RXP

Who "they"? Microsoft or Aerosoft? Is there any reason the former is locking these files out, if this was intentional, or could it just be a fluke in the SU5 distribution. Who knows.

What about these

posted 8H ago here to:

me neither... 🙂

@The Moose No argument here, you made it clear (I quoted your post a few lines too short only). I was indeed pointing out you're not alone thinking the same. It just happened I've read (and posted) in this FS2020 topic earlier, so this came naturally to point readers to this dedicated topic there too! [edit: I've now added the missing pieces in the quote to make it clearer, thank you for the note!]

Yes it is not always for the best either. To each is own: Its anarchy at the major airports! - Community / General Discussion - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums PS: my suggestions for what it's worth: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/its-anarchy-at-the-major-airports/431817/6?u=cptlucky8 https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/its-anarchy-at-the-major-airports/431817/58?u=cptlucky8 https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/its-anarchy-at-the-major-airports/431817/60?u=cptlucky8

So you did make up your mind in fact... your opinion is not having any (yet) 😉

+1 for the game, and with a PS5 for me (well if I can find one LOL)

I’d like to thank you Lionel for your invaluable and honest insights, I’d really like to see you more in the Q&A or other videos! PS: and now there is a technical explanation to this issue which I hope they'll find a solution for: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/bug-feature-taa-is-transforming-road-traffic-into-ghosts-self-cancelling-moving-pixels/348992?u=cptlucky8

Do you have any link to this info?

Take this with a grain of salt, but I believe it is a mandatory requirement for anything releasing on Xbox (or PS, same policies): you can only have 1 current version for everyone (except PlayFab for devs which are allowing them to remotely enable/disable already coded features and managing special builds for a screened audience) In my opinion it is not much about streaming data format/protocol, but more about policies.

This might be true. Actually I was wondering the same about the upcoming TopGun DLC and Paramount: Is this benefiting mostly Paramount because people will go see the movie thanks to the buzz (as if they needed it), or is this benefiting mostly MSFT because people won't go to the theater and will play Maverick on their Xbox instead. Maybe a bit of the two is true, or even the reverse, i.e. the former tries to distract people away from the console in order to fill the theaters, and the latter benefits from the buzz... 🙂 just kidding here.

I honestly believe it only decreased since it was released, and there are pre-release alpha comparisons and explanations which are supporting this fact. I've posted a link p3 of this discussion which might have been under the radar now that we're p7 This post on the FS2020 is an attempt to gathering in one place the most prominent remarks coming mostly from the dedicated topic about night lighting issues. It is a very long topic (the night lighting issue topic, not just my post) but I'd suggest everyone to take the time to perusing it, and look how creative the community can be and offering viable if not good solutions which are blatantly ignored. In my opinion the reason they are ignored is not technical (because the solutions offered are not any different technically, just different in the way the same techniques are used) but only because these solutions are not aligning with the artistic direction of the game (or eventually because no one was actually assigned to handle this task). The question remains: if the community is voicing the artistic direction is not proper, why is it still ignored?

I do share your point of view with your explanation on working code, I've also spotted changes between updates in diffing files (in this case JS code) which are clearly code changes breaking previously working code, which shouldn't have been changed at all just be the mere logic of it (I can send you the example in PM if you want). I'm quoting your sentence above though because I'm 100% with you here: if I critique, I can come of sounding kind of harsh, but I'm just saying what I think from my past experiences too. I've been contributing to building this industry for 20 years, amongst 14 different simulator versions and SDK over 3 major titles (FS, P3D, XP) and this definitely gives me an understanding of the technicalities behind the sims, the coding practices, what the simmers are looking for and want, let alone knowing the history of 2 decades of simulation at the heart is also telling a lot about what does it take, what is working and what is not from a simulation perspective. What I still fail to reconcile somehow is how come MSFT and Asobo is not finding any advantage and profit to using this knowledge for their own benefit (mine is obvious), especially when I see the same mistakes repeating back from 20 years ago in gauges development and SDK...

I'd say "so that it amplifies the concerns we're voicing"

I believe this would only work if the promise is that every (or at least most) bugs reported during the beta are actually correctled by the time it releases. I can't say more because of NDA... but I've seen some people from the beta telling on the FS2020 forum and elsewhere there were many bugs during SU5 which were reported and now in the release. And in any case, if the idea is to wait for all bugs to be corrected prior release, this will be contrary to the principle this game is developed with: pushing new features often even if they are not fully implemented, so that it gives some purpose for people to coming back. In other words you'd wait a long time before having new features. Like any other game, they are fighting for your attention span, which translates into dollars in the long run (DLC etc...). And actually they do succeed in capturing the attention span only by judging the number of new topics per day in the FS2020 vs the P3D forum 🙂

I honestly don't know and can't judge, but it hard not noticing a trend, especially since SU5, that this is starting to worrying an increasing number of people, now that instead of forecasting an hypothetical future only seen by a few, all can have a hands-on experience of how it translates into the deliverables they use in practice. This still doesn't tell whether these issues are mostly due only to the development practices though, and it would be pure speculation affirming anything in any case.

@SierraDelta I believe it is just a figure of style in writing, not a blame of any sort. I'm really fine with @Alpine Scenery comments and constructive criticism, but I also appreciate you standing to defend! Thank you both!

I'm probably lacking the proper vocabulary here and this might reflect poorly in my writing. What I meant is that you're advocating they basically fix the problems prior adding new stuff and therefore delaying SU6 for this reason, whereas I believe this is not how they are operating. @Alpine Scenery is better describing what I wanted to say for example. I don't think they play much with the code base though, they're just adding many things in many places and when comes the time to reconcile the changes, it might be harder to spot and detect all the ripple effects of all the changes. I don't think there is any magic solution either, and they do have a huge list of key roles for which they are still offering jobs for. Having said this I believe the reality is that developers are hard to find, even more so in Bordeaux compared to Paris (I don't have any official numbers for this but suffice to say demographics are naturally playing in favor of Paris here), and it is even more difficult finding developers knowing their craft AND knowing aviation, willing to quit a job from the aeronautical industry nearby in Toulouse to join the gaming industry at Bordeaux. I'm just trying to be pragmatic with this, and again I might be entirely wrong too, but I believe instead of bashing renowned 3rd party developers knowing this craft long and large, they certainly could benefit more in embracing us in a whole inclusive way... I can say my personal experience doesn't show they are much interested in learning from us...

I can assure you it might be sometimes even worse in the other direction...

If only they'd let us visit it in VR, not even...

I'm not sure this is an issue in itself though. They are adopting a form of "continuous development" process and they are releasing updates where 80% of the features are implemented (rough figure for illustration only). In turn, isn't SU6 the continuation plain and simple, into which some of the bugs and issues of SU5 will be addressed nonetheless? What I'm probably more curious about is this "continuous development" process in itself because if the premise, and I might be entirely wrong here, is to ship with 80% features implemented, addressing bugs and the remaining 20% on the next one(s), this means the code will never be complete even in 10 years: there will always be 20% work remaining to be done, and bugs from the previous update to correct. In other words, this will always introduce new bugs in new updates, and always leave a feeling of non-achieved work. This is what is puzzling me more right now.

I believe it has been for quite some time, not just SU5, and especially in VR it is very hard on the experience. I've tried gathering all salient problems and possible solutions in one post here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/external-lights-only-render-on-right-eye-random-ghosting-image-on-right-eye-only/427755/6?u=cptlucky8

The metering problems (over exposition) are there since day1 early 2020 and are exemplified in VR even more (re: full screen average Luma - typical working simplification in 2D games - vs spot and/or weighted average Luma - more appropriate with or without gaze tracking). The difference to me, before and after SU5, for the exposition problem, is that the game is now “tuned” for Xbox + HDR TV display. Not only many PC + monitor users don’t have HDR capable display devices, but the monitor and the TV might not be using the same gamma either. In addition, PC+monitors are calibrated for sRGB whereas HDR TV are calibrated for a wider color gamut. The SU5 graphics changes are so much making me thinking of these: “While the Rec. 2020 transfer function can be used for encoding, it is expected that most productions will use a reference monitor that has an appearance of using equivalent of gamma 2.4 transfer function” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020 “SDR for HD video uses a system chromaticity (chromaticity of color primaries and white point) specified in Rec. 709 (same as sRGB). […] HDR is commonly associated to a Wide Color Gamut (a system chromaticity wider than BT.709)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_video#Chromaticity I believe therefore there is at least one solution to this problem with SU5: using an Xbox on a TV screen. PS: having said this, it might just be as simple as a bug in the shader code which would scale the "ambient" light from the sun too much of course, but I don't know where I read it but it seems to me SU5 "exposition" was changed on purpose and I don't remember what was the reason. PPS: here is a post with before/after pictures and the 1st couple of these are clearly showing a hard shadow under the aircraft although the sun is supposed to be somewhat hidden by the clouds: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/washed-out-graphics-post-su5/428012/40

Hi, Most likely you didn't install FSX SP2 or ACC updates (min req. for RXP GTN/GNS V2)