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

This is the first time I'm really underwhelmed by MSFS, this cockpit is really not looking good. i know its WIP and all, but they claimed their planes were close to study level, and while I admit all other planes i've see so far in other trailer seem top notch, this 320 is far from it. It looks nothing like the real thing. I've seen 10 years old freeware look better and more accurate than this. The fonts and colors are not accurate, the PFD and ND looks nothing like the real thing. The Engine display looks like the early 320's from the 80's when they used CRT screen, it sure as hell don't look like that on EIS2 a320s. I fly fslabs a320 almost exclusively these days, maybe I've been spoiled by its quality. I'll still get msfs on day one, but i'll stick to GA aircraft while fslabs, PMDG and Qualitywings bring their 320 747 and 787 to MSFS to fly airliners in the new sim. Good thing they're releasing the SDK early.

They are releasing an early version of the SDK before the end of the year, this is very good news. It means we can expect our favourite addons much earlier than previously thought.

When you develop a game you have to take into account the player base. What good is it to develop a game that is only playable with a $1000 controller when 90% of the users will use a less than $150 joystick or yoke. They have to develop and test with what the majority of people will use.

I think seasons is a must have in any flight sim. If MS thrives for realism, you can hardly achieve that if you have green grass and 20 degrees in the middle of winter in Norway or Canada. It might not be available at launch because I think they will have a hard time implementing this with the way they render the world. If it is based on satellite data and photoreal scenery, they will need a special algorithm the modify the images automatically. That could be done in FSX and P3D because it only used textures. I really hope they don't give up on that. FSLabs showed us what can be achieved when you simulate icing realistically. It would be a shame to lose that.

One of the things i'm looking forward to the most with the new MSFS is the performance improvement. Flight sims have always been plagued with very poor FPS due to the shear amount of polygons needed to be displayed compared to other type of games. You can add to that the evolution sceneries or planes available for FSX or P3D. While FSX was able to decently display a simple GA aircraft cockpit with a few dials, it was not ready for the high quality glass cockpits addons from FSLabs or PMDG. You can see up to 100 FPS difference between outside view and cockpit view. I'd like to hear about the the devs about how they tackled this issue. Building on the poor performance of previous sims, we've seen countless discussion about sim optimisation and hardware. While good performance would render obsolete the tweaking part, i believe the hardware discussions will remain. I'd also like to see the devs talk about how the sim works, what makes it tick: - Will it be CPU dependent or graphics card dependent. - What kind of CPU do I need, i.e. do i need to go for higher clock speed or higher core counts.

Caching has nothing to do with this, its a LOD issue. If you were to render every trees 100km around with a high level of detail you would need an unpractical amount of memory and graphics power to store the data and render it. It just can't be done with current computers. All you can hope for is a smooth transition between different levels of detail.

The game market nowadays is vastly different from what it used to be. Games have become a disposable product. The good reception FS20 had at E3 is entirely due imo to two reasons. People under 20 which is the main audience for E3 or X019 have, for the bigger part, never used a flight simulator before, FSX dates back to 2006. Since then, no major evolution has been brought to the genre. The switch to 64bit was only relevant for hardcore users but wasn't significant enough to make it a game changer or bring new people to the hobby. For young people today, FS20 is probably the first time they've heard about a real flight simulator. Before that they were happy using whatever plane was available in their favourite game which for the vast majority don't even come close to anything you can call real or accurate. Some will like the challenge to learn something new and challenge themselves with a real simulation. Secondly, what people found appealing in the trailer was the amazing graphics displayed which today is one of the main selling point for any game. Show fsx or P3D with all the addons you want to a teenager today, It will no impress him one bit. FS20 has changed that. That got people's attention. Will it change something for the long term of the hobby ? I don't think so. Of all the newcomers to flight simulation that FS20 will bring, the vast majority will play the game for a bit, do all the missions that come with it (if they add missions), they 'll go check their house in game and then they'll move on to another game. Only a few will stick to the hobby.

People need to put things into perspective. 140$ is not that much in the software world. The software I use at work is 5000$ for a single user license. The software gets updated every year, but the license you buy if for the version available at the time of the purchase. You can stay on this version indefinitely, but that comes to an end when windows or macos gets updated. The company making the software keeps it compatible with the last 3 revisions of macos or windows, so in reality you perpetual license is only good for 5 years max. You want to use the latest version? It will be another 5000$ please and thank you. This is not an isolated case. If you want the full adobe suite, it will cost you around 140$ every single year. You can argue that its just a game, or just an addon etc but the fact that people buy it at this price point. It shows that the value is there. Personally I'd rather pay 140$ for a pmdg of fslabs aircraft than the 50 or 30$ needed to get you aerosoft or carenado quality.

Its like asking microsoft to make the xbox compatible with playstation games that's not going to happen. The new fs20 should also cut all ties with the old ESP¨plateform even if it means it would take longer for old addons to be compatible with the new sim. The main concern should be performance. I've had enough of the 15 fps slideshow, now is the chance to change that.

Alpha is testing of new features, new code is still added to the program. Beta is debugging of a complete software.