6 hours ago, scotchegg said:

I find exactly the opposite. The sun effect means that finally we have sun the behaves like sun to the human eye, and not a super camera able to filter out its bloom. If someone did actually say at Adobe that the sun is very very bright and washes out everything around it, they were exactly right. 

(NB Comments are the author's alone and do not constitute any infringement on the rights of others to freedom of speech)

That's interesting, because aside from modern cameras, the eye can look towards the sun (if it wasn't so dangerous to the eyes) and still see a lot of detail. It is extremely rare to see sunlight that blots out such a big proportion of detail. If I look close to but not directly at the sun outside of my back door in the summer, the cloud edges are still sharp and NOT blown out, and buildings, foliage, trees etc can still be seen with good clarity. Even when the sun is quite low (except for near sunset) you can make out detail around it.

I have never seen the real sun mid afternoon in the summer that blots out everything around it and I can still see detail close to it. Now maybe with an HDR monitor it looks different but on my Non-HDR monitor it looks a blotted out mess!

I think a truism here here is that we're living in a time when tech is advancing rapidly, and Microsoft (and others) are trying new things, thinking new ideas. The leap between MSFS 2020 and the previous FS is huge, and the leap to 2024 is huge as well -- in terms of resources available and what's being attempted. 

Not only is Microsoft trying new things, but we're also living in an era of fast product updates. These aren't the days of FS3 or FS95 when the sim ships on disks or CD ROM, and has to be "perfect" out of the box because updates aren't realistic. I'm sure MS feels emboldened to try new things precisely because updates can come in days or weeks, instead of never, or years.

This is exactly what we saw with 2020 -- a difficult path to a  good, stable product. We're probably seeing this again in 2024; I predict 2024, which is difficult now, will also ultimately be stable and good.

The takeaway is that if you don't like this uncertainty, then don't be an early adopter in a time of massive change. Enjoy FS 2020 during the years 2022-2026, and enjoy 2024 during 2026-2028. Along the way: read reviews, learn what to expect, and be prepared. Given advances in AI, I would expect that MSFS 2028 (if there is one?) will follow exactly the same path, of a more experimental initial offering followed by something stable and even better than what 2024 might become.

I'm practicing what I'm preaching; I haven't bought 2024 yet, and I'm following all these threads with interest to see what the right time to switch might be.

Edited December 4, 20241 yr by prolixindec

12 minutes ago, robert young said:

That's interesting, because aside from modern cameras, the eye can look towards the sun (if it wasn't so dangerous to the eyes) and still see a lot of detail. It is extremely rare to see sunlight that blots out such a big proportion of detail. If I look close to but not directly at the sun outside of my back door in the summer, the cloud edges are still sharp and NOT blown out, and buildings, foliage, trees etc can still be seen with good clarity. Even when the sun is quite low (except for near sunset) you can make out detail around it.

I have never seen the real sun mid afternoon in the summer that blots out everything around it and I can still see detail close to it. Now maybe with an HDR monitor it looks different but on my Non-HDR monitor it looks a blotted out mess!

Wow, that’s so different to what I experience. If I look anywhere near the sun there’s a definite and large area around it where I just can’t make anything out and it’s painful to try.

Also, I haven’t seen anyone else flagging the sunlight as too strong or washing everything else out, so I’m wondering if it is actually something with your setup or screen. I do have HDR, so…

4 hours ago, desbean said:

I don't care in the least about gamey walk-arounds in wavy grass and trees, or the glitchy career mode, and the cold and dark walk around requirement screams "this for Xbox gamers".

This forum has become completely upside down with people making statements like this. Walk arounds are "gamey" now?

Didn't the most hard core simmers ask for a walk around? Checklists and proper walkarounds are critical to flying.

People are so angry now that they will say walkarounds are "gamey"?  What's next, people will start saying "checklists" are also gamey?

 

10 hours ago, scotchegg said:

(NB Comments are the author's alone and do not constitute any infringement on the rights of others to freedom of speech)

😉 Nice one

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

This forum has become completely upside down with people making statements like this. Walk arounds are "gamey" now?

That are opinions and opinions are most welcome! He just wrote that he does not care about walk arounds and in his opinion they are gamey....

And guess what? I do think that MS decided this not only for Walk around airplane purposes.

I did a "open World" walk around yesterday, just because I was a bit curious about the new "world" and I did think, wow.....MS has created a new digital world WITH the POSSIBILITY for other games (shooters etc.) to use their world! 

Other game creators do spent millions of dollars to create their virtual world (shooters, every other simulator, and and and).

And I did mention this already at MSFS 2020 and I do think that MS purposes are much much bigger then we can see atm.

Creating a digital twin could make so many customers who want to use exactly this "streamed" stuff MSFS 2024 offers.

The data gets more precicely, the buildings more creative and better looking, streets, cars, trees al more allive at the moment, and it will get better. The world in 2d/3d (VR) WILL become more and more real looking.

SO maybe MS did wanted to become a more "gamey" plattform, because they can make money with it and THAT will allow US too to have a long lasting FlightSim hobby

(Just my point of view I wanted to share)

Edited December 4, 20241 yr by mpo910

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

This forum has become completely upside down with people making statements like this. Walk arounds are "gamey" now?

Didn't the most hard core simmers ask for a walk around? Checklists and proper walkarounds are critical to flying.

People are so angry now that they will say walkarounds are "gamey"?  What's next, people will start saying "checklists" are also gamey?

 

Hi,

I don't intend to go into whether MSFS 2024 is a game or a simulator now. I think it's a sterile discussion that leads nowhere.

But I would like to make one thing clear: just as for many years there has been the alternative of starting the plane with Control + E or, also, following the whole process: turn battery master on, fuel pumps on, engine master, lights on, etc., etc. Why now in MSFS 2024 isn't there the option to start cold and dark (skipping the walkaround) from outside or inside the plane?

Edited December 4, 20241 yr by John Fields

1 minute ago, John Fields said:

Hi,

I don't intend to go into whether MSFS 2024 is a game or a simulator now. I think it's a sterile discussion that leads nowhere.

But I would like to make one thing clear: just as for many years there has been the alternative of starting the plane with Control + E or, also, following the whole process: turn battery master on, fuel pumps on, engine master, lights on, etc., etc. Why now in MSFS 2024 isn't there the option to start cold and dark from outside or inside the plane?

Not having the option to start cold and dark inside the plane is one thing.

Saying walkarounds are "gamey" is just really silly and poorly thought out, IMO.

2 minutes ago, John Fields said:

option to start cold and dark from outside or inside the plane

I would have this option too indeed. And I think they will implement it. 

Just now, abrams_tank said:

Saying walkarounds are "gamey" is just really silly and poorly thought out, IMO.

Read my post above. I do think MS did create a open world ON PURPOSE, the GAMEY industry is Billions of dollars heavy.

Why does it bother you that a user has used this word "gamey". HE sees it like that and that´s totally fine for me at least.

The bigger the plattform gets, the better for us flightsimmers it will be. Because the plattform gets more and more purpose.

4 Years ago user did bother XBOX was a purpose for MSFS2020, today it has become "state of the art". And now I think MS is on it´s way to make the world digital for EVERYONE who wants to use their digital world. I think Jorg Neumann his plan is BRILLIANT. He thinks BIG and creates a huge customer base, much much bigger then flightsim ever was.

52 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

Read my post above. I do think MS did create a open world ON PURPOSE, the GAMEY industry is Billions of dollars heavy.

Why does it bother you that a user has used this word "gamey". HE sees it like that and that´s totally fine for me at least.

The bigger the plattform gets, the better for us flightsimmers it will be. Because the plattform gets more and more purpose.

4 Years ago user did bother XBOX was a purpose for MSFS2020, today it has become "state of the art". And now I think MS is on it´s way to make the world digital for EVERYONE who wants to use their digital world. I think Jorg Neumann his plan is BRILLIANT. He thinks BIG and creates a huge customer base, much much bigger then flightsim ever was.

Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to walk-around before starting up the plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk-around

The quotes from @desbean was:

Quote

I don't care in the least about gamey walk-arounds in wavy grass and trees, or the glitchy career mode, and the cold and dark walk around requirement screams "this for Xbox gamers"

Walk-arounds are necessary in real life to ensure the safety of the plane. It is not "gamey." Walk-arounds are realistic, and something I would expect to do before I start a plane. If you don't know what I am talking about when I am using the word "walk-around," refer to that Wikipedia article.

In that Wikipedia article, it says:

Quote

In aviation, an outside check or walk around is the air crew inspecting certain elements of an aircraft prior to boarding for security, safety, and operational reasons.

Security, safety, and operational reasons.

If you and @desbean think walk-arounds are "gamey," well, let's just say I disagree with the both of you and we will never agree on this. MSFS 2024 walk-arounds make it more realistic, the fact that you have to check the oil, check the flaps, rudder and ailerons, etc, before you start the plane.

Also, if you or @desbean ever ran a flight school where walk-arounds were not required before starting the plane and flying, I would definitely not attend your flight school!

Edited December 4, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Walk arounds are "gamey" now?

There is a need for checklists in the sim to follow flows, enhance learning of the aircraft and to increase immersion but I'm still trying to understand what isn't "gamey" about a walkaround in the sim when outside damage and wear (other than on PMDGs 777 brake pins) are non existent. You will never see damage to static ports, engine blades, oil leaks or damaged pitot tubes so I fully understand why someone would see it this way, unless of course these are all modelled and active in the sim, if so then that's great.

You could do walkarounds using FSRealistic but once the novelty wore off (after 1 go) with a used aircraft there really wasn't any need or use for it especially when you wanted to just fly the plane.

8 hours ago, LRBS said:

That's plausible and wouldn't be impossible. Some of their airplanes are well-designed, but unfortunately, most are far from what they should be, even with the new "flight physics."
In the end, it is just marketing, and they are quite lucky to have people who do not know better and who still believe in flying an airplane from a passenger seat or even outside the airplane. This is not the purpose of a flight simulator/game, whatever we want to call it.

 

A third party developer for MSFS2020, MarineRM, has publicly stated, "Unfortunately, there is a blockade by Microsoft on non-Marketplace packages that use XML interaction codes in add-ons in the community folder in MSFS 2024. This has been reported as a product blocking bug and they are working on it."

Really, a "bug"?????  No, that absolutely had to be on purpose by Microsoft.  They will maybe fix the "bug" after holidays sales have plateaued.  Microsoft scheduled the release of MSFS2024 to be at the start of the Christmas shopping season.  This speaks volumes. 

I have nothing against Walkarounds, I will probably use it myself in bush flights, but of course it should be optional, if enough people request it, Asobo will probably change it.

56 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to walk-around before starting up the plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk-around

The quotes from @desbean was:

Walk-arounds are necessary in real life to ensure the safety of the plane. It is not "gamey." Walk-arounds are realistic, and something I would expect to do before I start a plane. If you don't know what I am talking about when I am using the word "walk-around," refer to that Wikipedia article.

In that Wikipedia article, it says:

Security, safety, and operational reasons.

If you and @desbean think walk-arounds are "gamey," well, let's just say I disagree with the both of you and we will never agree on this. MSFS 2024 walk-arounds make it more realistic, the fact that you have to check the oil, check the flaps, rudder and ailerons, etc, before you start the plane.

Also, if you or @desbean ever ran a flight school where walk-arounds were not required before starting the plane and flying, I would definitely not attend your flight school!

I think you might be confusing real world preflight safety and readiness checks (including aircraft walk rounds) with MSFS2024's gaming challenge where the avatar has to complete certain tasks before they get to go flying.  By all accounts (I'm not a 2024 user), the challenge is to simply reach the cockpit level by completing the click points, the only consequence of which is that you don't get to go flying unless this challenge is completed correctly. In many ways this is a lead in challenge not unlike a patsy question in a quiz show that any dummy can answer and earn $100 before the game levels get tougher. 

Challenges have purposes including being a motivating factor and if the gauntlet is thrown at you, there is a natural instinct to take it up. The drive to prove yourself motivates people to join in. Participation in activities out of the norm for us is a way to show ourselves as brave, honorable, strong or just plain interesting. They may also have educational purposes. None of which has any bearing on the average flight simmer who simply wants to go flying. 

So yes. It is extremely 'gamey' because: 

1. There is no way to bypass this challenge level.

2. You will never find anything wrong with the aircraft that could really affect safety of flight and so there is no purpose to the walkaround beyond creating an introductory challenge.

Meanwhile your concerns over proper walk rounds is overshadowed by the elephant in the room, ie lack of acceptable ATC. If you really want to talk safety of flight, security and operational implications, then ATC is where the effort should have been placed. But no. MSFS chose the low hanging 'gamey' fruit instead. Of course, there are much larger strategic reasons for this but they are of no relevance to this thread.

 

 Cheers

 

Terry