badderjet

Isn’t there some usage indication in the settings? 1 GB/h is roughly 2 MBit/s, that’s way less than the (lowest) recommendation. I think you did. How do you get 5nm at 1000‘ height? I get way more than this. >30 NM to be more precise. The sim would adapt to the speed you have available, at least that’s what I recall they said („adaptive streaming“). If you have 1 or 2 GBit/s that’s good for you but I wonder what for, as there is not that amount of data. Why on earth (pun intended) would ortho data from True Earth stream at 2000 MBit/s from anywhere? That’s 250 MB/s or almost 1 TB/h of scenery. I pretty much doubt any currently available scenery is that complex (nowadays anyway haha).

Nice, so I'm not the only one! 😅 Yeah I loved the PCL and all the other great stuff. Was really fun to play around with. The (FS) world was so simple back then! 😂 Haha, from your lips to God's ears...! No point here. Yes, jetways also make up a tiny portion of airports if you take 37k into consideration and the majority of airports don't have them. Still they are there. Their humans already did go through all 37k airports. You do realize an airport consists of more than what you can see on an ortho, right? There are other sources they (must) use to model their infrastructure. Just speculating, but I'm pretty sure they are not looking at individual pictures outside of the iconic airports. And just as they won't get every line and light "congruently" right at every place on earth, they could very well place parking guidance systems, even if depending on the quality of the respective source they are not accurate in every single case. And if the source is good enough, it will be right in the sim. Very possible. They did it with a lot of other stuff too. Plus they made other things they didn't use themselves available via the SDK already in the past.

I'm quite willing to bet you won't be able to customize them to that extent. On a positive note we've already had the option of alternative runway markings in FSX, available via the SDK. Think of alternate TDZ markings (some UK airports) or alternate thresholds where the runway number was in between the stripes as seen e. g. on some Greek airports. These were already there although I believe they were not used in any stock airport, but at least they were accessible to 3PD. As pointed out above, there are international standards but then again a lot of differences from them occur irl all over the globe. Think of Northern airports, some have yellow markings instead of white. Pretty sure we won't be able to do this out of the box. Even if I wish they had included these options and more variety at least via the SDK.

Well, I get your point but then again I'm not exactly incredibly relieved. 🤣 In the sense of, I would not mind if they did find a way. Other than that, to my understanding from the Airport Episode every airport was done by a human... but yeah the lines are totally messed up. All the way back to the video you could see how messed up they are. Too bad. And yeah, unfortunately it was hard to not notice. 🙄

First of all thank you very much for bringing up this thread. I've been pointing out light issues since a long time and seen no progress along any of the updates, videos, leaks and so forth. Well just for the record, it is very well possible to reintroduce a past bug even with new code. 😂 I think nowhere. They just say the system has been "improved" and that the lights would spawn along runways and taxiways. Although I really think that's what they always did. At that very point in the video the problem is again obvious. Another example is one of the current pre-order background images. And I would definitely say it has to do with taxiway intersections. This is pretty much wrong altogether compared to many real-world examples. Of course I can't comment on the entire globe but from my observations it's usually like this: Whenever a runway has elevated edge lights on those little posts (as we thankfully now have in 3D in MSFS!), they will change to the embedded or inset type whenever necessary, i. e. at taxiway intersections where you have to taxi over the lights. I can't recall any airport that I have seen so far that interrupts edge lights because a taxiway intersects. The same thing applies in other situations, think of displaced thresholds and approach lights. In front of the actual runway surface the lights may very well be of the elevated type. However with a displaced threshold you might use the entire runway for takeoff, hence you need to move the aircraft on ground even in front of the actual (landing) threshold, where the ALS is. Hence, the approach lights will obviously change to the embedded type from the beginning of the physical runway up to the threshold so you can safely taxi on them. Thank you very much, I completely agree. Again something I pointed out several times. I just wish they had implemented these features so at least 3PD could have maximum flexibility in designing their lighting systems using the SDK, even if they would not use these options themselves (think of alternative runway markings, they have been present in FSX and were available via the SDK but AFAIK not used in any of the stock scenery). It's just as you say: usually, especially from high above and outside the "cone" the by far most prominent features will be the apron flood lights IMO. If you are abeam a runway it may be quite hard to see it. The edge lights, even if elevated, may be unidirectional or omnidirectional (I wish they had that as an option in the SDK). Runway and taxiway center line and approach lights are almost exclusively unidirectional, taxiway edges usually elevated and omnidirectional. Unless you are somewhat aligned with them the unidirectional ones are pretty much invisible, especially from distance. Another thing that bugs me is that many parts of the lighting system (especially ALS and center line) would usually be deactivated irl on inactive runways. In FS and probably all other sims they are active all the time, all together, in whatever conditions. If we get a built-in ATC function (where you can act as controller) I'd really have switchable lights (and navaids...) on my wish list in the longer term. Even more, the activation of lights in general could use some major tweaking as well. In clear conditions the lights should be at very low intensity. With fog and low ceilings coming up the sequenced flashes will join in. As these are usually flash tubes they are very bright irl so it's super unrealistic to have them on in a clear night, just as we see it in the sim. Can't say for sure but I believe they are on all the time. Also during daylight CAVOK... I really can't comprehend why this is still unfixed. Same for their duration, even in the latest videos the flashes and the REILs fade in and out unrealistically as they ever have, not giving the realistic impression they should have. Guess there is still work left for the upcoming 10 years.

First of all, I’m SO glad to see many key commands seem to be transferred from FSX. Should feel right at home for most parts. Nice! I still find that „patchy“ ice accretion on the wing weird. It should be a lot more uniform I’d say. The extremely cool thing though that is now confirmed is that the ice will just dry off once you stay in clear air. Superb! Also I love how the displays look in direct sunlight. I think it’s super realistic. That map seems to have a major hiccup though towards the end of that airbus video. Also quite a number of typos and weird usage of (wrong) abbreviations and the like. Hope to see those small things fixed, really not necessary. Oh, and it snows! Not just snow on the ground. One little crazy detail: did you notice as he set the weather to rain and reduced the OAT below zero (and then increased it again) the rain would turn into snow instantly (and back to rain afterwards)? Too bad we haven’t really seen a pushback. It was just too hard it seems. That person should get nowhere near an aircraft.

Slew mode has just been confirmed in one of the latest (should I say live…) leaks. There’s a key command for it and guess what, you’ll already know what it is. 😂 Edit: I might be wrong. It’s sorted in under the „camera“ category, so then I really don’t know. We‘ll see soon enough either way.

Still very interesting to see they still seem to have two versions of the HUD. Whereas I still find the round dial one much more suitable for the props as their VSI goes to +/-2000 fpm only. Plus the ASI color arcs seem to be adjustable. Nice. Hope this makes it into RTW/RTM.

Fine, but are you talking about the standard sim? Skipped P3D so I have no idea what it’s like. Uhm, why would you think most don’t have them? At bigger airports it’s more a rule than an exception, I’d say… or are you talking about the total number of 37k airports? But by that standard you could also say most don’t have jetways so why model them. Yet they’re there (luckily so). In general though, even if they modeled them for some iconic airports, I’d really love if they created the most frequently used systems (which aren’t that many I suppose) and make them available to 3PD scenery designers via some sort of library. That way they’d look consistent everywhere. But then again I have no clue about scenery design. Last time I did that was with FSASM, for the old and grey who remember… 😂

Don’t read too much into it, of course you can hear all possible variations. For 210 as you say it’s way more clear and many would say „two-one-zero“, but I was talking about full hundreds, thousands and the like. But even for numbers like that you will regularly hear „turn left heading two-eighty“, „maintain speed three-hundred or more“, „reduce to one-seventy“ and so on and so forth. Used by controllers and pilots. Certainly, just as you mentioned there are pilots checking in with something like „Airline 123, climbing 5“ or so, but I can’t recall a controller to let them say again for that. Nevertheless it’s interesting to hear a comment from another part of the globe, so thanks for your insight. Listening to LiveATC though, don’t a lot of controllers say stuff like „expect level xxx ten after“ instead of „one-zero minutes after departure“? Believe I’ve heard that a lot. There is tons of other examples that happen 24/7 that don’t adhere to any written standard. To my knowledge any takeoff and landing clearance should state the wind, then the runway, then the clearance. There is a reason behind that. Once certain controllers are in a hurry, they‘ll just start the transmission with „cleared for takeoff“, then probably the runway, and then the wind. Or whatever combination. It’s not as it should be, but it is what it is.

Thousands of hours flying jets around Europe and I can say the exact opposite. Which I already did. Simple as that. Exactly the same for things like QNH 1000, which most will pronounce „Q-N-H one thousand“. Kinda makes sense too. As do countless other examples. And in any way, sadly none of this will be reflected in MSFS.

I am talking about Europe and not once in a lifetime have I heard anyone in any airspace say „level one zero zero“. In this case I‘d even go so far and say it’s standard phraseology, but don’t take my word for it. „Hundred“ and „Thousand“ is. Of course you could run into some weird controller issuing a „heading two zero zero“ but that’s rare.

They’d still say „level one hundred“ for FL100. But I guess that’s just one in the myriad of errors and inaccuracies in the ATC system.

Sure 😂 but I meant the video that I haven't found where apparently wake turbulence effects could be seen.

Well I have to row back quite a bit - I was mainly talking about more recent versions (FSX...), I certainly can't comment on FS4. 🤣 To make this a bit more clear, position freeze could also be used in an FFS when you are, say, on downwind to your landing runway but have malfunctions going on that need to be sorted out. Instead of flying straight ahead and farther away from the airport, at some point the instructor could freeze the position enabling the crew to finish their (sometimes lenghtly...) procedures and checklists in real time without traveling an unnecessary distance. The simulation, aerodynamics and all systems continue to run and operate. That way, once they are done, they don't have to fly all the way back towards the airfield just to land. Just unfreeze, turn base and final for a quick landing. One way to save some expensive sim time.

How so? Does online ATC make this game a sim more than anything else? Don't even bother. He has constantly shown he doesn't know a lot of things, especially when it comes to aviation. Instead his fixation on "undulated" runways and trees remains to this day. So again, why bother. Thank you... Amen to that... Completely agree. That's the exact reason I won't even think one second about replacing my good old Sidewinder FF2 stick and fly all types of aircraft with it, from a sailplane or SEP to a four-engine airliner, as I know I'll never have a "realistic" feeling of any flight model if the hardware isn't capable to reproduce it. For many types I'd have to get powered flight controls to emulate just one aircraft model, which is ridiculous not only financially. So I generally agree to what Rimshot says, but even then it's unrealistic to judge a flight model without the right hardware, even if you do have r/w experience on type. I'm fine knowing about these limitations and I can totally live with them. The stick is a compromise in every possible way, but for me it's the most practical solution. I know I can't have a 100% authentic feel on my desktop, I can have that every day at work.

Not sure if I have seen any 380 so far, but I'll look for it...

Strangely enough I do too. You have a point, even the motion in FFSs is so incredibly different from real life that I would doubt it is utterly useful. But even more I'd say they simply could not handle the vast amount of information and stimuli they'd get bombarded with, that are all virtually non-existent in the simulated world. And also won't be in MSFS. It's an entire different story when you are in a true 3D "VR without the V" environment, not alone in the skies or at the airport, people around you who you need to work with, talk on the radios, operate the systems, fly, manage, navigate, deal with unforeseen circumstances and ideally always be ahead of the aircraft. Many think if they can "fly" whatever aircraft in FS they could do the same irl. Well they could probably "steer" it, to some extent. But that's not what it's about. I fully support your "terrified" hypothesis. Even if we leave non-normals aside: Depending on the situation they'd just get lost within seconds. I agree with a lot of what has been said above. To throw in another 2 cents, it really depends on your definition of a game or a sim. If this product - whatever it may be - is intending to be (or to simulate, see above) a sim, then naturally I'd compare it to a "real" flight sim, of which probably no one would argue it's a game (albeit it could be used for such purposes, which kinda shows how pointless this debate quickly gets...). Nevertheless, to get to the OT's original question, from all we know this product with all its visual glory will still fail to offer a whole ton of functionality and possibilities a "real" sim has. Consequently, I fully support Zeitgeist's answer. The only correct answer is "never", and also MSFS will, if I define it, still be a game. Yet, as someone who has gone the path from FSXX into rw aviation I can say that FS has helped quite a lot along the way, and I intend to use the upcoming version again to train rw procedures. But it's crucial to know the (countless) limitations. All a matter of how you use it. As has been pointed out numerous times. 😅

Maybe I missed it, where's that?

It sure is (I hope). I remember I wrote MS a mail many pages long with a huge wishlist back then, that was 18 years ago. Exactly as you say, with all the stuff I dreamt of. Reading this today really sends me shivers down my spine. It's like we're at >80% of this is finally here (yes it was a long list 😅). I've said it before but I'll say it again: it was worth the wait! No specific instructions, but yes the first alphas and betas were physically sent on discs. Later, I believe that was in the FSX times, the images were available for download as well so you could access them a bit earlier and didn't have to wait for the mail to arrive. Especially if you were overseas.

Yes, that might be the case, but I'm sure you're not alone. As I mentioned it's not one of the functions that were tied to some keystroke by default, but it's always been there and accessible at least from the SDK. Probably even from the key commands list, can't remember for sure. It's entirely different to be in slew, to be in pause or to be in position freeze. Slewing enables to move completely free in 3D space, which we're not seeing in this video. The various position freezes are very standard FFS features, and they are even a bit more granulated than that as there is seperate altitude freeze and lat/lon freeze too. Within these functions the simulation continues to run normally, with the time advancing, the engine and aerodynamics are still working, just the "position freezes", as the name suggests. If it's only a lat/lon freeze for instance, you'd still be flying and controlling the aircraft, fly turns and change your heading with the exception it will remain stationary over the ground. Sometimes this is used in FFSs to quickly change your altitude if you need to. It's entirely different from slewing which puts all the flight physics to a halt. Just as a little insight. However, now that I look at the video again there seems to be a slight movement, if you have a close look at the bridge. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I meant above. Makes sense, as it's obviously part of the NDA.

Ok, might be. Nevertheless simple position freeze with an increased sim rate would have the same effect, even more if you actually don’t want to move away at all. Interestingly enough flight sim had position freeze as a feature like in an FFS but it was never bound to a key command by default.

Not sure how this is an indication of slew mode. He ain't slewing anywhere. Looks way more like position freeze to me. But as it's a basic feature even in FFSs, I sure hope we get that as well. Extremely useful.

Magic wand can do anything, so here it goes: 1. I've said it many times, but since you asked: Fix those airport lighting issues. Finally get those runways look real. Skidmarks, wear and tear. Maybe procedurally generated, whatever. They can't stay as they are now. 2. ATC module. With CPDLC and voice, working com radios and their physics. Fully functional and lag-free shared cockpit. 3. Failure modules and full blown instructor station, inspired by FFS capabilites.

They don't. At least not at that altitude shown, but I get your point. The movements seemed questionable for sure. But I guess we'll have to wait and find out ourselves how the FDX will behave. I think it was great to have many ways of customizing things. Those who don't want to never had to, but those who felt the need were given the opportunity. I beg to differ. 🤣 I'll claim it's quite possible to master both. Pretty sure they are, as they said exactly that in the video. Their creation process is entirely different from the way it was before. Again, we'll have to wait and see as we don't have much footage of the less detailed airports around the globe yet. To make things even more confusing, you are quoting the slide of the video. What he verbally said however, was "37 (sic!) manually edited airports". 😅