Woozie

Arent you the guy who literally claims that VR implementation would merely be a lunch-break sideproject for dev interns? I would be careful using the term "half-knowledge", as that's what you show when it comes to software/game development

some really sound like a broken record now.... but seriously guys, they discussed VR way before we actually learned that it wont be part of the launch features, thats for sure. There's no need to remind them there's demand for VR. I mean its not like the FS community manager sees this thread and goes "what the heck? those crazy hardcore simmers use VR? in a flightsim? who could have thought that!? Lets call an emergency dev meeting!" They know we are there...

MS Game Division hires entire studios for projects, and they are not the only ones in the industry. Its a very common practice nowadays.

"Games based on violence...." What an unnecessary and provocative statement. If thats the case then DCS should be one of NVIDIA's showcase titles, right? Its also new to me that NVIDIA is responsible for RTX implementation in games. Be assured, if a major developer approaches NVIDIA asking to assist with RTX implementation, they will be more than happy to help... And yes, lets add hardware RT to a world-simgame everyone tries to run in 4k with maxed out details and rendering distance, what could possibly go wrong? Cant wait for the "only 10 FPS?????" threads on AVSIM....Thats what you usually get when trying to run RTX on 4K with a 2080TI at full details....

I agree, its not rocket science at all. But from a developers perspective, you just open another can of worms if you go VR. You'd have to deal with issues that wouldn't even exist in a pure 2D game. And all that using tech that is still considered experimental, meaning that it could still see significant changes in a short timeframe, unlike established and proven tech.

I didnt say its difficult to implement a VR mode. I have played many games where devs just slapped a VR mode onto games made for 2D and it certainly felt like something that was slapped on. Also i dont consider the VR experience in current sims like P3D or DCS as optimal.It works, yes, but its far away from being perfect in terms or performance or ease of use. I rather wait for a careful developed, nearly flawless VR implementation...

Exactly how they should handle this topic: no commitment, no promises, but its not like they dismiss it completely. And a subtle reminder that VR has its very own share of issues and challenges that would require precious dev time. VR is still gen1.5 and at the time of MSFS' full release, gen2.0 hardware wont be too far away. So it makes absolutely sense that they rather wait and see what the true next gen leap will have to offer We will likely get foveated rendering with eye tracking, which will significantly improve VR performance and will be key to unlock high res, high refreshrate VR gaming without any screen door effect at all. And then there is controller-less hand-tracking, Ouclus announced this for Quest for early 2020.....this is by far the most important feature for VR to completely replace flatscreen simming for me. With current hardware i have to take my hands of my HOTAS and either grab a touch controller to simulate my hand movement, or blindly reach for my mouse to move a mouse pointer in 3D space...Handtracking wil be such a gamechanger if its implemented reliabliy. And if you ever grab your cats butt when reaching for that touch controller....its a real immerson killer, believe me 😄

Some already use that to gain 5 extra FPS on an ancient graphic engine 😉

Dont forget that hardware RT would exclude quite a significant number of customers still running on last gen (and current gen mid-tier) GPU's. Apart from that, imagine what it takes to trace rays coming from the largest and strongest lightsource one can imagine, and those rays are hitting something of the size of our very own planet. It would require an enormous amount of scaling to achieve reasonable framerates, especially when going full RT with direct light, ambient light and reflections. And i dont want to fry my 2080Ti for an effect that wont even be visible most of the time considering what flightsims are all about

Woah guys, take a deep breath, we really dont need another tech-war, there are enough battlefields already 😉 While i'm a VR enthusiast too, i can absolutely understand that MS refuses to make any promises at this point. The VR community can be very vocal and demanding, same goes for flight sim community in general, and now combine these two player types and imagine the outrage if they promise VR but cant provide a sufficient experience on launch day.... A few reasons why MS are lowkey on VR: 1. Microsoft isnt really known to be one of the industry drivers for VR. They focus on AR for commercial applications and this hasn't changed much recently. We can all be certain that they keep an eye on how VR tech evolves but its market share is still to small for a company like MS to board the hype train and allocate any extra resources to the development 2. Like it or not, we are still a minority representing a single digit percent share in the game industry, and this wont change anytime soon unless VR enters mainstream territory. Oculus are on track with their Oculus Quest ecosystem idea, but its still a long way to go. We can shout "No VR, no buy!" at them as long as we want, it wont have any discernible effect on their sales figures, especially for a company as big as MS. Total market share according to Steam survey is still around 3%, but we will see higher shares in "hobby"-genres like sim-racing and flight-simming, As seated experiences are something where VR absolutely shines, and members of these communities tend to spend a lot of money on hardware compared to other game genres. 3. VR is still experimental, and takes both, software and hardware to its limits. For proper VR implementation you need a highly optimised graphic engine (or use either Unreal Engine or Unity), something you cant really expect from a product still in alpha phase running on a proprietary engine. Just look at No Mans Sky which recently got post-release VR support. Community forums are full with angry VR users complaining about bad performance. 4. The VR world may soon undergo a major change if the industry decides to fully adapt the open XR standard (which seems to be very likely). Its a cross platform/cross engine standard which will streamline VR development significantly. Another reason for MS to wait and see how this evolves before committing to any industry standard or SDK And those who compare 3D-TV to VR.....that's utter nonsense and can only come from someone who never tried proper 6DOF VR. 3D-TV was mainly a marketing thing for cinemas and TV manufacturers. It was something that could be added to existing technology without much effort or increase of production cost. In terms of VR, there's a whole industry behind with hundreds of millions being invested into R&D. And while 3D TV added some kind of (quickly fading) "wow-effect" to the movie watching experience, VR revolutionises gaming in many ways, although it will never fully replace 2D gaming. It still needs to become mainstream in order to survive but its not even remotely comparable to the very short age of 3D TV

https://fselite.net/originals/fselite-attended-microsofts-flight-simulator-global-preview-event/ Quote from Hands-On article

Thats just the tip of the iceberg.... They will demand your firstborn, or optionally a kidney, just to get past the title screen. You need to sign a leasing contract for every plane you are going to fly, based on real world rates. Apart from that, you gonna pay real money for jetfuel and airport fees & taxes and any potential lawsuits filed by unsatisfied virtual passengers. All that conveniently debited directly from your bank account for which you granted full power to Microsoft as part of the TOC. You will also have to agree to 24/7 surprise visits by Microsoft employees in black suits and sunglasses to ensure you are fully complying to all license agreements (and not hiding any firstborns!) The fact that they are running a public (closed) beta clearly indicates that they are hiding stuff from us! Microsoft, you have been caught red handed, we are not going to fall for your shenanigans! *furiously shakes fist*

Looks definitely more advanced than PACX which didn't receive an update since early July despite being early access and "actively developed". Its a major disappointment so far, given the 30 USD price tag. Another dev ending up on my blacklist, first (and likely last) encounter with TFDi so far Gonna give this one a try as i dont believe FSP will ever make it to 64bit

Yeah, ask us! What could go wrong? I'm sure we can come up with an unanimously agreed list of requirements that REALLY NEED to be in a flightsim in no time! Those amateurs at MS really need some community expertise, have they ever done something aviation related? This! Whatever they do, its wrong. I'm not sure if we really deserve a next gen sim, the entitlement of this community is unbearable and some still spell MS with a dollar sign...a bit childish, isnt it?

You dont even need a Win7 key, just download the ISO from Microsoft and install. There will be a permanent watermark in the bottom right corner, a few customization options wont be available (neglectable, nothing essential being taken away) and every couple of days, Windows will remind you to activate your version, but apart from that it works absolutely fine and you get all the updates, including virus and malware updates for defender. Its an interesting approach by MS as they seem to be OK with people using WIn10 without paying for it. They could easily lock your OS after a certain trial period forcing a license purchase but they dont.