31 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

They will now add missions

And? FSX also had missions.

And they're not just 'missions' in 2024, they're simulated scenarios based off things people do in the aviation world daily. They're not going to be 'gamified'.

  

31 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

the already existing races

Based off real life races, things people do IRL. What's wrong with that? It's a Flight Simulator not an Airline Simulator, why is it not allowed to simulate all kinds of flying scenarios?

  

31 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

other aliens-stuff

That stuff is optional, you're not forced to have it.

  

31 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

that it has been advertised as a game

Where? No one from Microsoft or Asobo have ever called it a game in interviews.

  

31 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

and by adressing a wider audience.

What's wrong with attracting more people to our hobby?

  

31 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I‘m happy with XP investing in core-aviation

MSFS is also investing in core-aviation. It has the most accurate garmin avionics simulation in any sim out there.

2024 is going to have a foreflight inspired flight planning system and full airport charts.

It has a ton of things for the 'core' simmers.

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

42 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

What part do you disagree with?

MSFS wasn't advertised as a game; I remember the team explaining in the the early presentations they were very serious in their attempt to create a simulator that would appeal to the 'serious simmer' as much as to casual players. They have come very far and I cannot wait to see what MSFS 2024 will bring. I'm convinced there will be significant improvements in all the areas that 'serious simmers' find necessary, I'm expecting the new flight model to be a lot better for instance, although the current one isn't really that bad as you want us to believe. At least that's my experience as a GA sim pilot.

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Rimshot

OK, you guys, meaning the ones missing most of their posts because they insist on bickering back and forth!  Get
ready for the 💩 to hit the fan!  Get my drift?? ☠️

3 hours ago, Franz007 said:

BB711 streams where he had to explain to you how basic MSFS’s flightmodel was compared to XP although you seemed to have difficulties accepting facts from one of the most experienced airline-pilots around that uses different sims and isn’t biased. Again, just funny 😅

MSFS flight model is great, developers just have to take advantage of it. 2024 is also improving it even more.

There are IRL C172 pots who say MSFS2020’s C172 flight dynamics feel accurate 

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

On 8/9/2024 at 12:08 PM, Sethos said:

You are old fashioned. Absolute waste to create a platform that's essentially a world twin and not take advantage of it by branching out, allowing more venues of exploring and enjoying it. That's short-sighted. Just like I'd love to see water physics improve to a point where you could turn the entire thing into a potential ship simulator as well, the potential is there. I thank the stars the sim has the resources and the studio / higher-ups have the interest in creating a product that reaches beyond just a tunnel-visioned flight simulator -- Especially because a function like walking around still has many flight simulator uses.

Back to the topic, I’ve been saying here I would expect the platform to be more than a flight simulator. Would be nice to see train simulator and combat flight simulator using the same engine. 
 

Also they could release new franchises like ship simulator and a truck simulator. It has potential, but they need to evaluate the ROI for those endeavors.

There’s already been one warning about arguing amongst yourselves rather than discussing the topic title.

This topic is likely to get locked unless discussion changes.

Let's all just have a cup of tea

15 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

El modelo de vuelo de MSFS es genial, los desarrolladores solo tienen que aprovecharlo. 2024 también lo está mejorando aún más.

Hay expertos en C172 de la vida real que dicen que la dinámica de vuelo del C172 de MSFS2020 parece precisa. 

Especially in the behaviour of the last 50 feet and on the ground....

 

Everyone looks for a different thing in a simulator, for me Asobo still has a lot of work to do in physics and real flight model, if the advanced flight model was as accurate and as well used by some of the developers as some people here say A2A would not be as far away from the others as it is right now.

On 8/9/2024 at 2:11 PM, Rocky_53 said:

Hmm, call me an old fashioned git... but I would be happier if the devs concentrated their efforts in continual support and development of a flight simulator, rather than adding a load of elements that can be found in other computer games. If I wanted to walk around, go for a swim and make myself breakfast after spending the night in a tent, then I wouldn't buy a flight simulator! 

I've just been reading through this thread and, like you, questioning the need for external walk arounds. However, imagine you were doing a career in bush flying ( as just one example). You land on some remote airstrip in the hills of Papua New Guinea, switch off, and while the aircraft is uloaded, you go for a walk round. You can hear the birds and insects, the rustle of leaves in the breeze, maybe the sound of rain or distant thunder. Then you go back to the aircraft, and do the pre-flight walk around. The scenery in MSFS is incredible to see, and think how much more would be added to it, simply by being able to walk round the airfields. Imagine how much that would add to the immersion of your simulated career.

Or even just driving from your home to the local flying club, and walking out to your own personal Tiger Moth or Spitfire! 😉

Immersion is what matters. It is why I love detailed terminal interiors. It is also why I am so disappointed when I see low resolution textures/melted PG buildings/lack of terminal interiors/misaligned runway markings/rubbish default assets used to represent museum aircraft models/mismatched colouration of photoscenery/blurry super secret French naval dockyards/those word not allowed land bars across estuaries and river mouths. All of the latter serve to smash that sense of immersion and realism into tiny pieces, and then shove it in my face to make sure that I see MSFS as just a game, and not a simulation of the real world

EDIT: For the record, this is not a criticism of MSFS in general. I am talking about isolated locations and a handful of addons. The vast majority of my time in MSFS is spent in immersive heaven

Edited August 17, 20241 yr by Christopher Low
Clarification

On 8/9/2024 at 6:30 AM, Rocky_53 said:

But my point is, the more elements added to the simulator, then less time and resources are spent on the flight element, surely.

The flight element is already very good, has continually been improved since launch, and is absolutely going to be improved in v2024.

v2020 is among the best "flight element" simulators of all time (even for flight model absolutists like me).

Len might pop by and talk about how so much of a good "flight element" is up to the addon developers taking full advantage of the sim's already impressive capabilities. Or making their own...

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

The flight element is already very good, has continually been improved since launch, and is absolutely going to be improved in v2024.

v2020 is among the best "flight element" simulators of all time (even for flight model absolutists like me).

Len might pop by and talk about how so much of a good "flight element" is up to the addon developers taking full advantage of the sim's already impressive capabilities. Or making their own...

Hehe you guessed right 🙂 ... It is indeed the aircraft developers that ultimately determine how good or bad an FM for a particular aircraft is. As evidenced by numerous aircraft out there and in some in the default fleet, great flight models are indeed possible in MSFS, despite all the usual talking points by the usual suspects. Of course MS/Asobo can improve on the current platform SDK and toolkit to make it easier for aircraft devs, and that's one of the things they're focusing on in MSFS 2024. But what the platform provides currently, be it the CFD or the non-CFD framework, in the hands of the right devs some great flight dynamics can be achieved (a few of the many examples: Fenix V2, PMDG 777/737, iniBuilds A300, the default Citation Longitude, etc). In addition to making the development of FMs easier, the only other area IMO they need to improve on is the ground handling physics (already partially addressed in MSFS SU15 and full rework coming in 2024) and the ground<->air transition modelling (haven't heard anything specific about this in 2024 discussions so far, but we might in a future deep dive by MS/Asobo).

And yes, like with every other sim currently and before, if an aircraft developer decides to go completely or partially external to the sim with their FM, then they are in complete control and can achieve the best possible FM for their particular birds.. like A2A have done. Fenix's Aamir said it best of the MSFS flight dynamics engine and toolkit here when this topic about A2A was brought up before: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-4990988

This thread is hilarious. People complaining about a £59.99 piece of home entertainment software (MSFS) not having incredible globalised flight modelling when even £30m+ level-D sims, specific to type, built from real aircraft test data, don't feel like the real thing. 

A2A had to go external in places to build it to their standards, which is understandable, because they're brilliant and build a brilliant product. What I don't get is people taking that and spinning it into "Asobo sucks!", yeesh. We had to go external on our engines and a portion of our flight model too, in this next update. It doesn't mean Asobo sucks. It means we, as developers, have specific needs and requirements from our product that we want to see - and that we can go build it ourselves. I don't think anyone railing on Asobo understands what a monumental task it is to have an FDE that is just bang on perfect for every single type of aircraft out there - including helicopters, gliders, etc, out of the box by default, and globalised. Insanity. 

p.s if anyone manages to do the above, perfect globalised modelling, and it's capable of running on anything less than a super-computer in real time, you're probably sat on a few billion dollars in training contracts - forget the piddly consumer market 🙂


The silly narrative that MSFS doesn't focus on "core aviation" or that its flight dynamics are so far behind certain other sims etc etc just keep falling flat in the face of reality, and sounds sillier and sillier each day MSFS and its collection of default and 3rd party aircraft collection forge ahead in systems, avionics and flight dynamics depth. It might've worked in the early days of MSFS when all we had was the initial default fleet, but no longer.
 

Edited August 17, 20241 yr by lwt1971

24 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Not entirely correct. Over 80% of XP12 is new code as they have stated. MSFS still uses code form FSX. So no one of both are 100% new.

That now how software engineering works . If they use only 20% of original code you probably looking forward many years of writing new one lol

4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Immersion is what matters. It is why I love detailed terminal interiors. It is also why I am so disappointed when I see low resolution textures/melted PG buildings/lack of terminal interiors/misaligned runway markings/rubbish default assets used to represent museum aircraft models/mismatched colouration of photoscenery/blurry super secret French naval dockyards/those word not allowed land bars across estuaries and river mouths. All of the latter serve to smash that sense of immersion and realism into tiny pieces, and then shove it in my face to make sure that I see MSFS as just a game, and not a simulation of the real world

EDIT: For the record, this is not a criticism of MSFS in general. I am talking about isolated locations and a handful of addons. The vast majority of my time in MSFS is spent in immersive heaven

There's many things to be fixed, for sure.

But - by leagues and leagues - MSFS is the most deeply immersive flight sim ever created. Not to mention the fact that it's that way right out of the box, with $0 extra spent and 00:00:00 spent getting it that way.

FWiW, I loathe detailed terminal interiors. But that's only because I spend waaaaay too much time sitting around in them 😂

7 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

I'm wondering what benefit "every" lighthouse brings.

I imagine lighthouses can be used as VFR landmarks.

And I doubt they're taking devs away from creating accurate scenery, it's probably a separate team.

Edited August 17, 20241 yr by Tuskin38