2024 Premium Deluxe

[Lucky38i 1,110]

8 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Sorry, what?

https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2024-04-18-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html

https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/ais-online

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/AeroProcChartsTOC.htm

 

Personally, I think charts would be an expensive addition to MSFS that only a niche* of flight simmers care about (*a small number of the 12m users of MSFS), plus they're already covered by Navigraph. There are other, wider appealing features that MS can get more bang for their buck, IMO.

Who knows what has happened with Avilasoft, but it doesn't sound like MS did a deal with them. We may find out when MSFS 2024(/5) launches.

You and I can use these links no problem but Asobo will need to sign SLAs with each individual website that provides these. There's no guarantee that all sites want to sign an SLA then there's also costs involved for those who do agree to an SLA. This is not at all free to a business that will require SLAs on these kind of things. Its the same reason one had to be made with Navigraph

[Krakin 5,853]

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

I just think that what with the focus of MSFS 2024 seemingly away from A-B airliner flights and more on 'flights with purpose' e.g. ag flying, medevac, sky crane ops, these type of flights have wider appeal. As such, I expect less focus / fewer resources will be spent on bringing charts to 2024, especially as there's already a solution (such as it costs) provided by Navigraph.

You are leaving out a lot of jobs that do need charts that were shown in the trailer, such as cargo ops, VIP transfer etc. Heck even the medivac would need to use charts. We are also forgetting there's a difference with business to business deals. If MS has to make a deal with an entity like navigraph, they wouldn't be charged for every customer but negotiate a lump sum payment they would both be happy with. MS would decide whether the deal would be cost effective enough to attract more people to the sim and by extension, the marketplace.

One thing that could throw a wrench in my theory is if MS just makes custom charts for each mission BUT Jorg has also said missions can be generated anywhere and whenever. Time will tell lol.

[F737MAX 5,738]

28 minutes ago, Krakin said:

MS would decide whether the deal would be cost effective enough to attract more people to the sim and by extension, the marketplace.

This is the crux of the matter. I don't see the high-level justification of spending time and resources into providing something that, at very best, ¼ of MSFS' total users would be interested in, especially as a lot of whom aren't regular purchasers from the Marketplace.

Nearly every feature MS adds to MSFS is to: bring more gamers to look at Marketplace purchases; improve the digital twin Earth for (as yet unknown) other uses; and, increase the likelihood of enabling commercial-use contracts. Spending resources on charts won't achieve any of these, especially as charts are available through other providers.

I think were at risk of getting carried away again with all the things that MSFS2020 was supposedly going to deliver by default / "no need for add-ons" territory again. MSFS2024 will leave gaping holes to be filled by third-party products, and that's not a bad thing.

[MattNischan 3,872]

10 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Sorry, what?

https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2024-04-18-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html

https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/ais-online

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/AeroProcChartsTOC.htm

Unfortunately, this does not apply here, as these services have restrictions and require paid licensing for these types of commercial uses:

Quote

EUROCONTROL States¹ can have free access to a wide range of these tools and services and are also entitled to obtain assistance under the conditions established in the Support to States Policy. In other cases, the products and services may be chargeable.

 

Quote

The AIS Publications may be displayed and viewed on screen in an unaltered form (which retains this notice) for personal, non-commercial purposes only.  For the avoidance of doubt, personal use does not include use for internal business purposes.

NATS has similar restrictions as well.

[Krakin 5,853]

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

¼ of MSFS' total users would be interested in, especially as a lot of whom aren't regular purchasers from the Marketplace.

Do you think the casual users of MSFS actually care that they're flying planes with the most realistic simulated Garmin units? Do they really care that the A310 or the A320 NEO V2 are a bit more realistic than the average default aircraft? No, they probably don't care but people like us DO care and MS has done those things for people like us. You see, MS/Asobo knows that the foundation to a successful simulator is making the hardcore crowd happy first because what we think matters. They want ALL types of simmers so they need the word on the street to be that MSFS is the best sim out there and it is the word of the hardcore simmers that holds the most weight.

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

increase the likelihood of enabling commercial-use contracts.

The only word we've gotten on that is that they're experimenting and they're not sure if the people in charge will go for it. You can't point at any specific feature in the sim that backs this up since we have no idea what the experimentation entails so the only real conclusion is that everything available to us users so far is there to appeal to US.

 

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

I think were at risk of getting carried away again with all the things that MSFS2020 was supposedly going to deliver by default / "no need for add-ons" territory again.

Absolutely not what I'm getting at. I qualified why I came up with my speculation, using their words/promises, not mine. There are a ton of things the sim delivers by default that most of us never would have imagined in the beginning so it makes more sense to be open minded to the possibilities. They're the ones talking about authentic career experiences. If they have to make that possible there are a lot of things that have to be available out of the box.

Edited May 2 by Krakin

[F737MAX 5,738]

24 minutes ago, Krakin said:

They're the ones talking about authentic career experiences. If they have to make that possible there are a lot of thing that have to be available out of the box.

You don't need charts to do that. Design it so that simmers follow the pre-programmed waypoints (either as arrows/pointers in the sim world or as points in an aircraft's FMC) for a particular scenario.

Say MS has $5 million leftover in its MS2024 dev budget to be spent on: creating even more digital Earth assets; contracting in new default aircraft à la iniBuilds A32N; 'buying' developer time to create more career scenarios; or on licensing charts... I just don't see Jörg getting sign-off on licensing charts.

[Krakin 5,853]

10 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

You don't need charts to do that. Design it so that simmers follow the pre-programmed waypoints (either as arrows/pointers in the sim world or as points in an aircraft's FMC) for a particular scenario.

That sounds far from authentic. "We are not a game". You see the issue here? What you're describing here is scenarios on easy mode with all assistants on.

13 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Say MS has $5 million leftover in its MS2024 dev budget to be spent on: creating even more digital Earth assets; contracting in new default aircraft à la iniBuilds A32N; 'buying' developer time to create more career scenarios; or on licensing charts... I just don't see Jörg getting sign-off on licensing charts.

You have no idea what their budget is or what they can or cannot do. As I said before, I am going by why they have said they want to do. If they mean what they say then you cannot get away from having charts. If they don't have something in place for it then we can have a conversation about what authentic really means to them.   

[CPFL 4]

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

That sounds far from authentic. "We are not a game". You see the issue here? What you're describing here is scenarios on easy mode with all assistants on.

You have no idea what their budget is or what they can or cannot do. As I said before, I am going by why they have said they want to do. If they mean what they say then you cannot get away from having charts. If they don't have something in place for it then we can have a conversation about what authentic really means to them.   

Most of us in this forum try to take the sim seriously and simulate procedures as realistically as we can from our homes. But, it is actually a game.
I interpret the "We are not a game" more as a figure of speech than as the contractual equivalent of "We for sure will include charts and keep them updated".
I will be happy if the future proves me wrong and you are right about this.

[Krakin 5,853]

4 minutes ago, CPFL said:

Most of us in this forum try to take the sim seriously and simulate procedures as realistically as we can from our homes. But, it is actually a game.

Yes, it definitely is a game, no doubt but when I quoted Jorg, I did so understanding the context with which he said it. At the time he was pushing back against the accusation that the career stuff was going to be dumbed down experiences like what 737MAX described above. It can be the case if there are options to reduce the difficulty. Aside from the "we are not a game" statement, Jorg also said they are going to make the experiences as authentic as they possibly can. I'm not saying I'm definitely right about this, I'm just saying there's a high possibility given what they've said.

[F737MAX 5,738]

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

the accusation that the career stuff was going to be dumbed down experiences like what 737MAX described above.

What accusation? I never said anything like "dumbing down experiences." I gave an example of how you don't need all the expensive bells and whistles that the vast, vast majority of people wouldn't use in order to create usable career mode scenarios.

Just shy of 24,000 people responded to the 2023 Navigraph survey. Even if you multiplied that figure by a factor of say, 50, to get 1.2 million geeky users like us who potentially care about charts, that's still only 10% of the total userbase of MSFS. The other 90% see MSFS as a game, why else do landing challenges: a) exist, and b) are scored?

Sometimes your blind defence of all things MSFS really leads you to leaps of logic.

[Tuskin38 6,645]

The sim appeals to all types of sim pilots, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Jetman67 517]

On 4/28/2024 at 7:05 PM, Nuno Pinto said:

I'm not even sure i need the new version, let alone pay 200 for it.

I always get the cheapest version possible, then i'll decide what to buy for it.

totally agree with that probably benefit us all in the long run but its just the next shiny new thing to suck money out of people, did somebody say new phone model lol

[Krakin 5,853]

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

What accusation? I never said anything like "dumbing down experiences."

Speaking of blind, where did you see me saying YOU made any accusation? The accusation was all over the internet which is why Jorg addressed it.

 

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

that's still only 10% of the total userbase of MSFS.

Ah, well observed! So since so few people use charts I guess that would give MS some leverage in negotiations, wouldn't you say? haha!

 

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

Sometimes your blind defence of all things MSFS really leads you to leaps of logic.

What am I really defending here? Just my own speculation. It would be a leap of logic if I didn't have all of the evidence available to make it plausible, both in terms of what they have said and their track record. You're trying to rebutt me based on thing you don't actually know.