Julkensen

I can't get the navigraph charts to wirk on the efb. All I get is a blank page. Can't find anything in the documentation about it. Apparently you're supposed to have a popup window to enter your login infos but I never got that. Anyway I can reset it ?

the SDK is available within msfs. when developer mode is activated you can find a link to download it.

fps lock only work when vsync is activated

Shame! I'll tell Andy to add some code in the Concorde 64 bit that requires the fourth cd to be there to fly it if it's activated with your name. That will teach you. You monster.

Pete Dowson released a specific FSUIPC version for the FSX-SE beta. Try it http://fsuipc.simflight.com/beta/FSUIPC4974c.zip

You can't compare shooters and flight sims, the priorities for the 2 are vastly different. for a shooter, FPS and latency is the most important, if its not there it's game braking. flight sims are simple in term of the physics needed to make it accurate. There is a reason why flight sims have been the first simulation games, compared to other vehicles a plane is pretty simple, you could model a decent approximation with only 4 parameters, lift, drag, weight and traction. simulating a car is much, much more complex. Accurate racing sims are fairly recent. You have to take into account friction, weight, drag, power, for each wheel, then you need to simulate the chassis, how it deforms under load, then the suspension geometry, which affect the handling of the car depending on tthe type of suspension. then there is the tyre simulation, which is a whole other subject just on itself. flight sims are the pinnacle in term or map size. A sim has to render an area far greater than any other genre. then you have the details. people want 4k textures and eye candy as far as the eye can see with a technology that was never meant to achieve that. This costs a lot in term of computing power. but none of this existed in 2006 when fsx came out. hardware was not only less powerful it was vastly in the way of handling complex tasks. FSX was made for a kind of hardware that doesn't exist anymore. what i take from this interview is that fs20 will be dependent on the number of cores available. FSX and p3d were notoriously bad at multithreading. This was the single most important limiting factor in performance. It looks like we finally getting a sim able to take full advantage of modern hardware.

Everybody understood that the X meant 10, but fsx sounded better than fs10, so it prevailed. The official name is one thing, what the community choose to call it is another. The very fact that microsoft called it FSX came from the fact that the community chose to call fs2004 FS9. Why it came to be called fs9 i have no idea, but microsoft embrassed it. MSFS seems weird because it is the first time that we don't have a number at the end of the name. I think what microsoft is doing with msfs is the same as with windows 10. When it came out it was said that windows 10 would be the last windows. What it meant was that instead of realeasing new windows versions, with incrementing numbers, windows 10 would remain and small updates would be released instead. Now we have "creators updates" rather than windows 11 or 12. The same thing will happen with MSFS, the name will stay and we will have continuous updates without a name change.

If i remember correctly their 320 flight model is simulated outside of P3D to achieve the accuracy they wanted. I'm not sure if this was also the case for concorde. If this was possible in FSX and P3D this should also be possible in FS20. However being able to use the sim natively would probably be preferable and might shorten the developpement time. Microsoft said they talked to several 3rd party developpers and listen to their inputs to write the SDK so I have no doubt it will be a huge step forward compared to the FSX days.

This has to be sarcastic. wow. You really think microsoft cares what people call their sim? Do you say "microsoft windows 10" when you talk about your pc? If I recall correctly FSX real name is "Microsoft Flight Simulation X" , FSX has never been an official name for the sim, and yet noone complains about it. We are going to talk a lot about this new sim, a shorthand version of the name will be handy. Be it MSFS or FS20 I don't care. I like FS20 and I'll use it. If it annoys some people on this forum it won't prevent me from sleeping at night. As for not being accepted in the alpha based on how you call the sim, well, that is just plain wrong. Long live FS20.

I think it would be a very bad idea to have one entity decide for us who is allowed to develop add-ons and who doesn't. That choice should be made by the users. If someone buys a crappy add-on because he couldn't be bothered to do a little research beforehand, that's his problem.

I've heard some very encouraging things in this video. My chief concern with the new sim is performance, expecially inside complex glass cockpits which fsx wasn't designed for. They say they completely rewritten how complex glass gauges are handled by the sim and I hope this will translate in much better performance overall. They also seemed to have done some of the ground work to enable much more accurate cockpits in general. They talk about a wiring system like fslabs did with its 320 which allowed for unparallel realism, same thing with the oil simulation. I couldn't be more exited to see what comes next.

We'll see how this works when the SDK comes out. This would surprise me a bit that you need real world data for this method to work. I don't think microsoft would expect 3rd party developers to rely this heavily on manufacturers data. The wing parameters and geometry is one of the most guarded secret for airbus and boeing because it directly relates to performance, fuel consumption, and thus, range and efficiency of the aircraft. The economic implications of this data is much to important for them to just give away like that.

All will really depend on how these 1000 points are working. If the parameters like lift and stall threshold are calculated automatically by FS20 depending on the geometry of the wing this points are bound to it should not be much harder for developers to implement this. But if it's not done automatically by the sim, then devs need to know the characteristics of a wing in very fine detail. Without data coming directly from the aircraft manufacturers, I don't know how they will be able to achieve that.

Partnership can mean litteraly everything. It can range from full support for developpement , from the plane geometry to the systems, and all the data you can think of. It can also mean a simple licensing to be able to use the company name and logo ingame.

I didn't think about that, I assumed the easy mode was related to flight dynamics only, didn't think about the systems. Maybe you're right. I rewatched the E3 trailer and it does actually looks muck better than the one in EP.3