual training purposes anything other than that is for learning, having fun or curiosity but should not be taken seriously for real world training. That is my 2 cent opinion so have fun in any (70$) simulator or simulators you choose to use.

Edited December 31, 2023 by JBDB-MD80

[scotchegg 4,241]

13 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Displaying standard autogen buildings at oil terminals instead of circular tanks is one aspect that has surprised me. I would have thought that this would be a relatively easy fix.

Not sure, but I think the WeLoveVFR packages might replace them?

[turbomax 3,307]

is it never good enough:

is it never beautiful enough ?

Edited January 1 by turbomax