1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

when they know 90% of the CPU cycles go to rendering visuals. 

That's not how computers work.

42 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

That's not how computers work.

To be fair, that's how they did... 25 years ago. 

Some people being very much behind the times in their assessment of flight simulators appears to be a very common theme. 

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

So I wouldn't be surprised if MSFS 2024 comes up with an even more web / cloud-based model where the aircraft models have their core run remotely, and the user station simply updates coordinates in the World and gives input regarding control surface commands, thrust, ...

I hope not, the amount of server issues this year coupled with any sort of lag from the servers (seen all the time when PG/ground textures fail to load for example) would result in a mess of a flight model barely working correctly.

I can see something like this in the future for sure, but it's far too early for me with the new release. They need to get a proper grip of cloud simulation still, there's far too many holes as seen with the current Sim over the past four years. Yes it has been a next gen style move that for the most part has worked very well indeed, but it's too early to push fundamental core elements like physics to the cloud just yet so these need to remain local to the user.

10 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Like I said before, I don't care what Asobo/MS do with the flight dynamics/friction code, just make sure I can't land a 747 at St. Bart.  Just fudge it and make the numbers work or close to real life.

Are you talking about the default 747? If so that speaks nothing about the core sim dynamics. Are you able to land quality/high-fidelity large aircraft like the Fenix A320, PMDG 737, PMDG 777, iniBuilds A300, default AAU-enhanced 787, etc at St. Bart? (without any MSFS assistance settings turned on of course). If so please show us exactly how that's done.
 

11 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

At least they are going to introduce failures in MSFS 2024 ... something we've enjoyed in other simulators going back decades.  Damage would be nice also and persistent damage ... again something we had from A2A many moons ago in other platforms.

Default failures in the core sim is always nice, but full failure simulation always comes down to the systems simulation depth of each aircraft. And not quite sure what your point about persistent damage is, yes it's been in simulated in the likes of some aircraft like A2A's for decades (as A2A have also done in their aircraft for MSFS). 
 

11 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

I don't want more "free" stuff by default, I want 3rd party developers to thrive and survive and I'll pay for their highly detailed work, just make sure they have the SDK that lets them do that.  What does puzzle me is the push for "missions" ... who asked for missions?  Missions were never really popular in any other platform and I don't see many people demanding more missions on the many forum?  So where did the "more missions" come from?

Ok that's your opinion, and other users likely have other opinions/needs. The good thing is, with the team MS/Asobo have, multiple things are possible and doable. Doing "free stuff" like missions doesn't mean the SDK doesn't get attention. And as can clearly be seen with MSFS 2020 so far, third party developers *are* thriving, the SDK has improved a lot since initial release (to the point that all major devs are able to release the kind of aircraft they want), and it's about to get even better with MSFS 2024.

Just because other sim platforms have/are done/doing things a certain way doesn't mean that's the only way it can be done. With the deep pockets of MS, and MSFS's financial success, and the large core team along with the network of various 3rd party dev partnerships MS/Asobo have, it's all about the breaking the stale norms of yesteryear.. and more power to them!
 

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

Just because other sim platforms have/are done/doing things a certain way doesn't mean that's the only way it can be done. With the deep pockets of MS, and MSFS's financial success, and the large core team along with the network of various 3rd party dev partnerships MS/Asobo have, it's all about the breaking the stale norms of yesteryear.. and more power to them!
 

This! What would be the point to just do what others are already doing? There's a reason MSFS has 10x the number of users of all other sims together. MSFS' business model is more pro-consumer than the others.

5 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

This! What would be the point to just do what others are already doing? There's a reason MSFS has 10x the number of users of all other sims together. MSFS' business model is more pro-consumer than the others.

Exactly. MSFS is so successful exactly because he broke the conventions of what other simulators have done, achieving audiences that can be defined "niche" at best. 

7 minutes ago, Abriael said:

Exactly. MSFS is so successful exactly because he broke the conventions of what other simulators have done, achieving audiences that can be defined "niche" at best. 

Yeah. And I think missions/career mode will be another step to cater to a wider user base. I have no scientific evidence, but anedoctal evidences (based on friends of mine that didn't care about Fsimulation) make me believe this will allow them to reach a new audience.

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by ca_metal

3 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

this will allow them to reach a new audience.

Oh, it will.

And we all know that this terrorizes some people. 

13 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Like I said before, I don't care what Asobo/MS do with the flight dynamics/friction code, just make sure I can't land a 747 at St. Bart.  Just fudge it and make the numbers work or close to real life.

Not sure whether somebody told you before, but that is 100% the fault of the addon and not of the sim. Or, can you land the pmdg 777 there too?

Depending on how the 747 is coded you can land it everywhere.

It's funny as hell that people blame MSFS for being able to landing plane X on impossible runway Y, when YouTube is full of videos doing just that in ALL major simulators. 😂

That silly trend for teletubbiers is as old as the sun. 

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by Abriael

55 minutes ago, Abriael said:

people blame MSFS for being able to landing plane X on impossible runway Y

talk about sim mission impossible: last time I flew in a Level-D B737 simulator at Boeing we ran out of fuel because we continued from where the previous session had finished without refueling first. a few minutes into the flight we then ran out of fuel and the simulator and all motion came to an abrupt stop, the flight completely froze in mid-air, an alarm bell went off and the technician/instructor came in and reset the alarm, fuel, motion and the rest of the sim and we continued just like hitting the un-pause button in MSFS. try this in a real B737 over St. Barth. 🤣

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by turbomax

This should be a fun one.

8 minutes ago, SergioCosta said:

This should be a fun one.

My F5 key and helisimmer.com are going to become very acquainted with each other >= Sep 19 🙂 
 

14 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Like I said before, I don't care what Asobo/MS do with the flight dynamics/friction code, just make sure I can't land a 747 at St. Bart.  Just fudge it and make the numbers work or close to real life.

What people forget, you have no crash simulation. Pretty sure that those vids showing a 747 being landed on St. Barths have crash detection turned off and together with the fact that MSFS does not even simulate crashes when turned on, you can basically slam-land a 747 everywhere. In reality, you might have shattered your 747 all over the place (or crashed, however you will call it), in MSFS it simply stands on your runway. Now you can either blame MSFS for not properly representing such a "landing" or just accept it as a limitation of current sims. 

You can drive your car with 300km/h into a concrete wall in most racing sims and the 3D model of the car will NOT look anything like the real thing would look when you do this. You call the entire sim then being physically inaccurate? I guess not...

What you want is a visual correct depiction of a crashed airplane. And it 100% contradicts your own statement of MSFS basically "wasting" resources for visuals...

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

My F5 key and helisimmer.com are going to become very acquainted with each other >= Sep 19 🙂 
 

I'm sure they're not the only ones, so you'll have plenty of fun. Don't destroy that F5 key. 

1 hour ago, AnkH said:

What people forget, you have no crash simulation. Pretty sure that those vids showing a 747 being landed on St. Barths have crash detection turned off

Yeah. Basically every teletubbier showing off how their fantastic feats of wonder in MSFS have collisions off, and it's 100% obvious. So yeah. If you were able to slam a 747 down on Lukla's runway at 4000 ft/s vertical rate without crashing, and your wings and fuselage were made of nothing so you could simply roll through the obstacles around the runway, it'd likely be "possible" to land a 747 there and stop before you hit the back wall (not that it'd do anything if you did).

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by Abriael