Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7,468 Excellent

1 Follower

About lwt1971

  • Rank
    Member - 2,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Toronto, Canada

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

About Me

  • About Me
    I've been flight simming since the days of Sublogic on Commodore 64 thru to Flight Unlimited, FSX, and beyond. Also a big fan of train and driving sims. Currently a senior software architect by day at a Fortune 500 enterprise software company working in cloud and AI technologies. Outside of simming some other hobbies of great interest to me are traveling (95+ countries to date), photography, tech, coding, tennis, etc

Recent Profile Visitors

4,659 profile views
  1. What was key was that Asobo focused on the core sim platform and FDE improvements to ground handling. And yes they've only updated a couple of aircraft, and perhaps Working Title can similarly add the new ground handling to the FMs of other aircraft they've enhanced before. It's not just a matter of adding some enablement of switches in the FM config but placing the right values for the new FM parameters which are specific and fitting to each aircraft (so trial and error and multiple passes + testing is likely involved). This is why it's best done by the aircraft devs who're the experts and know most about the particular aricraft they develop, and in the default fleet's case I think Asobo are not particular experts on each of the aircraft types except for the Cessna & Cabri likely. So if anything Working Title can hopefully add the new ground handling to the default aircraft they know most about, like they did with SR22T in SU15.
  2. The difference in fidelity and frequency of updates of ini's aircraft contracted by MS/Asobo vs ini's payware birds are no where near as night and day as is their price difference 🙂... and for that price of $0, what we get in these *default* aircraft vs what we used to get in default aircraft previously in MSFS and other sims, is also night and day (and of course this applies to Working Title enhanced default birds too). Of course ini is going to pay more attention and care to its payware, that's a given but besides the point. And no, one can't say Asobo "obviously doesn't care" about ini giving these aircraft improvements.. since obviously the A310 has received improvements, as will the A320. And Asobo also has similarly cared enough to keep updating other AAU/SU enhanced default aircraft after their first releases too.
  3. Ya true 🙂, although to be fair A2A spent a bulk of the initial dev time in developing their AccuSim framework first (like they've done before for P3D and FSX), so hopefully they're able to churn out the next few aircraft quicker. But it is interesting they've not even announced the next bird, unless they plan to do so when it's closer to release.
  4. Thanks for the link! Furthermore, the manual also provides insight into some of the included features. Here is a list of some of the most interesting features: UFT is moveable to window, standard position, or on top of CDU UFT adopts a Fenix-style charging method, where the battery can run out Brakes can visually wear and wear pins can be checked on walk-around Wheels can be checked on a walk-around and will get dirty with each landing A lot of airframe options to replicate different carriers Cabin temp at ambient will be affected by air volume, sunlight heating etc Wing flex, engine wobble etc accurately represented Dynamic and real engine oil, hydraulic fluid consumption Realistic failures based on service CPDLC and data-link implemented Doors may give false open indications (a common issue with 777 because of dirt around the sensor, opening and closing are usually fixed) Fire bottles and squibs may fail the test and require mx Also summarized in https://fselite.net/content/pmdg-777-manual-leaks-along-with-new-details-and-screenshots/
  5. Understood.. ya not too many examples yet of aircraft taking advantage of the new ground handling/physics in SU15, save for the iniBuilds A300 (https://youtu.be/N4cxNccH66U?t=1318), the default C172 (G1000 version), and the Duke that I know of (Edit: also SR22T). Fenix and PMDG have it in their plans to add support for this soon in their birds. Definitely looks to be a great improvement.
  6. Are you using it with the SU15 beta? If so then it takes advantage of the new ground handling physics in SU15: https://www.justflight.com/articles/black-square-msfs-dukes-important-notes-about-the-aircraft There are only two features in the Dukes which benefit from Simulator Update 15 (SU15): the ground handling physics and the Working Title GNS 530/430 ... <snipped> If you're not using SU15 then it could still have been modelled better than most to exhibit good ground handling despite the core sim limitations in this area pre SU15.
  7. That's good to hear!.. would be great to hear reviews/opinions of the flight model from others. Unlike A2A and its external FM, Black Square is using MSFS's CFD tech for its FM which in the hands of the right developer can really shine (i.e. iniBuilds' GA and airliners, FSReborn GA birds, etc). Also looking forward to how they implemented the new ground handling/physics from SU15.. I presume those who install this aircraft with the SU15 beta will automatically trigger that new functionality?
  8. FWIW, Jorg talks about trees enhancements coming in MSFS 2024 at last year's FSExpo at this timestamp: https://youtu.be/VPhScg_FINE?t=1087 (much more tree diversity, 3D trees, correct tree heights, etc)
  9. I wonder if most of the differences we are spotting (and long for) in current live weather vs the earlier days of MSFS is mostly due to the METAR integration in SU7 that reduced the great variety of live weather when it was based purely on global Meteoblue data. If possible, good to see how pre-SU5 live weather looked compared to SU5 or SU6 live weather.. if such comparisons are still around, those will be the ones that show more clearly any differences in *quality* of clouds etc due to performance optimizations, without "polluting" our eyes with the post-SU7 loss of live weather *variety*
  10. Matt Nischan setting the record straight in his usually polite way 🙂 https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/293866-may-the-fourth-be-with-you-2024-ah-the-cone-of-silence-but-we-are-nearly-through-it?p=294633#post294633
  11. A lot of myths are getting repeated here, unsurprisingly... Firstly, the major change around clouds variety in live weather came with SU7 and METAR integration (something they've improved since then, but still not where live weather used to be in terms of weather variety pre SU7 when it was purely global albeit inaccurate locally vs METAR). Secondly, the push for performance in SU5 was not just for XBox, but also due to the #1 wishlist item (and loud complaints) at that time from PC users to improve performance.. and it's also the case that a wide range of PC users have lesser hardware than XBox-X. For XBox-S and XBox-X, given that settings can be tightly controlled and locked down by MS/Asobo without needing to open up configurability as with PCs, MS/Asobo have decided on a set of hardcoded visual fidelity settings in-sim that delivers acceptable performance for XBox-S (targeting 1080p) and X-Box (targeting 4k). As easy as it is to use XBox as the scapegoat for everything, it was the push to improve performance in general that perhaps also degraded the quality (not variety) of clouds in SU5.
  12. About the ash look, Seb did discuss it on a previous Q&A session (see below) ... basically it's the level of processing to render the clouds i.e. to calculate light scattering, shadow casting, etc and full processing that'd show it most realistically would require too much computational power. The ashen look shows up depending on time of day and angle of sun light, and also more so with cumulus clouds. Given MS/Asobo are taking advantage of multi-threading and other performance improvements in MSFS 2024, let's see if this aspect of clouds rendering is improved. So when the live weather is mostly only showing cumulus type clouds, the ash look will be more in our faces. Given that, even if another weather injector (via presets) like AS asks for cumulus clouds then we're going to get the same ash look because AS just uses the core sim weather engine and cloud rendering. https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/live-dev-q-a-april-27th-2022/516747 Forum question – There are complaints about clouds looking too dark at high altitude, can you adjust the clouds shading to reduce the volcanic ash look? Seb – I can confirm, it’s been brought up a lot. In a lot of occasion, clouds look great and sometimes it’s looks like you’re flying over a volcano. I spent about 2 weeks on it, I try to change the brightness and the problem is that with dynamic lighting whenever you make something twice as bright in the sim it doesn’t twice as bright at all. In order to have the ash effect go away, I turned the clouds ten times brighter and then in so many occasions there were over exposed. With real clouds, light goes in and it scatters around and get reflected and comes back out. There’s more energy conserved in cloud than in ash. There’s a little more occlusion and energy taken away because it’s darker. To get the formula right with our cloud system (which is fully 3D), we need to have perfect shadow casting internally of clouds but that would cost a lot of computational power. For the amount of performance, we dedicate to clouds right we get the quality we have right now and it works well in many occasion but when the system is a bit complex it just gets the lighting wrong. As Martial said, it’s a system, if we do an overhaul of the system at some point and invest more performance into clouds, we can probably get this better but it’s more complicated than just adjusting the brightness.
  13. The past couple of months have been focused on bringing datalink capability to life, shifting the 777 away from our old navigation database structure, unlocking all of the RNP/RNAV capabilities that have been waiting on the new navdata, and really drilling down hard on visual cleanup, sound and bug reports related to the systems of the airplane. So unless I'm reading this incorrectly, sounds like the reworked RNP/RNAV will come with the initial 777-300ER release rather than a subsequent update during the series rollout (as they initially suggested)? Re: datalink/CPDCL/etc, Mathijs did say this recently: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/293075-new-cpdlc-protocol-in-works?p=293135#post293135 Of course! The 777 uses 100% of the ICAO standards and the ACARS protocol internally. The translation to Hoppie is just a layer on top that can be easily replaced. When a new system uses the standard ACARS protocol, no translation of any kind will be needed. As I wrote, our 777 could, at this moment, communicate with actual real-life systems. Also, RSR spoke about adopting the new SU15 ground handling here: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/291705-asobo‘s-new-ground-friction-model-used-on-the-777?p=291933#post291933 TLDR: they'll look into it post the initial 777-300ER release. I could care less about them not meeting their own "guesstimates" of release timelines.. release it when they feel it's good and ready whenever that is, and with the least amount of problems and missing features as possible (at least they seem to be striving to not do what they with the 737 where various functionality was added over subsequent updates).
  14. LOL sure thing, I hope you get past this obviously traumatic experience with the 787's door. And yes, calling out the obvious re: what WT did to improve the 787 and other aircraft must of course mean that I think they walk on water 🙄 What other genius insights do you have ?
  15. Hmm that's not what I said is it.. I said they have a large enough team to do *various* things and that it doesn't have to be either/or, and it's rather daft actually to keep harping that core sim simulation aspects are not getting attention just because visual fidelity is being improved (especially given evidence to the contrary that the core simulator has been improved over the yeas). Perhaps understanding more about how software development works in a large team with different skillsets might help, but I suspect it won't help you clue in (well actually here's a clue: sometimes throwing more developers at a particular area of a software system doesn't necessarily mean it gets done better/faster). Thanks for trying though.
  • Create New...