him225

On 12/21/2022 at 12:35 AM, anzac1977 said:

If LM just released an update that fixed up EA clouds and allowed them to have local not global patterns I would be happy.

Or just implement what ever changes Hifi needs to improve their weather simulation with true sky.

Also they really need to remove the moon illusion effect, size variation of sun and moon and nearing horizons becomes huge, makes it feel like in a fantasy role playing game.

The dawn/dusk light amount and change rate also needs to be fixed, while the sun sets/rises at the correct times, the light quantity drop/increase from sun hiding behind horizon is pretty fast kind of like a light bulb turning on/off making day light shorter by about 30 minutes in both. In real world and also in FSX - p3dv4 some light is present when the sun is just below horizon.

Just realized, how common is it for two wheelers to be allowed to ply on the airside area of airports? I thought they never were due to the surrounding awareness loss they can cause from ride balancing, wind, sun, helmet etc, also being less easily visible from a distance than a car which are also often special painted for the purpose.

Thanks for the explanation, engines are definitely a critical part indeed that get very easily damaged. However it also looks like the wing structure and its root joint must also take a lot of impact such as in the recent two other ground incidents one of china 744F and the other qatar 777F. Especially the latter where it struck something fixed to the ground left me wondering how bad the stresses might be on the wing in such incidents and if that would cause any irreversible damage.

In such incidents as collision with vehicles, poles, hangars etc which happen from time to time, always wonder how well are the airframes able to withstand the impact and maintain their airworthiness safety including after repairs. Do they get fully restored or have a reduced certification? Is there chance some internal damage may go overlooked that could lead to a catastrophic failure in the long term?

Big bang happened or not, what can be said for certain is it doesn't stop there, as something "banged" so the story goes back further than that time scale in either case. Eternal shouldn't be kept that far from imagination.

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Of course, you got to the bottom of it! They are like "playing for time"! (surely it can't be the alternative, which is Asobo telling us what the current problems with ground physics are and detailing how they plan to make it much more realistic starting with improvements already in SU10) ... Please, tell us more oh sagely one

So you think they wouldn't have noticed in alpha itself and come up with what they have written in a few minutes what needs to be done, then begin implementing in few hours and fine tune it in days/weeks? That they haven't even begun and still talk about how they plan to two years later, like its some mars vehicle they planning about its approach/landing trajectory on a planet millions of miles away where they have to be right at once and can't just experiment/test on the field which is Mars. Okay.

16 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

You seem to be rather fixated on AI and it appears to be a deal breaker for you in MSFS... perhaps best for you to stick to FSX and/or P3D +/- add-ons. You can try to keep harping here about how MS/Asobo has not focused on <insert pet issue X or feature Y> since release, but they're gonna keep speeding along based on their own prioritized backlog that also takes into account various user-voted items/requests (if not already you should go and vote there on the AI related items: https://www.flightsimulator.com/feedback-snapshot/, i.e. #9 in lifetime wishes table which at least appears to be in "Started" state).

For a great many of us, that progress since release is more than adequate even if areas like AI or ATC are lacking, and also apparently to almost all the 3rd party developers that are exclusively focusing on MSFS now or prioritizing it as the main platform they develop for. Like others have said here, MSFS's development pace and engagement with the community is orders of magnitude better than other sims where months/years would go by without *any* updates... thankfully MSFS come back to the flight sim scene two years ago to upend all that, and showed unprecedented use and mixing of modern technology stacks like AI, cloud, satellite data, CFD, live weather data, photogrammetry, etc etc, all in the core platform as default. No brainer then for a lot of us, as to why we've stuck with MSFS for the last two years even if <insert pet issue X or feature Y> is still not fixed or implemented perfectly.

Not fixated but it is quite broken without reason that it sticks out like a sore from the rest and people try to justify how it is ok for it to be like not just at release but two years later of numerous boasted updates. One thing that distinguishes this issue from the others is that this offline AI sthing isn't something new ground breaking that MSFS tried and should not have been in this state to begin with or not been fixed two years after.

32 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Haha you're funny. You want us to give LM a pat on the back for being lazy? Also, FSX didn't have real world traffic. This is something new developed by Asobo and it comes with its own set of challenges.

I didn't bring LM/P3D into this the other guy tried to just to turn into who is worse match, its not even relevant as LM is not even developing a game and its about preserving something that worked well, not some new feature. Real time traffic cannot match what offline AIG already does due to coverage issues, model matching etc and things like taxiing, takeoff, arrivals will always look silly and up to the sim traffic engine. In anyway it has nothing to do with offline AI system and should not affect what was inherited from FSX.

Just now, abrams_tank said:

LOL, it's easy to not break stuff if you don't make any changes, or you make very few changes 🤣

 

Again, what changes around the AI does MSFS has that you know of you say broke it, and why have they not fixed it to this day to fsx standards at least?

4 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

No, I'm asking you why LM didn't progress P3D as much as they could in the last 10 years.  It's easy to not break things if you don't make much change. It's when you make change in software development, that you start breaking things.  And Asobo is continually making changes to advance MSFS.

Using your own standards of criticism, LM has failed.  

 

What major changes did they make that broke the AI this badly? I don't see any, and till now Asobo has done nothing to fix the AI engine which looks complete lame in comparison to FSX AI engine.

I don't care LM has failed or not, they took care not to break anything and fixed when they did as far as they are concerned here.

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

So LM has had 10 years now.  Why didn't LM implement 3D volumetric clouds like MSFS? Why didn't LM implement streaming satellite and photogrammetry for the entire world, including using a company like Blackshark AI to convert 2D satellite objects into 3D satellite objects? Why are the graphics for P3D still not up to modern standards, what was LM doing? How come when you add all the graphical add-ons to enhance P3D, why are the FPS still subpar, why didn't LM tune the graphics engine to render FPS better?

See, it's easy to criticize.  Even in the last 2 years for P3D, the amount of progress that LM has done for P3D is probably not even close the progress that Asobo has made for MSFS.

But I'm not criticizing LM though, because software development is hard.  In fact, LM may actually be doing a pretty good job, given the the degree of difficulty it is to make changes to P3D.  But if you apply your standard of criticizing how much progress a developer has made on their flight simulator, it's pretty easy to just look at P3D, your choice of a flight simulator, and look at how much progress LM has made in the last 10 years, and also the last 2 years.

Did you even understand what I said? They didn't promise any of this, only developed a slight modernized FSX for their own non gaming purpose that they saw fit. The issue here is of downgrade, did LM broke any of the FSX features? They didn't. MSFS did, when there was no reason to, and mind you its the same AI engine base as FSX not something from scratch. AIGTC traffic injector works on both without much difference.

8 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Yes, I could never find anything better in default AI / ATC so far.

Is it buggy ?  Sure it is, but truth is that whenever I play MFS with one of the airliners I own ( Fenix A320, FBW A32N, PMDG 737-700 ) and make a full flight accross Europe from gate to gate, using injected RW traffic, I can easily close my eyes to the innacuracies of the shapes and handling of other aircraft, or their liveries - I am not using MFS as a plane spotter simulator !

What matters is that I get really plausible ATC from initial contact to delivery to shutdown at the arrival  gate, and I actually get very realistic traffic paterns around me when departng / arriving. Whate more could I ask from a DEFAULT and still under development - I haven't heard ASOBO saying it is finished ? 

 

A 3rd party does not influence this aspect, they can only add content to it which ultimately are subject to the downgraded AI system fidelity which is the issue here. I do not understand, why be satisfied/word not allowed with compromising on something missing that was already accomplished 16 years ago? Yes you are not spotting planes but you are not walking around the accurate streets either below are you, but you still get the immersion from it. Similarly it adds to immersion if AI aircraft behave reasonably realistically, and don't tell me it doesn.t break immersion when you see that happen at the airport taxiing or waiting for departure.

7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I see you use P3D.  And you keep harping on what little MSFS has done in the last 2 years. So maybe let's reverse the script. Nevermind the last 2 years for P3D. What has P3D done in the last 10 years?

LM is not MS, it develops for different purpose and never raised expectations. Most importantly it didn't downgrade anything that it inherited from the ESP engine, so those who wanted an improved, slight modernized FSX went down that line and it serves well for what it is.

20 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Good question ?  I ask myself that same question whenever I seat at the desktop to play an airline or GA flight under real world weather with a scenery that looks so close to real I couldn't have imagined was possible at such performance levels, with cockpits and illuminaton that are 2nd to none, even default ATC and AI that isn't  2nd to any other default system in other editions of MS FS, X-Plane, P3D, name it sim....

What the heck have this guys been doing that prevented me from uninstalling MSFS since SU9 ?  

Are these guys serious ?  Is this what developing a general purpose flight simulator is ?  And now they even have redesigned the whole rotary wing flight dynamics, will include gliders with realistic operations and soaring wweather ?

What do they think ?  They must be kidding.... 

P.S.: And yet, I am still eagerly awaiting XP12, and still find IL-2 to be the most advanced flight simulator I ever used in terms of feel of flight / flight dynamics..., but those two have their own places in my simmer heart ! 

Good question isn't it, if you draw a clear line between release features and time for fixing those and then feature additions thereafter?

AI system 2nd to none what are you talking about? The AI engine is badly downgraded even for default content, it just makes it less noticeable. The splattering touchdown of AI, the silly taxiing roundabouts, bankless turns in air, cruising AI spawning at your altitude than their cruise level, etc its like a high school project to look at, the whole thing feels worse than FS2000 fidelity in motion which didn't even have a proper AI engine.

Have a look at this at 18:44, you call it 2nd to none? :

BEST Freeware AI TRAFFIC For MSFS | Tutorial + Guide! - YouTube

3 hours ago, Bdub22 said:

You must be new to flight simming, because nothing like that has ever happened in the history of it. MSFS gets more continued updates than any other platform in the entire history of the genre. Think about how complex this piece of software is. Not only does it have to simulate the entire EARTH and it's live weather, it also has to simulate flight dynamics and aerodynamics, it has to render entire aircraft, which at default, absolutely destroys any other platform, it has to simulate avionics, along with thousands of other things, all working in harmony to display what you see on your screen. To criticize MSFS and Asobo that they're going too slow is complete hogwash. We are leaps and bounds further ahead now because of this team. I can only imagine how lucky we'll be in 3 years from now. Manage your expectations and be happy that we have such smart and well financed people bringing our hobby back to life.  

It hasn't? May be you have forgotten:

FS98 - FS2000: Became true global flight sim with very high coverage of airports, mesh, vector and scenery land class around the earth

FS2000 - FS2002:

1. Global 3D autogen system

2. 3D virtual cockpit

3. Interactive ATC and AI system that flies full flights

What special has FS2020 done in the two years of most updates in history? It couldn't even come on par with the keyboard controls, camera system, AI/ATC, weather of FSX or address all its own release bugs completely to a satisfactory final version in this time. Also in any of the new sims in FS history it never happened that a feature was blatantly left downgraded without a better addition to take its place, any feature from previous sims was never felt missed in the latest.

It would make sense to be happy with these 2 years of trickling tiny namesake fixes if the sim was someone's part time free project, but it is not. Any significant feature additions would have been right in the release, or in the next few months after at most. In 2-3 years you would get a full new sim with freshened features and core additions that give a leap in fidilety. This is starting to look more like an excuse to continue to have the sim show in "development" to keep simmers hooked on a less than complete core sim than others are. Several users have fell for it and taken for a ride/flight in the sim, good for MS/Asobo I guess.

Has there been any substantial improvement or addition to the core sim in 2 years? The scenery area enhancements in updates can as well be categorised as dlc. Can't understand why in this time with numerous updates, no mouse yoke or AI atleast as good as fsx got added.

Now this is one cockpit voice recording would like to hear.

It works but not exactly permanent, need to do this again on every windows reboot. Another silly nag, accessing the sound settings spins up any sleeping hard disks taking time to open it and increasing HDD wear. Can't recall this happening last year, must have crept in a recent major update.

Makes me want to ask the same question when looking at the offline air traffic. They have inherited the scenery and other aspects from the fsx engine moving forward, yet for some reason they seem to have mostly abandoned the already believably well functioning fsx offline AI system rather than improving on it and gone several years back to start reinventing the wheel? Looking at the traffic doing clunky motion in the sky and airport with ludicrous turns, jerky acceleration and touchdowns, it is so disappointing and immersion breaking which no third party addon can fix. One of the main things holding me back from moving to msfs from p3d in any foresight. Even when study level aircraft is released, p3d with its dated graphics would still offer overall better environment than this fs2000isk populated AI that has been more or less the same level since msfs released.

There are couple of small issues with EA sky that would be happy to see addressed. First an addition of some sort of ambient ligting from the sun to simulate pre/post dawn/dusk lighting, as currently during dusk/dawn it remains unrealisticaly dark as to difficult to see ground detail even though sun is out, and immidiately full night level dark when the sun is just below horizon. This could perhaps also address the issue of dark cockpit as well. Second, was having weird experience with sun/moon size which looked sometimes fine and other times fantasy big to realize the size is depending on position from horizon where it is bigger, perhaps to simulate the moon illusion? Would like to see this unrealstic aesthetic removed.

If you look at the task manager cpu usage with fsl a32x, all cores enabled by the p3d main affinity mask entry are being used equally, regardless of the other new p3d cpu affinity settings you put. This indicates there is probable issue with FSL cpu optimization, as normal p3d cpu usage should not look like that, and indicates lot of thread bouncing among cores made worse with HT enabled. That may be causing thread stalling and the long stutters, also resulting in p3d clock increasingly lagging behind. In normal conditions only the main job running core should have uniformely highest cpu use while others much lesser and variable when moving, which is the case seen with most other aircrafts.

11 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

It seemed fairly clear from the video that the 'dust' was in fact smoke from the wheels and brakes.  However it did also sound like the engines were at more than idle speed, which could fit the theory of the crew falsely believing they were applying reverse thrust, but having the opposite effect. 

With suspect hydraulics or control systems, they may well have elected to land at a slightly higher speed than normal, even after allowing for a high landing weight, and a heavy aircraft takes a lot of stopping. The brakes on both sides were obviously overheating, and If the port brakes burnt out before the starboard ones, that would account for the slew to the right.

The full facts should come out eventually.

The volume of smoke from the main wheels appears suddenly shortly before the turn, which is probably when they burn out and fail possibly leading them to do a last ditch turn sensing build up in speed or something. Throughout the turn the smoke and soil around the runway can be seen blown up by very high speed thrust winds from both engines, with neither of them having reversers deployed.

From the raising dust looks like the engines were producing considerable forward thrust up to after the collapse, may be the pilots didn't know thrust reveser deployment got disabled due to the hydraulic problem and deployed it that can also be heard from the rumble, worsening the situation. Then perhaps with no stop in sight and unable to understand the constant or increase in speed, nearing the runway end they decide to turn it around to stop it.

Recent VGHS in pbr is pretty good looking and detail, it sees fair amount of cargo movements.