lwt1971

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.

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).

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 ?

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.

I'm sorry, no matter how many times you keep repeating this weird rant about the 787's door doesn't mean in any way shape or form that it's about making a quick buck or that they did so "quickly as possible and then dove into something else".. what utter nonsense, Asobo and Working Title put a lot of effort into taking yet another default aircraft to higher fidelity levels in the 787, for *free*. As they've done for the CJ4, SR22, Citation Longitude, etc etc. And news flash to those who keep repeating the other gem of a nonsense talking point that just because MS/Asobo allocate resources to visual fidelity must therefore mean the core simulation gets neglected.. as evidenced by the numerous enhancements and updates over the 3+ years to the core simulation (and what they have in plan for improving the core simulation in MSFS 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPhScg_FINE&t=508s), that just ain't so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. For sims of the past this "either / or" might've been the case, not so with MSFS and the large team behind it and the deep pockets of MS. They can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time, easily.

Right? Not to mention all the improvements/changes to the core sim MS/Asobo talked about from this timestamp onwards at last year's FSExpo below... sure sounds like anything but "small and trendy changes" or "save the whales mission". I mean the reductive bloviation around here by some is something to behold.. always seem to want to outdo each other in terms of how high up the nonsense scale they can reach 😂

I would also add to this list the default Cessna Citation Longitude and SR22T for those have the Premium Deluxe version of MSFS. Working Title really did a stellar job on reworking these to higher fidelity, both FM and systems/avionics wise. And definitely agree re: the Milviz C310 too.

That's pretty cool and makes complete sense given all they've got going on with their payware line (A350, A380, A300, etc) and default birds for MSFS. In terms of IRL pilots on their team they also mentioned that Cameron (guest speaker from stream before last) is a current line pilot on the A320 neo, and another is a current A330 pilot.

Ah ok 🙂 .. and yup MSFS 2024 looks to be (unsurprisingly) continuing the trend set with v2020 to redefine what level of fidelity is provided in the core sim, be it default aircraft or otherwise (and good to be free of mindsets that say otherwise from the times of legacy sims) I get the concerns of some who feel iniBuilds are taking too much on, but they've also expanded the team pretty substantially, and yes even though there were initial bugs they've at least quickly and frequently been fixing A300 to its current state, which is one of definite high fidelity (and bodes well for their upcoming A350, A380, etc). Their close working relationship with MS/Asobo during 2024 development also will likely mean they have a leg up on learning the SDK and internals of new features to take advantage of (such as for example the coming capability to define the aircraft surfaces/geometry/wings/etc much more precisely than currently possible).

Ya could well be I guess.. it's just that before they announced the A350 and A380, they did pretty much confirm on discord they have an A330 in the works or in plan (also there are those A330 related files found in the early versions of the ini A320 which were then removed). Now with the BelugaXL (i.e. A330-743L) confirmed, I can't help but think there'll be an ini A330 in the MSFS 2024 default fleet too 🙂 Of course ini are being their usual coy and ambiguous selves.. when asked about having had early access to MSFS 2024 and its SDK, whether they're also doing an A330, etc on discord only the below answers were given.. at least they didn't flat out say no 😅 "The thing to take away from this is that its best to just wait and see what comes and when" "2024 will be a fantastic year for flightsimming for sure"

Pretty sure the default A330 in MSFS 2024 (also showin the trailer I believe?) will be iniBuild's too 🙂

For all previous sims and most games in the past, the user who wants to keep using an older title has that ability to simply keep using it on their system without worries.. for something like MSFS which has a client/server architecture, the onus is on the sim developer to keep that support alive. I feel that post SU15 they'll be doing whatever is minimally required in order to keep this support going for a few years. If backporting of some 2024 features to 2020 is not going to be that heavy in terms of development labour, then sure why not that too. In the grand scheme of things, if MS/Asobo are only spending a small portion of their development resource/time in order to keep v2020 going, it's a win win all around. I really don't think that just because v2020 is continuing to be supported that a lot of users are going to hold back on v2024... there's going to be a flood of users jumping on v2024 without a doubt IMO 🙂 But regardless, it's good that at least those other users who want to only keep using v2020 have that option, without the server-side getting turned off soon after v2024 arrives.

I don't see why add-ons like ASFS or Rex can't keep working like they do now with MSFS 2020 at the very least, for MSFS 2024. What they do ultimately is control MSFS's core weather engine manually (i.e. via presets) with weather data they source on their own, and blending of METAR and other data their own, etc (of course all the different cloud type renderings etc is ultimately done by and depends on the MSFS core weather engine). So even if access to be able to *write* to live weather remains the status quo in MSFS 2024, add-ons like AS can still keep doing it the way they do now, and even take advantage of improvements in the core weather engine. Obviously would be even better if MS/Asobo open up full write access via the SDK, but that'll be up to them if technically feasible (given the cloud/server architecture of MSFS) and also legally/contractually feasible. That said, some end users might see less need for weather add-ons like AS/Rex/etc depending on if the MSFS 2024 core weather engine provides all/most of what they need, and does live weather better than it does in v2020 (i.e. especially with blending of METAR and global weather data). New features like 24hr historic weather might lessen the need for those who only needed historic weather in order to be able to fly at a desired time of day anywhere in the globe regardless of when/where they are actually using the sim.

I agree with Cognita above. MS/Asobo already said they won't abandon MSFS 2020 just because MSFS 2024 releases.. they said last year MSFS 2020 will be supported at least a "few years" after 2024 releases. That doesn't then mean they are spending lots of their development team time on MSFS 2020. Where the effort won't be too much and is feasible, they might backport some v2024 features to v2020 like Jorg said today. Outside of that, I feel like it'll be mostly bug fixing and maintenance mode type changes for v2020 after SU15.

Well just to be clear Jorg said in this stream that 200 ish people are at Asobo, when he then quoted the 700 figure he also included partner companies like iniBuilds, Orbx, etc. So not all of those companies' employees are directly salaried by MS, but of course MS pays flat amounts to the companies I'd guess for specific contracts like the iniBuild aircraft that are default in the sim, etc. Needless to say, MS has deep pockets, and is clearly investing a lot in both its core teams as well as partnerships to build the MSFS franchise 🙂

Yup, their full focus is on MSFS 2024 for remainder of this year looks like (which makes complete sense).. also glad they confirmed they're planning on feature discovery videos. Can't come soon enough.. but like we suspected on earlier threads, very likely no new info will come until early/mid June when that big MS/XBox event and then FS Expo occur.

My notes: Sim Update 15: 280+ changes stability & performance: bug and crash fixes, updated GDK (Windows development platform that they use), memory usage reduced, etc other areas of improvements: snow coverage, atc, life traffic, ground friction & handling iniBuilds A3320 core crash issues were traced to WASM where the underlying issues were fixed (i.e. not freeing all memory used in aircraft initialization phase) .. this will also help outside the A320 obviously new feature G3X touch deep dive (Working Title dev came on): PFD some features: standard rate turn pointers, HSI TRK mode, flight plan inset, nearest airport inset, nearest airport bearing pointer Raul (of FSReborn) commented in twitch chat: "Jorg, just wanted to say the way WT implemented all the functionalities and how to configure and tweak G3X is incredible modular and flexible, is a dream to set and configure via .XML settings. Thanks to both for pushing it this way, it makes the life of 3rd party airplane developers way easier.. *high five*" lean assist, fuel calculator detailed airport information window (all sorts of useful details for any airport) .. will recommend landing direction per weather/METAR and other stuff flight planning: VFR approach, lateral guidance to line up with runway, etc G3X is VFR only.. but can be paired with an "external navigator" like other Garmin units that are IFR capable, and plans can be transferred .. the G3X is then able to effectively that IFR plan including both lateral and vertical guidance 3 default aircraft currently equipped with the VFR-only G3X (X and NX cub, and another one) When SU15 release, 3rd party developers will be able to hook up the G3X with default/WT garmin units or other units default A320 & iniBuilds (Michael Standen of iniBuilds came on): core team have lots of experience working on their previous products for P3D & X-Plane IRL Airbus pilots/mechanics/etc also make up the core dev team at iniBuilds, Cameron (guest speaker from last stream) is a current line pilot on A320 neo, Michael is a current A330 pilot future updates planned and work on it will continue, they are looking at all feedback stability issues: worked closely with Asobo on WASM systems fidelity: taken the experience from A320 neo internal pilots team and also the FCOM to develop the systems, main aim is to give a true representation of normal line operations, day-to-day A to B fuel transfer and associated momentary dip in pressure is modelled and ECAM shows it flight model: huge amount of experience in dev team along with the IRL pilots on the team to flesh out the FM.. true-to-life and flies by the numbers will likely get future AAU and Working Title treatment too Q about codebase for PC vs XBox: most of the code is common codebase Q about AMD FSR3: team is working on this, main target is for MSFS 2024 there is a plan to backport to MSFS 2020, post SU15 Q about enhancements to helicopter flight model? SU15 already is coming with various improvements post SU15: split checks (Cabri at least), improvements on turbines, etc Q: will SU15 memory optimization improve airports loading on approach, A: yes (up to 1000x improvements in actual memory allocations which then translates to less stutters ultimately, especially on final approach after long lights for example) Seb has 7 computers running to test long flights and memory use World Hub alpha is still ongoing, new users still welcome, close to beta Shallow water update (water masks): used various tools along with hand editing to merge and harmonize various data and images they have to achieve the highest LOD, and to ensure no break in LOD and colors when going up or down for example Turks and Cacos took 40+ hours Asobo will work with Bing to hand this work back and improve in Bing itself across the world, they will be updating and improving over the coming months/years (labor intensive, 5 people on it, will take about 2 years) Historical weather they will bring ability to fly in preceding 24 hours weather in MSFS 2024 Both MSFS 2024 and 2020 will use newest 2023-based satellite imagery Multiple bugs being tracked around the tile popping and texture bleed issues (wasn't clear to me what is actually fixed in SU15, and what is post that) they came back to this and Marshall said that DX12 is the main graphics pipeline for MSFS 2024 so these issues are being tracked for that, and possibly could be backported to MSFS 2020 London fixup is still in progress World Update Brazil is postponed (due to ATC in the country making photogrammetry flight change its flight plans, etc) City Update 7: European cities 2 (Barcelona, Monte Carlo, Porto, Stockholm), coming May 28th Q: Why only update a small # of aircraft for the new ground handling features ... A (Seb): we don't have the bandwidth to update and test all aircraft for every new feature Q: How they plan to move forward with MSFS 2020 while they also work on MSFS 2024: SU15 is the last sim update for MSFS 2020 for this year, as the team focuses on the new coming sim SU16 will be in early 2025, some of the MSFS 2024 features will be backported They are planning on feature discovery video series for MSFS 2024 "We are changing a lot of things in MSFS 2024" ... "We can't say much now, but we are definitely not removing things in MSFS 2024 that was in 2020" Q: How many people work in Asobo, A: core Asobo is roughly 200 (but when considering associated partners/companies/etc like iniBuilds/orbx/etc it's 700+) MSFS 2024 related announcement: Beluga, A400M seen in the trailer made by iniBuilds ... more details of the fleet will come soon, they are aiming for high fidelity so like many of us suspected the A330 related fleet in MSFS 2024 will be done by iniBuilds They will be at FS Expo as already announced by the conference

The MSFS core weather engine can definitely render stratus clouds but only in manually configured weather (the only cloud type I believe the core MSFS weather engine cannot render regardless of live or manual weather is Cirrus, AFAIK). MSFS default live weather is not able to feed the engine the right data (from Meteoblue + METAR blending) for stratus I guess unlike pre-SU7, but add-ons like AS which basically just control the sim's manual weather certainly can.

What MS/Asobo really need to work on, given that they messed it up since SU7 (but also have made it better since to be fair) is how they reconcile METAR data with global Meteoblue data. The blending is not good as it could be yet, and for someone like me who doesn't really care too much about METAR I found the purely global weather simulation pre-SU7 to be pretty darn good and immersive, and miss it 🙂 At least the core MSFS weather engine is clearly capable of rendering and doing things properly (i.e. clouds), as manual non-live weather shows, and as these sort of weather add-ons show (since they basically just control manual MSFS weather in a fine-grained ways with their own weather data). I am waiting to see what MSFS 2024 improves in METAR and global weather blending, maybe they might even provide an option for pure global vs METAR+global, etc.. in addition to this, there's also what they'll improve in the core weather engine in visual rendering capabilities. What they've spoken about as coming in v2024 seems promising like better simulation of thunderstorms and super cells, actual simulation of tornadoes, etc (all of which would require core weather improvements at the least). What'll be interesting is in live weather if they're actually able to show these thunderstorms, supercells, etc given their current not-so-great blending of METAR data with global weather data. That's what I'd want them to focus on first before spending effort to open up weather writing APIs (just IMO of course). If they're able to both improve the core sim's METAR blending as well as open up weather writing APIs, then even better. In any case, good on HiFi and other devs for putting out these kinds of add-ons working within the confines of what MSFS currently allows in terms of weather writing. It just increases the choices for users.. and like I keep saying, no add-on is ever going to hurt the sim, so more the merrier 🙂

Just want to reiterate though that I certainly don't think that's MS/Asobo's current line of thinking (i.e. one of protecting default weather from competition). IMO, the reason they've not opened up live weather write access in the SDK yet is one or more of: a) It's technically difficult/impossible given the client/server architecture of MSFS, where live weather is calculated/processed in the AWS cloud and then served out to client machines b) The work to do it is non-trivial and costly c) The work to do it ranks lower in priority to other work they have planned or are doing currently (including core weather improvements coming in MSFS 2024) d) There are contractual or license issues with weather data providers like MeteoBlue

Generally agree with most of what you said Damien, and I too don't get anyone who thinks that AS is in "competition" with MSFS weather.. similar to those who conspiracy-theorize that MS/Asobo didn't open up weather SDK access yet because they want to "protect" their default weather from competition. MS/Asobo not prioritizing the work to open up SDK access due to other priorities they deem higher is one thing, so is them facing any technical or licensing hurdles in opening up write access to live weather given MSFS's client/server nature... but surely this cannot at all be an issue of protecting or fear of competition because regardless of what the add-on is, it needs the base sim 🙂 So there is no an add-on that could *hurt* the use/sales of a sim, and can only ever do any good for it. MS/Asobo stand to benefit from any add-on however niche or widely popular it is (the absolute worst case can only be they get zero benefit, but so what). There are various folks on here who might not see the need for AS for *them* yet.. and that's perfectly fine. This also doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand some of what it brings (i.e. historical weather) like some have suggested. I can see how it could be very useful or absolutely necessary for some of those who can only use the sim in the evening hours, as one example.. it's not a deal breaker for me, but that's just my situation. It's also clear that something like historical weather or opening up the weather SDK is a not a high priority item in the grand scheme of other sim aspects when looking at the overall user base.. and that's per these & other user forums, per the low voted feature requests in MS/Asobo's backlog, etc. But just want to point out one thing, if not enough people are proactively pushing MS/Asobo to open up weather write access, that's just what it is.. it doesn't mean those users are on a campaign against AS (it may well be the case you've encountered a few who're vocally against AS, but I'm not talking about those folks and nor do I understand their intentions).

Both thumbs up to these improvements: In the nearer term, we’re closely monitoring community feedback, currently specific to some complaints with flare and ground effect phases - at this stage we feel we’re quite close, so we won’t be making any larger changes in this area to keep the behaviour relatively consistent, however we’ve identified some areas we can make gentle adjustments to - specifically with ground effect modelling. At this juncture we’re reasonably happy with the lift/cushion effect of the ground effect, but feel like the drag additive could be slightly increased. This, in theory, will help the aircraft “settle” on the runway a touch better. Currently within MSFS, the lift and drag of ground effect are intrinsically tied to one another, but we are currently developing and prototyping a solution to this, which will enable us to achieve more granular control over the drag properties when in ground effect. The other area we’re focusing on are complaints of difficulty controlling the aircraft when on ground, during rollout or takeoff specifically. We are currently re-tuning the ground friction modelling in line with the incoming SU15 and its new ground friction modelling, and believe this will be a step in the right direction.

Interesting.. seems the key is the mode of depiction as described on their product page. "ASFS Preset Weather Depiction Mode" is what's needed to get the full list of features and that's essentially using and controlling MSFS manual weather, like other current weather add-ons currently like REX? There is no new API write access to live weather in the sim so they have to be using MSFS in manual weather mode. How they'll differentiate themselves from other products like REX I guess is their source of data, how they handle transitions, the level of control and use of existing APIs to control MSFS manual weather, historical weather, etc. The MSFS weather engine we know can already handle and depict various weather situations and clouds but its live weather especially since METAR integration is not depicting everything that's possible, so there definitely is a value-add for a product like this... to put it simply, it's like an assistant is rapidly changing manual weather settings for us (however frequently as the platform API allows) to simulate live weather, historical weather, etc. Even after MSFS 2024 arrives with enhanced depiction capabilities in the core weather engine (they've stated better simulation of storms, super cells, tornadoes, etc) and assuming the new sim makes fuller use of the its weather engine capabilities for live weather, if MS/Asobo continue to not provide write access to live weather (for whatever technical/architectural and/or licensing issues), then I guess there'd still be a place for products like these which can continue to use the manual weather mode to "inject" weather.. at least for something like historical weather. -------------------- From https://hifisimtech.com/asfs/ (underlining my own.. seems like "Passive Depiction Mode" is just MSFS live weather with Active Sky injecting visual effects?) ASFS Preset Weather Depiction Mode ASFS Preset weather depiction mode features advanced weather preset conditions control for the best accuracy within the preset depiction capabilities, and full use of the Active Sky weather data and synthesis system including historical and custom weather options. Passive Depiction Mode Passive mode is used with live weather and allows MSFS’s internal live weather depiction to take full control of weather depiction in the simulator, while Active Sky FS provides Active Air Effects and all other non-depiction features (mapping, planning, voice features, conditions report, web companion app, etc.)

What do folks think about iniBuilds' implementation of the new SU15 ground handling in their A300? Asking the IRL pilots especially 🙂 .. they start talking about it at this timestamp in their intro of the new A300 P&W engines update:

The Citation Longitude is one of the most deeply simulated default aircraft amongst all the ones Working Title beefed up via the AAU and SU updates (avionics, systems and FM wise). I mean, the hefty documentation/manual at 170+ pages https://flightsimulator.azureedge.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Cessna-Model-700-Operators-Guide.pdf is a clue to its fidelity 🙂