Jump to content

GGLurch

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No
  1. And also, MSFS2020 has to be actively keept alive by MS due to the massive amount of data-streaming involved. FSX was released in 2006 and e.g. the PMDG 737 was released in 2011, 6 years after the FSX release. Thats a lot of years of active support needed for a niche simulator. To be fair here, mainstream support for FSX SP1 by MS ended in 2015 (well, accoding to MS, service pack support ended in 2008), however, we still can use FSX and products were deleveloped after 2015. I think that MS/Asobo will jump into the DLC market for sure (they want to make money of it like everybody else) - but imho, there is a very limited market for high-level DLC in the Majestic/PMDG/ORBX price range, especially considering X-Box customers. So, I think the focus will be on lighter aircraft and scenery. But then again, each DLC will be a one-time sale, but the need to provided streaming-data persists. Furthermore, with a release of a full SDK, MS/Asobo will actively invite competition into the DLC market. So developers can release DLC and earn money, while MS has to provide a server infrastructure and the streaming capacity. For years to come... I cannot see this is an valid business model without some sort of a subscription model here, at least not for the next 14 years (like e.g. FSX). So I kind of question the whole "long-term" thing... but I am ready to be proven wrong! Another thing - beside the streaming of the satellite data - the AI calculations for the building generation - is that done locally on my PC or is that calculated on a e.g. MS Azure server and part of the streaming data? Nico
  2. Hi, I am not posting often here but follow the community here a lot of years now... After following the MSFS 2020 launch here in the forums, your comment is the one that is to the point. This is excactly my expression too. Basically, that is alright with me if 3rd party developers bringing the sim to a level I was expecting in the first place when MSFS 2020 was annouced. But the problem with that is - this sim will require access to the MS Bing Maps database constantly. So if I buy MSFS2020 - I never have to pay again to actually stream a lot of data for every flight over a lot of years to come? (hopefully) And looking at the information about the actual data traffic - thats is a lot of data... for every, single user. E.g. PMDG launched the 737 in 2011 - that's 5 years after FSX came out. I feel, that was in general the time the high-level sim software for FSX started to really take off. (I know, the MD11 was really nice too - but the 737 was/is truly a masterpiece). That is a long time if this will be similar with MSFS2020 since (in my understanding) the new sim has to be keept actively alive by MS. Furthermore, I am concerned about the actual base flight modeling provided with the sim e.g. atmospheric physics, aerodynamic modeling, and so on. Sure MSFS2020 is advertised with an "aerodynamic model with over 1000 control surfaces" - but yet, there does not seem to be a single default plane showing off the full potential of the sim. (don't get me wrong - I have no problems with simplified systems and planes in general, but a single fully modelled plane with complete systems and complete aerodynamics would have been nice at launch) There are no gliders to show off some atmospheric physics like thermals, there are no helicopters,.... I've seen a video showing off the icing on a plane - but I could not actually figure out if there is actual physics involved with added drag and decreasing lift or if the sim simply adds an icing texture when the conditions are right (can you actually crash with excessive icing?). When looking at videos showing of tubulences - it looks like the plane is shaken around the CG with the nose wobbeling up/down, not like actual up-/downdrafts. (this is just my observation, I might be wrong here). So, basically - I am very unsure about the quality of the base simulator - and through all the hype and hundreds of videos showing off the visuals, it is difficult for me to find out more about this. Because the SDK for developers is not actually finished yet (as I understand) - nobody knows the actual sim capabilities (and sim possibilities) a lot of people are talking about when talking about future prospects. Sure, the visuals are amazing - but honestly - it is 2020 - I was kind of expecting that (however, kudos to Asobo for the engine behind that). But right now - except for the visuals, are there actually any other confirmed improvements over FSX? From the XBox MSFS2020 page, it features Higly Detailed Aircraft (which does not seem to be the case at least system depth and flight model wise, when reading the comments here in the forum...), New Day & Night engine (we had that in FSX right?), Dynamic Weather (also in FSX - not very good but availalbe), Aerodynamic Modeling (I yet have to see that as decribed above). TrackIR as "one of the most requested features" was also working in FSX. So that leaves the Detailed Landscapes and the Living World...which is totally relying on MS providing the data for free. And also, and I just want to point that out - nowhere on the MFSF2020 homepage it is stated that 3rd party addons and modding is supported. At least there is talk about the SDK from 3rd party developers - and that is at least a good sign. Right now - and that is my personal opinion - MSFS2020 looks more like a tech-demo than the simulator I was hoping for....I hope this will turn out fine and then I will also buy the new simulator and if that takes years - fine by me. But I would prefer that happening rather sooner than later. I also do not know how 3rd party software will be distributet for MSFS 2020. Will there be an in-game store for it? Or will MSFS2020 accept an external 3rd party distribution? Nico
  3. I can see that you are excited - but as I mentioned earlier - I still would like to see something official from RAZBAM except their FB page with pictures taken during development. 4 days now and still no mentioning on the their homepage. No official release images, no videos, no dedicated product page (like for all their other products) - actually the latest news on their webpage is from 04.11.11 concerning their Harrier product. No official release info on AVSIM (or other flightsim-communities for that matter) - only unofficial forum topics like yours at different places. Also - other distributors such as Simmarket do not offer the Metroliner, despite the fact that they are offering other RAZBAM products. Same on The Flightsimstore. For a $50 purchase ... what's their plan here? The price is way higher than any other RAZBAM product so I would like them trying to convince me why that's the case. But no - one has to stumble over some unofficial forum topics to even know about the release (if you are not checking their FB regularly, like me - I am not even on FB - I did not even know they had a FB page, found it via Google). I would assume - with a release 4 days before X-Mas - that would be all over the place. Especially with a rather unusual and interesting plane such as the Metroliner. In my opinion - commercial turboprops are totally neglected in the native FSX world and I can imagine a market for that. I have to be honest here - smells fishy to me. Maybe I am missing out - but $50 for a blind buy.... no deal. The ones missing out here is RAZBAM. Don't get me wrong - I own some RAZBAM products and I am happy with these purchases...But that's just how I feel about it. GG
  4. Hmmm... would be interested in this one - kind of strange to me that nothing is stated about the release on their webpage - except when you go to the store. Only release info is on Facebook... They don't even have a dedicated product page or an image gallery and (according to FB) they released it 3 days ago. Bad marketing - especially considering that they obviously put some work into this simulation (at least what I can see from the pictures on FB). I'll wait and see... GG
  5. You are right about that, but as shown in your manual picture IAP can only be requested within approach airspace. However, the controller tries regularly to get you down earlier, even when it is not time to descend yet. That is actually problematic since that function seems not to consider the environment. Try landing in Almaty UAAA - RC4 will vector you right into the mountains. Same for some airports in the Andes. You HAVE to follow a proper STAR to avoid that problem if possible. Also - if you dont include the STAR in the flightplan for RC4 (unknown approach when planning) and you choose a STAR which requires a change in course (when not requested an IAP because most of the STAR courses starts much earlier than the approach airspace), RC4 gets quit annoying, because it thinks you are not following the flightplan. You can fix that by choosing an approach that is valid for any Rwy when planning and then just add the active runway , however not all airports have such "any rwy" STARs. I then usually choose a runway depending on wind direction while planning and choose a STAR accordingly. But if the weather changes and RC4 assigns a different runway the STAR is invalid. The only way to avoid RC4 nagging then is to follow vectors or to request "your" rwy - with the usual result that the AI gets in the way. Also you cannot get the active runway when >50mi from the airport (via ATIS information) - but depending on your FL, RC4 demands a descend like 80mi out, sometimes 100mi when FL 410. I never see that corresponding to an actual STAR descend profile. I dont know how the STAR operation is done in real live. I saw some videos somewhere, indicating that the pilots choose the STAR when setting up the FMS before start. I think that might be working with weather data when going on short trips. But long haul? Wind directing and approaches might changes underway... BUT: Apart from this, RC4 is a fine piece of software! Nico
  6. Nice topic! Purchases I regret: Wilco Evolution series (both Airbus and 737), I get horrible night lightning with Airbus and I find the VC of the 737 just bad. FScene - that just does not look right for my taste, got it on sale though... Ultimate Traffic 2 - this traffic injection system doesn't work right for me. A lot of Missing Airlines or liveries (in not so common destinations i have almost only generic liveries...), after a while traffic just disappears on long haul flights, needs an awful lot of tweaking before i got what i wanted and then had a problem backing up my changes - not at all was i was hoping for. However - Stuff i just love: Active Sky and Radar Contact! No flight without them! FSCommander Shade and Accufeel (fantastic little pieces of software!) ORBX and PMDG just leaves my mouth wide open again and again.... MilViz - their 310 and the Baron are close to perfect, same for everything from Realair. LatinVFR - really nice and interesting sceneries! They made me want to fly to not so usual destinations! Nico
  7. Thanks for your replies. Good to know i am not the only one trying to get along with the ATC.And thanks to Jim for the AI Smooth thing. Gonna try that out.You see - ATC problems on the ground dont bother me that much, since neither didnt i take off yet nor is the flight over, but after some hours of flight.....lets just say i get beer and turn on my TV .But here is my special ground control story:Im in a MD-11F - FedEx from PANC to KLAX, getting permission to roll to my runway. On the way i notice 2 other planes lining up behind me. Well - after rolling for a couple of minutes i get to my runway, prepare the plane (just get the flaps in position and putting in the giving altitude to climb for) and try to contact the tower - the other two planes kindly waiting at runway entrance. Then i get a control message: "please wait, MD83 has permission to start.." or something like that. Well - what was i suppose to do? Parking my MD-11 at the side and let the other plane pass? So - i pushback as far as possible, so the plane is barely on the runway. MD83 rolls on the runway and lifts off. I contact tower - get permission to lift off and then immediately get another message to wait for the other plane to lift off. ##### - i had it then and started the flight from scratch.Thanks everyoneGG
  8. Hi everyone,just started with FS2004 and i have a problem. I did some flights now and at 4 out of 5 landings there is a AI-plane coming in at the same runway at the same time. I did get permission to land and while monitoring my landing approach i see the ATC giving the same runway free to another plane. Since i have not seen any planes while approaching i switch to external view and there is plane (usually B737) pretty close - less than a mile off - approaching the runway. It is not like I am 10 miles out - but i can see the runway clear and i am on final approach - its just a matter of minutes to touchdown. Usually it ends either in a crash or i have to abort landing and do it all again. Even this is sometimes failing since the AI-plane is so close i hit it while aborting.At first i thought - well tough luck. Then I thought i did not get the runway right the ATC is assigning to me. Then I thought - well ATC knows what it is doing and maybe planes are landing that close - but i usually run into the other plane someway or another. No wonder if your are trying to land like 200 feet behind. I monitored that now very closly - sometimes i got permission and as soon as i confirm the permission the ATC is assigning the same runway to another plane for final approach. Sometines the AI is assigning the runway to a AI-Plane and then immediately is assigning the same runway to me. I do see the ATC orders for altitude and direction pretty early though. However - ATC is not putting me to another runway and is letting me wait somehow.What also is strange - my AI-traffic is not that much - but most of the time there is plane landing at the same time and runway. Even if the Airport has left and right runways - the second runway is never used. Now i counted these landings and like i said - 4 out of 5 landings are this way (did it 25 times with 20 ending up like this - hope the math is right) - and this is no fun after a 3 hour flight.What am I doing wrong? Is there anything i have to change in the FS settings? Although i doubt that this is only happening to me - i could not find anything concerning this problem somehow.Thanks GG
×
×
  • Create New...