Bt103504

Lol, because it just got announced yesterday! Give them some time. I too wouldn't announce price points until I further elaborated on my product and produced a litany of reasons as to why someone should invest in my product. As mentioned before patience is a virtue, give them some time to showcase the other features of the sim. I reasonably wouldn't expect that granular level of detail until pre-orders go live which I would estimate wouldn't be until ~6 months prior to launch.

Kinda sounds more of a critique of specific 3PD's than of ASOBO. I wouldn't want them to cease innovation and just let the sim stagnate in order to ensure that all products are forever compatabile. I do agree that ASOBO should increase and enhance their communication with 3PD's through NDA's in order to keep them informed of development plans. It looks awfully unprofessional on both sides when the developers and ASOBO point fingers at one another.

When I used the word "gamification" earlier I was merely referring to the fact that people are angry that there are entertainment features that are being implemented into the sim at the expense of graphical or performance updates. Often the default complain revolves around the sim being accessible to consoles in addition to PC's and perceived sacrafices (real or otherwise) that are being made to achieve this end. However, I don't see any evidence of these concessions occuring, on the contrary I think ASOBO has hinted at them being able to achieve some of the requested features by using an updated engine. I mean just look at their initial press release yesterday on the MSFS 2024 product... "...designed to take advantage of the latest technologies in simulation, cloud, machine learning, graphics and gaming to create the most sophisticated, immersive and awe-inspiring flight simulator of all time. To achieve this unprecedented level of accuracy, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is powered by the significantly evolved Asobo Studio engine." Again, rather than getting one another all worked up about something that we know minimal information about based off of 1 trailer, lets wait and see what ASOBO has to say and then pass judgement when we have a full picture of the implications of this new iteration of the sim. I think Jeff Favigano had a great trailer breakdown with lots to be excited about I will say that its important to critique ASOBO's handling of this marketing approach. I think their marketing and PR team needs some serious training and guidance moving forward as much of the excitement was lost on the broader community due to a lack of clarity.

I 100% agree with you Dan. I think the somewhat "out of the blue" announcement from ASOBO was well intentioned but showed a lack of awareness to a large part of their community including but not limited to 3PD's. Rather than looking at this new sim as an obstacle or something that takes away from 2020 I instead view it as a even bigger opportunity for 3PD's since its coming with an updated SDK, new assets, mission and career system which includes new abilities of aircraft (rescue winching, transport, skydiving, etc), and what appears to be an avatar mode, really breaks open the door for creators and developers to make the experience even more immersive and take it to new exciting levels. What really has me heartbroken though is the gatekeeping that seems so apparent in this hobby when it comes to ASOBO taking chances to draw a wider audience into a very niche experience. We all dearly love aviation, and to one degree or another exploration. I imagine that many of us would love to spread this passion to others who may never have though about a career in the industry or adopting the flight sim hobby. Rather than viewing these approaches of ASOBO as "gameification" of the sim or a rabid "cash grab". Instead, I would encourage people to consider this as an opportunity to draw more people into the hobby and inspire future generations. Don't get me wrong I do have some concerns about what the exact upgrades this new version has over the existing platform (dx12, multi core support, lighting, physics and handling) but I'm very much taking a wait and see approach. I do expect they will receive quite the grilling from 3PD's and the community at the upcoming convention and will likely try to answer many of the questions folks have at that time.

Needless to say I'm thrilled that there has been such a positive response and great discussion regarding this topic. Hopefully someone at Asobo might bring these issue to a roundtable at some point in the future. I agree with @robert young that the friction model is simply atrocious. Luckily to some degree we had things like the latter versions of EZDOK in P3D that allowed you to tweak some of the ground friction instantly. Also in terms of with the Advent of realturb + EZDOK in P3D you also were able to get much better turbulence in sim as well. I know the criticism for this sim comes from a place of deep love and passion for this franchise (at least for most of us), but its important to keep in mind that this iteration of MSFS is still in its infancy. Personally I've never encountered a Dev that has been so transparent with the community about discussing internal projects and improvements that are being made. There is MUCH work to be done even Asobo has been clear about this, the good news is that they are actively working on it and are committed to long-term development. Back to the original topic. I'll do some testing today with one of the default aircraft tweaking. From what I gather Robert is that I should focus tweaks to following areas of a contact point if I'm wanting to fiddle with suspension (per the example you provided); 15 (max steering angle of nosewheel - note: optional value of 180 means it doesn't "steer" but is free castoring -useful for tail draggers) = entry #9 0.245 (amount of stiffness/resistance/rcompression of wheel when contacting the tarmac - low values stop tire from descending below surface when braking) = entry #10 1.33 (amount of travel in suspension or ratio of static compression) = entry #11

Robert thank you so much for this extremely thoughtful and enlightening response. This is really helpful. Just to see if I am understanding the formula you are describing can u see if this formula is correct. Let's use one of the main landing gears with the following config line; point.1 = 1, -15.8, -6, -4.14, 2000, 1, 0.5, 0, 0.33, 2.8.0, 0.05, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0 If my understanding of what you discussed is correct then each of the entries (seperated by a comma) for this specific contact point would be described as below; point.1 = (type of contact point 0 = nosewheel OR contact point 1 or 2), (length relation to model center), (width relation to model center), (height relation to model center), (stress/impact crash detection value), (radius of wheel), (potential steering angle of nosewheel/tailwheel), (suspension stiffness), (extent of suspension traversal), (suspension inertia), (remainder of values are retract and deploy values of contact point) So in the example point above .33, 2.8.0, and 0.05 are the specific suspension settings that would need adjusted? Do I have this correct? Is there a way of doing this real-time in the sim? Perhaps in Dev Mode?

I know Seb mentioned in the most recent developer stream that they are working on a much more comprehensive ground physics and airframe modeling for aircraft to help them feel a bit more weighty. But one thing that has bothered me since the sim has launched has been the almost RC plane suspension physics when it comes to landing, takeoff, or any sort of bush trip. I'm seeking a little bit of assistance on identifying where the suspension parameters live within the flight model cfg? I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I bought and tested this product; https://secure.simmarket.com/illuminators-improved-physics-special-edition-msfs.phtml Yes, I know the dubious nature of the "publisher", which is why this is the only product I've ever purchased from them. I do have to admit, despite the physics being a little overdone, it does provide a lot more weight to the aircraft. I've searched high and low for how they seemed to accomplish the ground physics. All I've been able to find is criticism from folks saying "how dare they publish a product that is just flight model cfg edits that everyone already knows how to do" but then never elaborating on the how end-users might be able to make these changes themselves. I did use notepad and did the compare plugin to compare to the current flight model cfg's and needless to say there have been so many changes to MSFS since the product was released the effort seems to be futile in terms of identify the individual changes that were made. Would any kind simmer with knowledge of the flight model cfg files care to provide some insight? Are these adjustments to the contact points section? Or should I be looking elsewhere in the flight model cfg? Thanks all!

I know this is a fairly niche inquiry but is anyone aware or heard anything about plans to improve the aircraft lighting. I'm a GA flyer mostly and the aircraft lighting (strobes and beacons specifically) are erm.... underwhelming to say the least. Almost impossible to see and incredibly faint anytime that is not nighttime. I think back how to A2A's Shockwave lights addon basically transformed the look and feel of aircraft lighting in FSX and I guess just miss that level of impressiveness, relatively speaking. Don't get me wrong I think Asobo nailed the beacons on the tubeliners. Does anyone recall hearing anything in any of the dev Q&A sessions about the aircraft lighting? Are the effects that are implemented currently just placeholders? It was only recently that we got ground/water effects so I assume that's the case but was curious what other people's thoughts were on this topic? p.s. I know there's a couple "lighting" mods out there on other sites but I haven't noticed those improving anything except for at night time.

I would definitely be interested in seeing your settings for each of the filters used. Been using freestyle for a while but haven't been able to come even close to this effect!

Thanks for your feedback ErichB. Unfortunately, I fly mostly GA aircraft as I prefer bush flying not big iron. Therefore light addons are slim to none with GA aircraft.

Out of curiosity can the new light models/effects be used on the user aircraft as opposed to just the AI models? I know some developers tend to really miss the mark with lighting so I'd be curious if this was possible before buying the product. Thanks!

Is anyone else experiencing the awful engine phasing noise when rotating around the plane in external view? Any solutions to this?

My apologies @Jim Young I was not trying to suggest that Orbx was required to provided technical support for FSJ. I meant my comment as complimentary to them for including what files needed to be disabled in the Oahu FSJ island folder and Hawaiian Airports folder. I was more seeking clarification from the community here if there were any additional files that anyone discovered in the Extra Content Scenery folder from FSJ that needed disabled. Orbx stated that there are potentially files in the folder that need disabled, however some users are saying its not necessary to disable anything. Just seeking clarification as to people's experiences 🙂

So I'm seeing lots of different information right now regarding the FSJ Extra Content Scenery folder. Has anyone found the need to disable any files in this folder? @DannyR you indicated you just reinstalled the the FSJ package. Orbx did a great job indicating what the files were in the Oahu island folder that needed adjusted and even the airport packages folder, but not so much the Extra Content Scenery folder. Looked at the forums on FSJ and they haven't been updated in quite some time. Any tips from folks here in the forums?

Not to add more to your plate Umberto, but I was curious if GA aircraft support was still in the works for GSX level-2. Specifically GA aircraft support in terms of the animated passengers, baggage loading, etc. I know it had been mentioned as something in the pipeline for Level-2 development but was just hoping to check in and see if it was still actively being worked on or considered. Thanks!