9 hours ago, mryan75 said:

Nah. FS2020 came out in August. If they’re saying “later in the year” it’s later than that. 

I believe ca_metal is talking about when they'll give more details/announcements about MSFS 2024, and that could be as late as June given the big XBox event. Given that Jorg has said they'll start revealing more details about MSFS 2024 from Spring this year I'd expect info earlier, but perhaps they'll save the release date announcement and other bits and deeper dives for >= June.  But yes actual release not likely until >= August.
 

Edited February 1, 20242 yr by lwt1971

1 minute ago, ca_metal said:

We weren't talking about the release, we were talking about new info being released. My guess was just about new info (new features, aircrafts, possible release window etc). And yeah, I believe the release will probably be in winter.

Ah, apologies. I misread your comment.

The thing is Jorg said the release won't be in March, "as some people have theorized." (Paraphrasing). I don't know what part of the internet that was because they did say it would come after 2020's SU16 and we're already in February and not even in the SU15 beta yet. I'm still thinking and August release is in the cards.

5 hours ago, MarcG said:

Seb specifically said he'll be looking into this during the previous Q&A, I missed what he said about it last night what did he say?

Edit: November 2023 Q&A;

But I would say, yes, I think the clouds in real weather don’t go in terms of density as far as what you can get in the presets, where you can really push it to extremely dense. So that’s something we’re going to look into if we are correctly using the live weather data in terms of cloud density, if we can push it a little bit further, and maybe also on the meta side. So that’s something definitely we’re going to look into.

Starting at 1:33:20. Question was about progress concerning the bug causing cloud density in live weather being zero (actually zero does not make sense but I think what was meant by the question is the live weather clouds being way too transparent, as they have been for a long time now).
After some seconds of surprised faces and silence first Sebastian said something like "I don't know but we can look..." and then Jörg says: "it was not on top of the list. .... we go from the top down. If you look at the feedback snapshot, which we do every week, we go top down." And that's it. Cannot believe that. Either they somehow got the question wrong, or I messed up and misinterpreted all this and the question is about something else. Don't know, but I was really like "what?!" when I saw this.

I'm really looking forward to the next release after watching that stream.    Some of the optimisations,  especially to the memory and glass cockpits are impressive. 

FWIW, this is the transcript from November's Q&A where they handled the question on cloud density: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/november-dev-stream-2023-transcription/619372 (click on "Turbulence in Live-Weather Clouds" link on right hand side navigation panel)

And what Seb said specifically re: cloud density in live weather:
"... But I would say, yes, I think the clouds in real weather don’t go in terms of density as far as what you can get in the presets, where you can really push it to extremely dense. So that’s something we’re going to look into if we are correctly using the live weather data in terms of cloud density, if we can push it a little bit further, and maybe also on the meteoblue side. So that’s something definitely we’re going to look into."
 

Edited February 1, 20242 yr by lwt1971

I think Seb got bamboozled by the way the question was asked. Especially when zero density was mentioned. I think if transparency was mentioned he would have realized it was a follow up to the question asked in November. Trust me, they know about this issue.

27 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I think Seb got bamboozled by the way the question was asked. Especially when zero density was mentioned. I think if transparency was mentioned he would have realized it was a follow up to the question asked in November. Trust me, they know about this issue.

Yup agreed.. always gotta keep in mind there's still a bit of a language hurdle for them, especially with on-the-spot live questions.
 

Edited February 1, 20242 yr by lwt1971

2 hours ago, Weatherman said:

Starting at 1:33:20. Question was about progress concerning the bug causing cloud density in live weather being zero (actually zero does not make sense but I think what was meant by the question is the live weather clouds being way too transparent, as they have been for a long time now).
After some seconds of surprised faces and silence first Sebastian said something like "I don't know but we can look..." and then Jörg says: "it was not on top of the list. .... we go from the top down. If you look at the feedback snapshot, which we do every week, we go top down." And that's it. Cannot believe that. Either they somehow got the question wrong, or I messed up and misinterpreted all this and the question is about something else. Don't know, but I was really like "what?!" when I saw this.

Ah ok the standard rabbit in the headlights response then, yeah seen this with them before unfortunately. But seeing as Seb had already addressed this I would hope he does understand, guess we'll see.

5 hours ago, Ixoye said:

Did they mention something about the poor download speed on some of their servers?

Yes. They are aware, the company that they contracted for this is also aware, they are working on it.

17 hours ago, eslader said:

These can be frustrating. You see it a lot in racing games that use real-world street cars. The manufacturers assume no one will buy their car if they see it all smashed up in a game. I always thought that silly - I'm not going to assume Porsches suck just because I ran a pretend one into a wall.

 

In Flightsim it's even more ludicrous, especially if they want to use it as a procedural training tool. Don't they want people to be able to practice failure flows?

36 minutes ago, Farlis said:

In Flightsim it's even more ludicrous, especially if they want to use it as a procedural training tool. Don't they want people to be able to practice failure flows?

3rd party developers like Fenix and PMDG are much more free to implement failures. In PMDG's case, they probably got permission from Boeing. For a company like Microsoft though, they have to be much more careful, because they want to cultivate partner relationships, and if the partner aircraft manufacturer does not give Microsoft permission to implement failures, Microsoft cannot do it. In the worst case scenario, if Microsoft ignores a partner aircraft manufacturer, not only will they lose the partnership, but that aircraft manufacturer may sue Microsoft for deliberately ignoring their request.

Even PMDG did not release the 737-Max in the last few years, because Boeing did not give them the green light after the 737-Max accidents. For smaller companies, like some of the smaller 3rd party developers (ie. LatinVFR, iFly, etc), they can probably get away with implementing failures for their products because the aircraft manufacturer don't think they will get a lot of money by going after them. Microsoft is a huge money tree so some of those aircraft manufacturers will probably take Microsoft to court if they think they can get a lot of money, because Microsoft was implementing failures without permission of the aircraft manufacturer.

42 minutes ago, Farlis said:

In Flightsim it's even more ludicrous, especially if they want to use it as a procedural training tool. Don't they want people to be able to practice failure flows?

Especially since the "gaming" simmers are either not going to notice the failure simulations, or are going to be educated enough about aviation matters to understand that just because airplanes sometimes break does not mean they will fall out of the sky. (Yes, I know, Boeing just glanced around nervously and slunk out of the room 😉 )

Including failure modes in simulated airplane products will not move the sales needle either way for the manufacturers.

 

 

19 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

3rd party developers like Fenix and PMDG are much more free to implement failures. In PMDG's case, they probably got permission from Boeing. For a company like Microsoft though, they have to be much more careful, because they want to cultivate partner relationships, and if the partner aircraft manufacturer does not give Microsoft permission to implement failures, Microsoft cannot do it. In the worst case scenario, if Microsoft ignores a partner aircraft manufacturer, not only will they lose the partnership, but that aircraft manufacturer may sue Microsoft for deliberately ignoring their request.

Even PMDG did not release the 737-Max in the last few years, because Boeing did not give them the green light after the 737-Max accidents.

Didn't know that about PMDG and the 737-max. But makes sense I guess. And certainly can understand how MS as the platform provider are under more scrutiny and restrictions as opposed to a 3rd party dev.