GlideBy

Weren't you in the screenshot with about twenty planes in it? (Remember, he is in the Alpha) Imagine that there are hundreds of players in the LA area. Yes, 50 does seem like it could get overloaded quickly. One or two large groups could add up to 50, and then does it show just two groups, or the ones that aren't in a group? What about a fly in event, or the group live events. And we know 50 is the max because of bandwidth. So I assume many users will see less than 50. How much bandwidth do 50 planes use, I assume a lot since it is set as the max. Although 50 is decent, I do have some questions and concerns about why the max is 50 and not higher.

I lot of great shots in the video... @Chock As for the Alpha screenshots, you do know that not everything is in the Alpha build. Like the reason we don't see jets is not because they are secret, it is because they aren't in the Alpha build.

I think everything is rendered locally. The data from the satellite images, aerial images, and photogrammetry is streamed, but then rendered locally. That way if you fly over the same area, like a return trip, it caches the data and renders the view from a different direction. I don't think there are any exceptions to qualify a "almost everything".

Maybe we have seen all the good stuff. All that remains is the bad/broken stuff and the missing stuff. We know that some things they are working, or have shown, are not ready and have been disabled in the build. Like we don't see jets, because they aren't in the Alpha build, we don't see live/AI traffic because they aren't in the build, etc. I don't think the Alpha build is as far along as people think.

Since they say "planning" instead of "will be", implies it could be delayed. We should know more (maybe) tomorrow around 3:30-4pm PST.

@jabloomf1230 Was talking about Netflix not the game. He was pointing out that you can still get 4K Netflix, whereas the first post says you can't and the max resolution is much lower, as low as 480p.

Maybe. But Juancho E. Yrausquin airport in Bing also has breaking waves. So it is interesting that one has them, and not the other.

Sorry, my mistake. 😞 I thought you were talking about waves before the rocks. You are right, they should break on the rocks. Here is another MSFS image of the airport. And I looked through old screenshots for breaking waves right on the edge, and many did not have them. But this one seems to, from Jan 16th.

You only see breaking waves if the ground under the water slopes up, or gently slopes up. But if the terrain under the water is also a cliff, then there are no breaking waves. This image may help explain it.

Please, let's not talk about XP here. Good example with Juancho E. Yrausquin airport. At least those cliffs are nice and steep. So we know the engine can handle sharp elevation changes. The cliffs do have a fake feel to them. They look too uniform, there aren't any little details. It looks computer generated. It is worse if you compare to the real thing, which I know the sim can't be perfect, but it is a goal to strive for.

Nobody knows exactly what will be released. We do know "The SDK is now being used by over 50 companies and hundreds of programmers and artists. We have spent time listening, discussing and learning from our 3rd party developers, and we are working closely with them to keep improving the tools. The new aircraft editor is close to being finished with several improvements to the workflow. " And from an older audio interview they also stated some devs are onsite.

@domkle I guess I am mostly worried about having sharp looking mountains and cliffs. And not things that look like tall hills. So maybe the AI can note the area as mountains or cliffs, and put textures, rocks, and details to make it look more realistic. So I guess it matters what Asobo does with the data. I just hope I don't have to download texture packs to get decent looking mountains. Speaking of texture packs, I think most FSX texture packs for mountains were 30cm. https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/7866/fsx-30cm-generic-project-textures-rocks-mountains/ I am not sure the age matters much. (On the link you posted, there is a map that shows age of areas) Maybe it matters for rivers that have switched directions, quarries, earthquake changes, or if they are using it for building heights. I want to stress that I don't know. So just throwing it out there.

The MSFS image the runway looks flat. Where if the had better terrain resolution and mapped to the terrain, there would be a slight ramp at the end. I think this real life picture shows it better (and the water color). And, as you say, if they are just using two end points for the runway, that just isn't enough. And didn't Courchevel show changing slope?

I looked through that, and it worries me even more. First, as you noted, it is US only. Second, the highest continuous resolution available is 10 meter (1/3 arc-second). 10 Meters. And a lot of that data is really old. Like much of the west is 1960-1979 data. It does offer higher resolutions, but those only cover limited areas of the US. Now you might hope in the future that they will add more. And they slowly will. But on the By The Number page, you see they are seeking funding by partners to try to make things go faster. I haven't followed how the mesh is generated much. So it is saddening to find out for the US it is 10 meter resolution. I hope we have better resolution. Maybe I am misreading it. Below is the area covered by the one meter resolution.

I understand that everyone wants in the Alpha. But are you doing it for you, or for what's best for the sim? How many people that want in have written out a test plan? And I mean more than just fly around. One of the reasons not everyone has been invited, is they simply are not ready for everyone. Some hardware just won't work, or they know will have a bad experience. Take the 16GB RAM, until it was going to work with 16GB RAM, what is the point of inviting them? It would just frustrate them. And worse, now they have to deal with them saying it doesn't work, even though they have posted info saying so. Same if the have 8GB, or video card that isn't supported yet, or sound card, etc. And it doesn't mean those will never work, just takes time. And then you have to deal with these people posting in the forums. Right now, everyone posting is able to run the sim. But in that case you would be getting feedback from people that never ran the sim. Sure it could be useful, but it could also cause confusion. And looking up everyone, just creates more over head. And there could be other issues going on. Frankly I am already amazing they have 6,000 people testing. This is unheard of for an Alpha test. Yet people are still unhappy. Why not trust Asobo to setup testing that is best for the sim? I get the feeling that people care more about entertaining themselves, than testing to make the best flight sim.

The Alpha is for testing, not to entertain bored people.

Only the Alpha testers can take pictures. And they don't control which ones are picked. So it seems kind of random. An interesting side note. They mentioned that some areas are blurred because of military secrets. So the use the AI to fill them in with things that should look normal for the area. The things I want to see are, like waterfalls, sharp craggy mountains, lots of cars on the road at night, or day, landscape without any data downloaded from the internet, 40,000 feet shot with clear skies, more shots of water( lakes, ponds), thicker ice build up on wing, etc.

Italy the Bing image looks greener than the MSFS image, at least to me. But you are 100% right the Bucharest image is green. In fact so green that the roads are green. Maybe the AI misidentified the roads as canals with green water, or grass. So my guess would be an AI goof. I would think they would want to cross reference the road data used for routing to the image data. There are other mistakes in the Bucharest image. Like the buildings are not symmetrical down the middle road, the roof colors don't match the satellite image, and there is a big building in the middle of the parking lot. But it is Alpha, so we expect issues.

To add... The World Health Organization has a policy they use "to minimize unnecessary negative effects on nations, economies and people." This article talks about the unintended consequences of these names, and specifically states "Terms that should be avoided in disease names include geographic locations (e.g. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Spanish Flu, Rift Valley fever), ..." https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2015/naming-new-diseases/en/

@mSparks ??? I asked if you had a problem with my three statements. I don't see any evidence that what I said was wrong. After that you talk about unrelated things, and jump to many unsupported conclusions. No one knows how and for what exactly they are using webAssembly in MSFS 2020. I will not respond further as the thread has already gone off topic enough. Keep it to MSFS 2020 and WebAssembly, (not rust, not browsers, not javascript, etc)

Maybe he created the new account because he lost access to the email. I wonder because Max50 was posting often, but now has not posted since you changed his account. And Skywatcher had last posted in July of 2019, so it wasn't an active account. Maybe just a coincidence with Covid-19. Just wondering where he went.

I have always called it MSFS 2020. I think you might have me confused with someone else. I didn't compare Covid-19 to MSFS 2020. I didn't bring up MSFS at all, you did. But bottom line, the World Health Organization is NOT calling it Chinese flu. The CDC is not calling it that either. It has a official name. Are you saying it is OK to make up other names? Shouldn't we leave this up to official organizations? This whole name is political as far as I can see. It seems to come from one source. I can't discuss that, but why are people able to use the term? Is this because they agree? If the official name was "Chinese Flu" I wouldn't care. I only care for the political reasons that can't be discussed. So I am not allowed to say why exactly it is an issue. But it is certainly a political issue, which is why we should stick with the official name. The only official terms are Coronavirus Disease and Covid-19. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it

Who is calling Covid-19 Chinese flu? I searched and could only find one political leader mentioning it. And I can't say more because of "politics". But if a political statement of "chinese flu" is allowed, we should be able to talk about the source. Just do a search covid 19 "chinese flu" Except that isn't the name. It is often a sign of disrespect to use a different name. Is disrespect intended in this case, well, seems some think so. Do we want to discuss it here? It certainly seems politically charged in the US. ----------------------------------------------- So far the only official terms I have seen are Coronavirus Disease and Covid-19. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics

Have we heard about the mesh? I know they have talked about the three sources of images 50cm-3cm, Satellite, Aerial, and Photogrammetry. But I don't recall hearing about height data or resolution. Although I assume Photogrammetry would cover vertically as well.

You are taking different statements and trying to combine them into something I didn't say. WebAssembly supports multi-threading. Chrome supports multithreading Webassembly. Microsoft is using the Chrome browser core Chromium in the new Edge browser. Which statement do you have issue with. Do you think the source is wrong, if so which source? Please provide evidence, other than just your say so. Can we get back to talking about WebAssembly in MSFS 2020. The browser was just brought up to prove that WebAssembly already supports multithreading. Do you have a source that says that MSFS WebAssembly usage won't be Multithreaded? Does it need to be? What are they using it for exactly? "The Chromium-based browsers—including Chrome, the forthcoming version of Edge, and Opera—all offer support for WebAssembly (some with multi-threading, others without). Once the new version of Edge based on Chromium ships, apps in WebAssembly will work as well in Edge as they do in Chrome. Firefox offers good support for WebAssembly, but had to disable support for multi-threading due to a SharedArrayBuffer issue. And while Opera is based on Chromium, the current version of Opera only offers single-threaded support of WebAssembly. Safari has a strong implementation of WebAssembly, but it lacks full support for WebGL2. " https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/webassembly-brings-google-earth-to-more.html