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!

I wanted to chime in and share a few of my thoughts as well. I get the sense that the product will be released for the current gen Xbox and obviously will be compatible with the new Xbox when it is released as well in 2020. However, my understanding is that even current mid-range PC's can easily run the products currently released on this generation of consoles, at least that has been my experience. After watching the Microsoft E3 presentation and their emphasis on cross-platform support moving forward I have serious reservations that they would require a monster PC to run the new sim. I think there will likely be advanced features that users COULD utilize if they wanted, but so much of the technology that people are talking about (RTX for example) is still fairly expensive to the average consumer. I do think that there will be a "game" side to this that is somewhat similar to the Acceleration pack we saw in FSX. Perhaps a more modern take on some of these missions, after all that would be the path of least resistance for them. For simmers to completely write this whole sim off just because it is being released on a console is pretty sad. I really feel like the Acceleration pack, in particular, brought in a new generation of simmers into the hobby and that really helped grow the community exponentially. Lastly, I'm also not as skeptical that the footage we saw in the trailer was completely doctored (the hangar scene appears to be the most CGI of anything) but, if we look at the movements of the AI they still appear to be plagued by some of the same issues we remember from FSX (baggage carts driving through planes, road traffic driving through itself or into buildings). There's also very minor instances of texture popping. I'm more optimistic I suppose, but I imagine after seeing the explosive growth and popularity of P3D and X-Plane it wouldn't surprise me that Microsoft would spend a substantial amount of time developing a new sim. If they completely developed their own engine internally they would be perfectly capable of producing these types of results as they are not as limited as engines like P3D. I still remember when the trailer of the most recent incarnation of XP dropped everyone started making very similar comments to what I've been hearing now about MS Flight Simulator, claiming the footage is all CGI or not the actual sim etc.

Does anyone know how to disable the damage or auto failures with this or the octopus-g aircraft? I know, I know, I SHOULD fly it correctly, but I'm a noob so any help on how I could disable it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Greetings Iceman. The general consensus of the community at this time is to create two profiles and uncheck cloud shadows (and any other sort of terrain/tree/building shadows) during for dusk/dawn/night flights. This will allow you to avoid this issue temporarily and easily switch profiles for daytime flight. Lockheed is aware of the issue and are "Working on it"

Not gonna lie, I was a little disappointed with the stream. If you choose the automated announcements you don't actually hear any announcement. However, if you choose to make the announcement yourself there is also no PA sound effect either. These would be small but not able features in my opinion. What would be an even more cool feature is that if you made the announcement then PACX would play it back with a filter over it so it sounded like it came through the PA system on the plane.

Kayla Kinzel, one of the Devs over at LM stated that their team is aware of this issue and is looking at what might have caused this to occur. It doesn't appear to have been something they were aware of or something that was intended with the recent patch. You can follow the discussion here; https://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6312&t=133165&start=90

I agree, with the introduction of PBR and enhancing loading times for complex scenery that utilize the 64bit capabilities there is much work to be done before a v5 would be justified. I would venture to think that the next few updates for v4 are likely to be mostly back-end changes that optimize code and begin to resolve some of the long-standing issues that have plagued the platform since FSX

This is actually different than the [SOUND] TIME_CONSTANT=0 issue. I've already added this into my p3d config. This tweak actually resolves an issue where it sounds like the engine are throttling up on view changes. I somewhat found a resolution via the all-powerful google gods, but was curious if anyone was aware of any other workarounds? Below is one of the solutions I found;

Yikes, not sure if you're on the BETA team or not but someone somewhere is breaking an NDA which is a pretty serious issue. Really don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing, but might want to avoid giving out specific dates even if you have insider knowledge about something. Just trying to look out for you and your source Dave!

Greetings friends. I was hoping someone might have a solution to this problem. I'm mostly a heli pilot in p3dv4 and have several that I absolutely adore from nemeth and cerasim (Cera's 222 in particular). However, I have this horrible phasing issue when panning view in the external aircraft spot view. Does anyone know of a solution for this problem?

I agree with @Drumcode , for a product that is dynamic in nature screenshots only tell half the story. It would be nice to see some recent video of the product since the last time we saw it was in alpha. I imagine this will be coming in the final stages of the marketing campaign but just thought I would offer my support of this move from a consumer standpoint.