Pastaiolo

That's what the last pages are about in this same topic 😉

Surprisingly well written article, but then googling on who is the one who wrote it explains also why. https://paulsillers1.journoportfolio.com/

Well i am with dongdongliushui on this. In a way or the other we already had orto scenaries, that's nothing new. Photogrammetry implementation on 400 cities yeah, that is more like "new". However for me what really sells it the most is the light and the weather. But especially the light. And of course the shadows. For example clouds projecting shadows on other clouds, now that really makes a big difference on a shot

I guess they could just extract departure and destination and route if possible and make AI handle it all from the ground up. Of course there would be variations compared to the live traffic buuut i think this could be a way of solving the issue with bad reception or trasponders off once planes are on the ground. In offline mode things will be randomized instead. Just like default AI traffic in FSX did.

Recently, no. But for example in the videos we saw lights from the streets illuminating buildings, but not the buildings themselves emitting light via windows for example. However in the interviews they said they are working on both, so probably they didn't show what they are not ready to show yet

Yeah, i think the Xplane default camera system works very well with the presets and all.

Recap on new things i heard: AI and ATC:The first part we already knew from the Avsim interview. They tested importing live traffic (with its limitations), they are still working on the offline traffic. How detailed this offline traffic will be will depend on their priorities and community feedback too, this is the answer also on SID/STARS for AI planes AI Ships Like above, they expect to have live ship traffic and different kind of ships but again they don't know yet when it will be coming and with what level of detail Improvements to ATC (using SID/STARS): they are working on it but no details Moving trees depending on the wind: they are working on tree shaders and also water shaders, but no details at this point Persistent Aircrafts and their state: It's in the roadmap but no details at this point

Well, i think the average now is around 50-60.

In the avsim interview they expect it to be around 100gb. Which honestly nowadays isn't that big considering what other videogames bring.

I just think that in 2019 we are hopefully capable of achieving better fps in a complex environment such as flight simulators compared to a graphic engine that, with all the tweaks and what not, was created 13 years ago. DCS is a good benchmark of that in the way that while lacking some features, avionics wise and flight model wise there are way more calculations. The visual quality MSFS gives, at least for the scenery, is superior to both P3D and XP11 right now. But sure, we can't compare apples with oranges and that's why we'll have to really compare MSFS with XP12 and P3D v5 most likely. We'll see.

How do you know that, tho? From how i understood it, the DC6 was indeed a test to see what kind of "advanced capabilities" XP had and how much it could support their own simulations. And it's something that, according to them, didn't pass. But we have examples of how the platform is instead capable of handing more advanced planes and the exam i bring forward is still the Zibo 737. Have you tried it? Look, one of the advanced features the 777 got over the FSX version back then was a little camera which you could display in the cockpit.. this is the kind of innovation i saw. And i don't think it was much on their part. I am not saying i woudn't act the same way considering their position in the community but it wasn't enough for me. Anyway guys, i think we'll just have to agree to disagree unless you want to continue this. Perhaps with private messages if it's more convenient. I am happy if you get to fly your favourtie plane from your favourite developer, but i am more looking for fresh air regarding addons and its developers too for the new Flight Sim.

I am sorry, i meant that they can use PMDG aircrafts in the old sim still. And no, i don't believe PMDG is capable of that especially considering the poor show they did with the DC6 in XP and how they left it untouched ever since. Their claims of XP being unable to support complex aircraft is as valid as Orbx John statement back then regarding XP as a platform. It's a strategy. I am sorry, next time i will post a picture of my library full of programming books to further validate my statements. I agree with you regarding 3d models and textures tho. And i am aware of what Asobo did and rightfully so. If something works there is no reason to leave it behind. HOWEVER this is something that needs to go hand in hand with trying to put new features into the product, especially if it's going to be sold again in another platform after few years. And i think in this case there wasn't some big innovation. The messages that gets you triggered are the same that gets to me, however they are different messages. For me it's mostly those "20 fps but smooth" and the "it's hard to run x sim with good fps because of it's advancements in the rendering of the whole world". This is something, i believe, that the incoming MSFS will be able to demostrate otherwise. Considerable workload is debatable considering how in the early versions of P3D it was possible to port over PMDG products without much effort. I believe the new simulator will bring in fresh interest, and with that interest also new developers who will be able to bring new flying platforms for us to enjoy.

It's a computer game. There will always be the potential to tweak some config files and similar. It's one of the perks we need to be thankful for compared to consoles imho. That being said, sure, this will probably be less needed than in ESP platform products

That's okay, maybe i didn't explain myself properly. But again, i am not depriving anyone. If they want to use their precious PMDGs, they can use current simulators. You know, those they have been using for over a decade? Together with those "i get 20 fps but it's smooth", "performance is bad because this is the only sim which draws the whole world" etc etc etc The main argument however is that i think retrocompatibility is bad. Always have been. It's an incentive for developers (especially some) to never innovate. And why would they when they can make money with less effort? But they got so used to it that when P3D started to release versions which did require adaptations to their products, we saw how long it took and how they were not used to that. On top of that is the fact that a new simulator with a new engine requires for me a clear cut with what have been developed before. Especially if you think that what have been developed before have been done so with a certain logic (as in, to fit into a certain simulator with certain strong points and requirements). I want new things, i want new technology just like we are getting in the scenery department. And who do you think is able to deliver? Those who kept selling the same addon since 2006 or new developers who have to learn how things today are from the start? Who perhaps also can focus on new plane since they have no previous material to try to resell either.

I don't want to deprive anybody. This is what i wish for, which clearly isn't what you wish for 🙂 I am free to spend my money how i see fit just like them, the same applies for opinions. Perfected over the years is very debatable, and so is the list of innovations in their products since the offering on FSX. Besides what would be coming would be something perfected for the ESP platform, with all its limitations. This might not necessary apply to MSFS. I am tired of developers selling the same product over and over again. Some did from FS9 to FSX, then P3D (at even an increased price for the reasons we know). Now they are hoping to do it in MS. This is the exact stagnation for which i am always against retro compatibility. They'll continue to try to make money with the same offering and i see no reason why i would spend my money on that.

PMDG is not a charity. I won't buy something from them in the hope they will continue to work. My reasons are: 1) Overpriced addons (and the whole thing about prices for P3D). In XP instead we saw what a dedicated person (Zibo) managed to do, for free. 2) I do expect them to sell the same addons with the same features. If i want to fly my 737 or 777 again, i'll use current simulators. If they want to get in on MSFS, i expect them to sell new addons or at least offer their addons adapted to the new possibilities of MSFS, not just as an easy way to push in their old addon and make more money with it without having done anymore more for it. 3) In a MSFS PMDG-free environment there might be better chances for other developers to rise to the task and offer different kind of planes we have not seen before

I hope MSFS will be PMDG-free for some time instead.

Absolutely. There are some things however which i think need fixing and have been needing fixing for a long time. Like the water for example, the issue with trees on some sceneries.. I like the noise generated approach to clouds too but i wish it was coming (in XP12 perhaps) as a default thing more than an addon.

Let's hope the other coming simulator woke up this simulator developers instead. I think they need to. But then again we know how they are, and i expect them to continue at their own peace and with their own ideas about things.

Worth a read. Mostly the last part of course https://developer.x-plane.com/2019/10/x-plane-11-40-beta-8-anda-roadmap-update/

I have a smaller monitor and a resolution of 1680x1050, the computer is on the desk where i study and work etc etc so space is also limited. I am not considering increasing it much (perhaps a new monitor for full hd) and a thing to consider is always the need you will need to pair a 4k monitor with a much more powerful and expensive GPU.

I am well aware. I am just a bit more careful until i see it shown outside of the big cities and specifically in places where houses look quite different. Especially on places i am more familiar with. Until then, presentation stats and numbers (such as those shown in the Discovery Series, an introduction video for potential new customers) can be trusted up to a certain point. Then there is marketing and the ultimate goal to show your own product as being the most amazing as possible. I am pretty excited about this all, but i think neither an overly negative nor an overly positive approach leads to anything good.

Do you remember which one? Either way i missed that. Of course IF things are like that the outcome is completely different!

You are assuming there will be different kind of building models for different continents. They haven't said that, have they? In places where photogrammetry isn't or if you are playing offline it's likely that there will be a generic autogen. Maybe more varied, with the right color on the roofs, but still a generic one. We haven't seen anything around rural places so far, especially in Africa and Asia. Once its time arrives, then we will know what they actually managed to do. As for the last sentence, have no fear, they will manage to complain about those things for sure. "Bing is still showing my old car outside my house, please fix" "I redid the roof two years ago and the color wasn't updated, i thought Bing was updated often??"

Must? There is no must in this. If you like the idea, you buy it. If you don't like the idea, you don't buy it. Life is still about choises 😛