Skywatcher

7 hours ago, gaputz said:

I still drive a car built in 1997.  When something needs to be repaired I take it to the garage.  The mechanic never brushes me off by saying the problem is easily fixed by buying a new car.  As pointed out, Grosse came to a FS2004 forum to ask advice about a FS2004 product.  Why the flippant comments about upgrading to a new platform?

Agree. Some of us have settled on FS for life for no other reason than we prefer it!
Regarding the Ariane or even the PMDG 737, I think the iFly 737 is far superior to both. I wouldn't recommend a new sim for people but switching 737's to the iFly is very much worth the investment.

13 hours ago, Carob said:

I would prefer it as well, but they have shut down the servers for it.  No longer an option unfortunately.

Only online weather is stopped which makes literally no difference. I'll use ASE for life.

18 hours ago, Carob said:

Any experience with this?  Good?  Bad?

 

I also don't see anything listed for what OS this runs on.  Any info on that?

I much prefer ASE. I have FSGRW but haven't used it for a long time. Can't really tell you about specific pros or cons as can't remember.
ASE certainly had many more features. FSGRW was slow to load weather and sometimes the server plays up. For some users, they couldn't get it to download weather at all. Now, this was at least 3 or more years ago I'd say and certainly server issues may have since been resolved...or maybe not.
 

https://secure.simmarket.com/fs-global-real-weather-fs9-fsx-p3d.phtml

Many FS9 products no longer work nor can they be activated. REX killed their weather several years ago. The Microsoft built in weather stopped functioning many years ago. ASE had a long run and the developers unofficially supported it well beyond any period you could possibly expect. Heck, they even gave you the courtesy of a reply now.

There are developers I think you can certainly complain about but HiFi isn't one. They even fixed ASE when it stopped functioning a few years ago. They were under no obligation to do so as the product was already old. They did fix it and gave us a few extra years to enjoy it. That even surprised me.

Finally, it's not like it's dead. You just need to use historical weather which in many ways is better than downloaded weather anyhow. I'll be using ASE forever!
 

29 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Criticism is healthy for the development of the sim. But just as with the undulation topic, there is a difference between pointing out things and constant crying.

If people stop quoting my posts and asking further questions of me then I don't have to reply. I am "repeating" or "expanding" not "crying."

If people keep coming back and asking me for a further response what can I do??? eg see below lol

32 minutes ago, ludekbrno said:

Really? Can you show us some realistic clouds from FS9? You must only a joking 🙂 I never saw a realistic clouds in FS9, FSX or another today sim, first realistic look clouds saw in alpha sceenshots and vids form MSFS, even though the cirrus clouds may be missing yet.

FS9 has cirrus clouds and FS9 clouds have definition. They are not perfect but they are better than what can be seen in MSFS.

Did you look at the video I quoted earlier??? You only need eye balls to see the clouds are blurry as heck. How can they be better than any other sim? They are the worst clouds I have ever seen in any sim to be honest.

21 hours ago, marty2756 said:

Sorry, I've just read the clouds are one of the weakest part of MSFS ? What screenshots ? Of course always there is room for improvement, but based on already public screenshots / videos,  it seems to be the best part actually, at least compared to what I saw in every other existing flightsim, even addons up to date.

Look at the video in the OP's post below. 39 second mark is a good reference. It cannot be any more obvious how blurry, lacking total definition MSFS clouds are. On top of this there are no cirrus clouds it appears in this sim! What is realism to you?

I keep trying to get across to people to look beyond the advertising. It's all there to see. The MSFS engine will create great clouds for the XBox kid to have armageddon-ish cloud conditions when he crashes his plane into his house. Myself, I want to use MSFS as a flight simulator and only ask for realistic, everyday clouds. MSFS clearly is not as capable of doing this as FS9. That's the truth from what we have seen so far and we have seen enough to make a definitive statement on it.

5 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Not true Mark. Just keep your responses reasonable and hopefully we won't have to keep approving your posts. I like to fly as well you know. 😉

Completely true. What part of the below breaches anything? It was not posted.

Professional? No. Where's Robin??? lol

10 minutes ago, ludekbrno said:

If you're frozen in FS9 time and you like the cardboard clouds, OK I understand, that MSFS clouds are not acceptable for you 🙂. MSFS clouds are much more levels close to reality and MSFS can't display any cardboard, what you like, sorry.

Unfortunately I cannot reply to anything because unless I say "yes" or "fantastic" or "totally agree" the mods don't allow my post. lol

I've said it a million times, I use it because it's the best overall sim imo. If there was something better, I'd be using it. I still expect to be using it after MSFS release.

On 3/22/2020 at 3:38 AM, cmpbellsjc said:

It took me a while to realize your the fellow who used to say the new MSFS was going to be a “plane game” back when it was first announce

Correct. Still saying it, nothing has changed.

5 minutes ago, Noodle said:

I'd feel better if people who prefer FS9 would stop posting nonsense in a forum dedicated to a simulator they have no interest in buying or using.

Took out the second part because I don't think it referenced me. If it did, it was wrong.

I have interest in MSFS and I am still holding out hope to be surprised. I know it won't be perfect and I know there is still time to make change where change is possible or at least put more focus on areas users may find of concern.

You can bury your head in the sand and just say everything is great but it's not. I'm a realist and prefer to plan for what is ahead not make bad decisions based on wishful thinking.

End of the day, who says I know anything, may be wrong on everything, make up your own mind.

14 minutes ago, Noodle said:

Thank you for sucking every bit of joy out of what should be a nice distraction from the very real events unfolding.

Would you feel better after you bought a new PC, the game, maybe spent up on the PMDG and then fired up your PC for the first time?

I'll make some things up to change your mind again in future posts. Would you prefer that?

I know I just want accurate information myself.

People ask for explanations/examples and then jump on you for giving them.

It may help make MSFS better. Saying nothing certainly won't.

7 minutes ago, GlideBy said:

You do know that areas won't be one to one to real life.  For example a building in real life may be brown on the sides, but white in the sim.  Or may look very different to real life.  The AI is just trying to match the satellite photos, then create something that looks good.  So that it would fool someone that doesn't know the area.

This gap in detail is an area that 3rd party devs can fill.  They can fix the airports that aren't the 80 handmade ones.  The can fix buildings and landscapes that look wrong.  I still believe we should report what we see now so they can fix as much as is reasonable.

I'll explain a little further. Matching satellite data is one thing, matching something that does not exist is another. If the shadows have no detail, that area needs to be made up. How is this done? The software would look at the surrounding area and fill the shadow area using this information.

In the shadows I showed earlier for example, that area will likely be filled with a green texture, grass or something like that. In this scene, the blend should work reasonably well as the surrounding textures are not that detailed.

Now, in saying this, in real life those shadows may have rock faces hiding behind them. The software has no way to know this because the black area has zero detail. You won't get rocks there as in real life, you will likely get green something or the other.

The more complex and detailed the surrounding textures are, the harder it will be for the software to remove those shadows without leaving clear evidence of removal. In places that have high detail, it may look a complete mess after shadow removal and people will have to manually retouch those areas.

Overall, when you consider we are talking about a huge proportion of shadow areas that would exist in these photos across the entire planet, there will be massive amounts of bad looking shadow fixes that will remain untouched.

3 minutes ago, GlideBy said:

Microsoft have made various statements to the effect that they will be in for the long run

You need to see statements they made 2 hours ago and they still will count for nothing. Where the gaming market will be in one or two years time nobody knows. Just like many businesses in the world right now, their predicted future's are very different to what their predictions were last month. MSFS potential success is no different. The economics are all changing.

Games will have to be viable to continue after the Coronavirus affects are felt. Any statements made before today, or tomorrow, or in 2 weeks from now are irrelevant. There are no guarantees anything will be viable to continue into the future as it was expected a month ago. Business models will have to see what the future will be and then determine what products are viable moving into the new times. MSFS may no longer be viable for MS by that point.

We will lose airlines for example. It's a certainty.

2 minutes ago, GlideBy said:

I think they are trying to use AI to remove shadows.  If they can't the we would only be able to fly at certain times in those areas other it would look like we had two suns.  So I think this is a big priority for them.

Can't be done with realism. You can't replace what wasn't there in the first place, you have to make it up. To make things up for every shadow area across the planet, no method will have enough variety. The shadows areas will have to have some kind of generic look to them. Sometimes the match may be close to the surrounding textures and sometimes it may be way off. This part I am guessing as I don't know exactly how the shadow removal gets processed. I would imagine I am very close to correct.

What may turn out to be a major issue for some users is if they have removed shadows from somewhere the user likes to fly regularly. If the user happens to notice an area that would've had a shadow and can see that it was removed, that area might bother them forever. Once you've seen it, you can't stop looking at it type of thing. If they don't like the look of the fix, even worse!

1 minute ago, Noodle said:

Why are you on a flight sim forum if you're so afraid of "billions" of this and that. If you're too scared to enjoy FS that's fine, but dont infect this place with your fear.

You beat me to quoting him! I sure hope you weren't hoarding himmelhorse???

One or two decent people here, one or two I haven't figured out, one or two that may have some grumpy moments!

Mods did well, I thought this thread was going to vanish a few hours ago but we've actually had some good discussion with opportunity to put across some thoughts on the new sim.

Times won't be good. Has to be some relief somewhere.

Just now, HighBypass said:

Thank you for your explanations of your viewpoint (bad pun here too!) on MSFS.

To be fair to Train Sim 2020 however:

A lot of those DLCs are from a few years back (EMD390 released in 2012 for example) yet are compatible with the latest rendition of Train Sim. I doubt that MSFS could amass so much compatible DLC in it's first 12 months.. let alone if it flopped.

Thanks. Yes, I'm just trying to suggest MSFS will be expensive. How expensive people will accept for a game in one or two years time is anyone's guess. MS projected costings for MSFS add-ons may no longer apply in the future. People won't have money. People may not have jobs. High priced DLC's won't be an option for many. New PC's won't be an option for many to run the game, been posts here regarding this already.

Projections for MSFS success a month ago likely won't apply at all in a year from now. Everything will likely have to be cheaper or it won't sell. Will the game still be viable enough and get enough sales? Past MS comments, statements are totally irrelevant from this point on.

I'll add one more real concern. This isn't 2004 or 2006. With current events, looks like the future era will be like no other. The MSFS business model may need to be completely revamped if they have even thought this far. If this happens, will MSFS even be viable? Will that new PC, those early investments in add-ons all come crashing down on me 12 months later when MS pull the pin on MSFS?

Let's look at the link below and look at the DLC's. Expand the list and scroll down to total cost. Before Coronavirus this makes you open your eyes. In future times, it may literally make you fly off your chair and through your roof!

https://store.steampowered.com/app/24010/Train_Simulator_2020/

22 minutes ago, GlideBy said:

Some other have mention the two cloud systems don't match and look off.  Some think it is trying to show two different weather fronts, but it still looks off to me.  I tried searching for cloud pictures in real life, but it is hard to find something similar.

I am not following the part about under the wheels.  I will say that the ground could use a green and brown grasslands plant life.

And I also noticed the stretched textures in the Grand Canyon shot.  Hard to tell with the trees.  But when I zoom in on them in the original full size shot, I think they are bushes.  And they don't seem blurry.

You may be right about missing data in the black areas.  We need to shed light on that area.  (OK, I am bad at puns)  But it also seems the shadow matches the Bing maps shadow.  So they might still be having shadow removal issues.

I hope they can fix these things.  The stretched texture could happen wherever a high slope angle occurs.  So maybe they can smooth it or run it through some AI.

If you look at the trees around the wheels, you will see the area where the trees a little beyond the wheels (moving up or right across the mountain) connect with the other trees. Completely different color and contrast from one photo to the other.

To view something and see it accurately, you need to zoom to 100%. At 100% the bushes/trees look a mess to me. How they would look inside the cockpit at close range in flight, I would need MSFS on my machine. All the things I mentioned may result.

Regarding shadows, it simply is not possible to remove and replace them with anything accurate across the entire global surface. To fix just that shadow area in the screenshot, someone would actually have to have a photo of that area to then composite it in. These sorts of things are not possible to fix in any realistic manner. Developers like Orbx could enhance areas like this with some fakey texture work but it will be time consuming, very little area will be covered due to time and they will charge a fortune for it.

The clouds in general are absolutely without doubt blurry. They look horrendous imo and are probably the worst MSFS element for me. If for no other reason, the clouds alone will keep me from buying MSFS ignoring everything else.

1 minute ago, jfri said:

Actually the more info I see about FS2020 the less likely it seem that we will not like it. I mean the scenery is comparable with ORBX and they announce all kind of new features. My only concern is that it might require a computer I don't have and a new video card not being sufficient (now I have 4770K @4.5 GHz 16 Gb RAM GTX970 4Gb videocard)

I hope you saw my post above. Now here are a couple more concerns I can easily add.

Your PC almost certainly won't be enough if you expect to run high quality settings and add-ons. You need to buy a better one. To maybe improve some areas of MSFS, if it will even be possible, you will need Orbx. More money.  

1 hour ago, GlideBy said:

Why not provide constructive comments as the devs might see your comment and make improvements?  It is Alpha and they keep saying they want to see our comments.

There are issues that are likely totally beyond improving as they are now part of the engine. It is what it is unless they went back and virtually started from scratch.

I'll explain and give examples of literally maybe 3% of my concerns below.

Here is why I hate using photo anything. It has flaws, always will, there is no way around it with current technology.

A photo can give you more detail at a huge cost. People want to fly over their house and recognize it. Yes, photo will allow many to do this. I couldn't care less if my house is recognizable if it means to get this detail I have to put up with a bunch of visual flaws in so many other areas. I'd rather have a uniform, lower quality representation of the world as it is in FS9. The cons faaaar outweigh the pros in MSFS.

Right now people are only seeing the pros. MS are of course deliberately trying to show MSFS in this way. It's inevevitable the more they show, the more that is going to slip through to show the flaws. People are not seeing the cons of MSFS. Let me give a couple of examples.

If I look at this screenshot below, it looks terrible to me. No way do I want to fly looking at this scenery over what I have in FS9.

What is wrong with the pic? It looks like an amateur's composite of 3 to 4 different photos very badly composited together. The clouds on the left don't match the clouds on the right. They look like 2 completely different clouds taken from 2 completely different photos and composited into what we have here. The clouds to the left, the color balance and contrast is way off compared to the clouds on the right. The contrast/color balance of the clouds to the left is just completely off full stop to be honest.

Then we see the landscape. The area of trees under the aircraft wheels is where the photo is composited to the other photo. You can see it clearly with the trees. For the critical eye, you can also see the area to the left and the area to the right, the lighting does not match. 

The scene is a disaster. I could not fly in a world like this.

Here is literally a very rough, 2 minute improvement of the scene to make it more believable and much closer to how it should look. Much more editing work needs to be done as this is still way off anything realistic but hope it gives you an idea. Things in this shot are a little better balanced and believable they may be part of the same scene.

Then there are things like this. Yeah, wow, looks fantastic when they show you from the perfect distance.

I read someone wrote he will be so happy to not have to look at the stretched textures on cliffs any longer in the new MSFS. This guy will be getting a severe surprise. You will get to see more stretched textures in the new MSFS world than ever before. Let's go in closer:

What you see here is a complete mismatch of visuals. This is what your photo sim will give you. We have semi adequate resolution at the top, stretched textures across the cliff faces, I'm guessing those blobs below are trees and finally, the one and only sharp element in the scene, the water.

Can it get worse? Yes it can!

Put yourself in the cockpit of the aircraft to the right. Imagine if you looked out the right window at this point. What would you see? You will see likely very blurry trees. I can't be certain but they may be sharp at close range. They may also only be sharp with an incredibly fast PC. They could also be a blurry mess at speed regardless of PC power.

Are there any more bad points? Yes there are!

As you look right out your window, you are looking at a photo remember? A photo that was taken around midday by the look of the shadows. All detail has been lost in the shadow area under the cliff face. It's just a bunch of black pixels! If you were to look right in the cockpit, you'll just see black in this scene, no detail in that shadow area at all because it doesn't exist.

Hope you are getting some idea of what MSFS will look like outside of MS promotion and how it will look in actual use? Those shadow areas in real life you would see all the detail of what is there with the eye. In FS9 in such an area I will still see complete detail as well.

Just a couple of examples I have provided. Hope people see some of my concerns and why I really don't like just the visual side of MSFS. There is far more I don't like about MSFS, much more than just visual elements. I'm really not expecting to buy it or to see anything after release to sway me into buying it.

24 minutes ago, threegreen said:

Perhaps my last reply seems more brisk than I thought it would, but you're talking about reasonable responses and I'm looking at your response to Ed and what is that if not outright rude?

It was and totally intentional. You don't think his was? He added nothing to the thread, no comment, no reasoning, two words to signify he wasn't interested so the thread should be shut in his opinion. Maybe do like I would do, just use the back button on your browser.

The thread is not discussing who got rid of their sim. I mentioned that part as an example to show the great anticipation for MSFS. The question was what might you do if it falls short of expectation?

From the first 13 screenshots on the MSFS site atm, 6 of them make me go eeek. No chance I will use a sim like that over FS9.

I don't think anyone would say the same as what I just did as they are not seeing what I am seeing. I think they will finally see these issues when they have MSFS on their system. It prompted me starting this thread. What then?

I have a sense of humor, don't misunderstand. I am also not ever annoyed by replies. I give a response in return that is fitting. In the end, everyone here is nothing more than text on my screen. If text on my screen was to annoy me, I have some issues! I'm happy to discuss anything, openly and without getting upset about it.

2 hours ago, overspeed3 said:

Why would anyone delete (or cast aside) their current flight sim app when 2020 won't be released until the fall at best, or even later, given the current little critter that's now plaguing the world?   And isn't it a might pessimistic to assume that the new MSFS will not be all that we think it will be?

1. They already have deleted their sims, there is a thread full of them

2. From what I have seen, I really have no interest in MSFS.

My situation is the opposite to yours. I'm hoping it will be great. I use a flight sim so of course I would have nothing against a new one but I'm not expecting it to be anything worthwhile to replace my old one.

To answer my own question, it will be what I expected it to be.

3 minutes ago, charliearon said:

And you guys wonder why some of these topics are locked or removed! 

Yeah, get the lock out. I post a few other places and have no issues.