Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Was just reading an interview about MSFS with FSdreamteam

here is a quote of the discussion --

The lighting environment is so good, that is hard to believe it doesn’t use Ray Tracing. Even a blank object with no textures looks decent there, and this is very rewarding, and it makes you wanting do more.

Also, MSFS has a huge customization potential, and Asobo has been very clever in finding a good balance between extensibility and the ability of users and developers to screw up with the sim, or create conflicting add-ons.

looking at the file structure and poking into undocumented things, it’s clear the sim was designed to be customizable in countless of ways, using standard file formats ( xml, html, json, css, javascript, etc. ), and this bodes very well for the future.

If you want to read the whole fascinating interview go to SimFlight, 25 August

 

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello, in all fairness, Asobo themselves have not "over-hyped" the simulator. That has been very capably done by those outside the development team whose motives were various but all ba

For me I have the luxury of having plenty of time to take with the sim , before the install I made sure I was prepared  for the install with the latest WIN10 build 2004 . I had heard of other ins

One thing I have learned over the years with MF9, FSX, P3D, and now MSF is that those of us who jump in at the beginning need to have patience. We as users have to be prepared to evolve alongside the

2 hours ago, olderndirt said:

Methinks MSFS has acquired a very large group of paying beta testers - how clever is that?

When did you ever buy a piece of software that was 100% finished on release? Which piece of software never got an 'update' 'fix' or 'patch'? I certainly can't think of one. Even our beloved Orbx issue patches, fixes and updates.

No, I'm not a rabid MFS fanboy although I do think it's very good, even though I am, as we speak, re-installing it because of a glitch I can't fix. It's just that the 'paying beta tester' thing is getting a bit old.

 

*Thinks* Post rant?

 

Yeah, why not?

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all of the existing bugs was reported during Alpha and Beta testing but MS/Asobo went on with the release despite knowing it and without fixing it.
Its a lot of eye-candy and some scenery's looks really good but the actual simulation is not improved. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Metthos said:

Almost all of the existing bugs was reported during Alpha and Beta testing but MS/Asobo went on with the release despite knowing it and without fixing it.
Its a lot of eye-candy and some scenery's looks really good but the actual simulation is not improved. 

 

 

But you bought it anyway?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Ron there was a theory that there was a magical build out there that had all the Zendesk tickets fixed.

 

Qu'elle horreur when all the testers realised there wasn't and the Alpha/Beta state was released.

 

Hence a lot of bitterness!

Edited by Fizzelle
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I am still very happy with P3D4/5, XP11 Vulcan, DCS, Aerofly FS2, IL-2 - with plenty of add ons.

 

However, very pleased with the immediate $value of MFS - Steam Standard version, & using FS-FlightControl as moving map & lots of extra functionality (yes SimConnect needs to be fixed ASAP).

 

The most striking aspect of MFS, to me, is the global internet streaming scenery system - very impressive infrastructure (make sure you have a quality ISP) - & of course the AI deployed in this scenery.

 

@Mawson, like you, very disappointed at the lack of helicopters - surely an advanced flight model system should have incorporated rotorcraft from the initial stages of planning.

 

Likewise, the current lack of VR is also disappointing - particularly given VR currently works well in other flight sims - & all we have now is a promise of VR for MFS (seems silly given the recent development of the Reverb G2 with Microsoft as development partner).

 

However, i sure have received AUD$99 of value - even in a couple of weeks & the future looks bright for flight sims!

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, aero-3fsx said:

Was just reading an interview about MSFS with FSdreamteam

here is a quote of the discussion --

The lighting environment is so good, that is hard to believe it doesn’t use Ray Tracing. Even a blank object with no textures looks decent there, and this is very rewarding, and it makes you wanting do more.

Also, MSFS has a huge customization potential, and Asobo has been very clever in finding a good balance between extensibility and the ability of users and developers to screw up with the sim, or create conflicting add-ons.

looking at the file structure and poking into undocumented things, it’s clear the sim was designed to be customizable in countless of ways, using standard file formats ( xml, html, json, css, javascript, etc. ), and this bodes very well for the future.

If you want to read the whole fascinating interview go to SimFlight, 25 August

 

Of course this developer is excited as it's a whole new income stream, "all the developers are excited"  as that is what developers do, the develop and sell product but it does not always line up with the best interests of the consumer. 

 

All I see is that MSFS has been developed on DX 11 and when it goes to DX 12 the add ons will break and it will be another upgrade income stream cycle (not all developers do the upgrade charges) , but some things will never change .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I half agree with you but this is not 1983 nor 1993 nor 2003 nor 2013 it is 2020 and I expected a flight sim with at least an equivalent set of functions as FSX with a lot of FPS improvements not an early release title sold at full retail price with the promise of 10 years more development with reduced scope than FSX.  Where does it say they have guaranteed free upgrades for 10 years, all they said is there is more to come for the next 10 years.

 

I have understanding with the bugs and some of the less than polished functions but there is a swath of things missing from what I and others call a flight sim and are essential in a modern flight sim and running on more than 4 cores is essential and they failed on that too. It only utilizes my CPU slightly better than X Plane 11! 
 

Patience and understanding is for your children not for a a multi billion dollar software and market leading IT company, sorry but I don't adhere to this idea that we need to pay top dollar and be thankful for whatever we get . 

 

Microsoft over hyped this and could have taken another 3 months and gave us a few more bells and whistles and that would have made a lot more people impressed than this over promising and then under delivering strategy they adopted. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

in all fairness, Asobo themselves have not "over-hyped" the simulator.

That has been very capably done by those outside the development team

whose motives were various but all based on invention and supposition,

rather than fact.

This provided a torrent of free publicity for the product but an

equal torrent of unrealistic expectation which has, in some cases,

now turned into disappointment.

 

Very true but hopefully they deliver in the next 6 months. 

Edited by Mawson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ron Attwood said:

 

But you bought it anyway?

No I did not.
I will wait and see how they develop this thru updates.
I am in no hurry.
I can see from the streaming and uploaded clips to YT that they did not fix a lot of the reported bugs during Beta. The general opinion among the tester was that the release was to early.
I think with time this will be better but I also think that they should have fixed the bugs they where aware of before they released it and took customers money.
MS is a commercial company and we should demand more from such a company than what the FS community are demanding.
That is not unreasonable.

Edited by Metthos
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Landon, I just did a flight in SoCal and you are right about blocky trees. But you've got to be looking specially for them. Except on one airport I landed at, a default un-tarted up K~BO on the coast near Burbank-ish. There were a couple of big green lumps. I put them down as Californian street art. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

in all fairness, Asobo themselves have not "over-hyped" the simulator.

That has been very capably done by those outside the development team

whose motives were various but all based on invention and supposition,

rather than fact.

This provided a torrent of free publicity for the product but an

equal torrent of unrealistic expectation which has, in some cases,

now turned into disappointment.

 

There ya go again, talkin' sense. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as Asobo is committed to improving the sim over time, I am happy with it all. I'm holding off on buying it until I can use it which for me means VR support but knowing whats to come and the support of the addon community, when this sim matures, it is going to be a great platform to sim in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Attwood said:

Landon, I just did a flight in SoCal and you are right about blocky trees. But you've got to be looking specially for them. Except on one airport I landed at, a default un-tarted up K~BO on the coast near Burbank-ish. There were a couple of big green lumps. I put them down as Californian street art. 

Well then Ron, we must be flying in two different sims, because they are all over anywhere I fly in the SoCal area, big and small. If I take of from KSBA, I can look out every window and see more than I can count. Now don't get me wrong, up in the PNW the trees are looking proper all over the place. Same in Europe. I do believe it's mostly the palm trees that are all over the place in SoCal that are the problem in my MSFS copy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Metthos said:

No I did not.
I will wait and see how they develop this thru updates.
I am in no hurry.
I can see from the streaming and uploaded clips to YT that they did not fix a lot of the reported bugs during Beta. The general opinion among the tester was that the release was to early.
I think with time this will be better but I also think that they should have fixed the bugs they where aware of before they released it and took customers money.
MS is a commercial company and we should demand more from such a company than what the FS community are demanding.
That is not unreasonable.

I was an Alpha tester and I bought it because of Fear of missing out even though I was disappointed with the functionality of the sim from day 1 ( I accepted the bugs, these were never an issue in my judgement of the sim).

 

 I now basically use the drone function to sight see as before Covid I was in the top 1% of Frequent Flyers and I like to be an eagle and fly over the places where I have been and will never see again because of this Covid. To me it is just another version of Google Earth flight sim until it has what I want being helicopters and VR and hopefully a better flight model for helicopters than X Plane. 

Edited by Mawson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Attwood said:

Do you use 'Ultra'? Just a thought.

Yes, I use Ultra on most of my settings....not all, but most, Vegetation and Trees being one of them. Trust me Ron, I have gobs of trees...just a lot of them in the SoCal area are monolithic blocks. I have a very capable PC, I9900k @ 5.0Ghz, 2080Ti and 32Gb RAM with MSFS installed on a 1TB M.2 NVMe ssd.. It's a system that I built and has been stable at 5 Ghz for over a year now. Still, I don't expect the world from it, so I am running in 2k with a mixture of Ultra and High settings. I am not an MSFS hater...I wish it would work the way I want it to, but it just does not. P3D v4.5 works better for me right now :) 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  •  
  • Members
  • 346
  • 1,729 posts
  • Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK
On 8/30/2020 at 6:26 PM, olderndirt said:

Methinks MSFS has acquired a very large group of paying beta testers - how clever is that?

When did you ever buy a piece of software that was 100% finished on release?

 

When did you ever buy ANYTHING that was 100% finished on release?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, davenicoll said:
  • When did you ever buy ANYTHING that was 100% finished on release?

 

My wife thinks her. :lol:

 

 

Edited by wolfko
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading all of the above posts i can't help thinking one thing..

 

If all the issues raised had been sorted prior to release or this tree was wrong or that buiding is not right had been corrected (Will that ever be the case?)

 

Are we not then looking for the perfect sim on Day 1...

 

What do we think 3rd party post release devlopers bring to the table?...A perfect sim = No 3rd party content...

 

Just my opinion of course.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sniper31 said:

Yes, I use Ultra on most of my settings....not all, but most, Vegetation and Trees being one of them. Trust me Ron, I have gobs of trees...just a lot of them in the SoCal area are monolithic blocks. I have a very capable PC, I9900k @ 5.0Ghz, 2080Ti and 32Gb RAM with MSFS installed on a 1TB M.2 NVMe ssd.. It's a system that I built and has been stable at 5 Ghz for over a year now. Still, I don't expect the world from it, so I am running in 2k with a mixture of Ultra and High settings. I am not an MSFS hater...I wish it would work the way I want it to, but it just does not. P3D v4.5 works better for me right now :) 

What you're seeing is just the downside of relatively low res photogrammetry as opposed to custom modeled cities or even custom autogen. I agree with you that Santa Barbara looks way better in the P3D KBSA package than it does in MSFS 2020. Photogrammetry has the advantage of depicting every single object accurately but depending on the resolution and quality of the photos it is based on shapes of objects can look massively distorted and unnatural. It's quite good for easy rectangular shapes like buildings, but organic objects like trees and shrubs justice look like blobs of green or in the case of Santa Barbara like basalt blocks in a volcanic area. The good looking palm trees in other regions are autogen trees, not photogrammetry made trees. There's a promotional video where the guys from Asobo talk about how they integrated Bing Maps into the the sim, and in a brief section of the video you can see how the Bing Maps Guys manually edit the building shapes acquired by photogrammetry to correct obvious flaws and distorted textures, and depending of how much of this correction is put into the source data you'll get better results than from the raw data. I guess Santa Barbara has seen little of those manual corrections, the pier looks especially awful. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, fabs79 said:

What you're seeing is just the downside of relatively low res photogrammetry as opposed to custom modeled cities or even custom autogen. I agree with you that Santa Barbara looks way better in the P3D KBSA package than it does in MSFS 2020. Photogrammetry has the advantage of depicting every single object accurately but depending on the resolution and quality of the photos it is based on shapes of objects can look massively distorted and unnatural. It's quite good for easy rectangular shapes like buildings, but organic objects like trees and shrubs justice look like blobs of green or in the case of Santa Barbara like basalt blocks in a volcanic area. The good looking palm trees in other regions are autogen trees, not photogrammetry made trees. There's a promotional video where the guys from Asobo talk about how they integrated Bing Maps into the the sim, and in a brief section of the video you can see how the Bing Maps Guys manually edit the building shapes acquired by photogrammetry to correct obvious flaws and distorted textures, and depending of how much of this correction is put into the source data you'll get better results than from the raw data. I guess Santa Barbara has seen little of those manual corrections, the pier looks especially awful. 

I understand what's going on with the photgrammetry tech of the trees, and that is exactly the problem I am having...I don't think it's working very well everywhere. And in a scenic area as popular as the Santa Barbara and SoCal area, that is more of a major problem. If the tech is going to depict trees as such, than I will be having a hard time with it. I don't want my state of the art flight sim to look like a mixture of Minecraft and a great looking sim scene. I have watched a ton of Asobo developer videos and YouTube videos on MSFS since it's release. I've gone back and watched all of the pre-release developer videos. I understand what is happening with the photogrammetry, and the custom autogen. I mean, the palm trees that were placed in the Orbx KSBA scenery don't look like monolithic basalt trees (good analogy btw), they look like nice palm trees. So, I know it's possible in the sim. But for all the millions of photgrammetry trees around the MSFS globe that don't look right, that is hard for me to look at. And I am a GA sim flyer, not a tube flyer, so the down low stuff matters even more to me.

 

Look, I appreciate you trying to break it down for me, but I already understand what is at work. I simply don't enjoy it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I play on medium settings and I prefer the autogen landscapes in MSFS than the otherworldly Photogrammetry when it includes the trees and shrubs. Seeing what they did with the autogen landscapes im sure if they put effort into it they could use similar tech to cull the photogrammetry flora and replace it with their autogen flora. Its a tall order but their algorithms are very impressive. For example, when i fly out of Tacoma Narrows, on one side to the east on the peninsula, there is beautiful autogen forests everywhere, but when you cross the narrows towards Tacoma proper you see all these black pyramidal LOD artifacts that are actually supposed to be trees that are very conspicuous next to the relatively good renderings of the buildings. If they could find a way to combine the technologies then I think they would have a much more seamless graphics transition in many cases.

 

The photogrammetry is pretty cool in downtown areas in large cities, but looks really out of place when it comes to anything with trees. 

 

Another example is Mont St Michel, it looks great from afar and the building up close, but you get close you cannot tell the rocks from the trees, and it just all blurs together like a blob. Different areas look like they are from different sims.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at it again I think that the trees in the photogrammetry areas arent bad, they definitely do have the algorithms tuned to pick up most of the trees... So I cant really pick out exactly what is off between autogen areas and photo areas. I could also be that the photo areas seems to be rendered in much more discrete blocks, and at least at medium settings the LOD distance makes the pop in very jarring. But thats the price of playing on an older computer. 

 

Ive been super impressed with this sim, and i just recently was able to get a steady 50+ fps just about everywhere including cities on an RX580, the price for that is I cant push high end or ultra. I had to do some very unintuitive adjustments to optimize the game. (lets just say you really have to give priority to the background processes MS is using.

 

I think the ambitiousness of this game was going to bring out a lot of issues, but overall Id still say i think they built a pretty solid foundation. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2020 at 6:07 PM, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

in all fairness, Asobo themselves have not "over-hyped" the simulator.

That has been very capably done by those outside the development team

whose motives were various but all based on invention and supposition,

rather than fact.

This provided a torrent of free publicity for the product but an

equal torrent of unrealistic expectation which has, in some cases,

now turned into disappointment.

 


i completely disagree with this notion Asobo did nothing.

The video series by Asobo was very clear on what this sim was “to bring” to the “simulation” world.

Video 1. Aircraft with flight and handling approved and tested by real pilots with accurate systems blah blah blah.

Asobo did hype the product then others hyped it to even higher levels.

The reality is its poorly developed and despite that it still at some times looks incredible, at others it looks far worse than either P3D and xplane.

But despite looks it still has a terrible engine model for jets and turboprops, the flight model is highly unrealistic ie their version of element theory generates highly inaccurate motion due turbulence etc.

Asobo hyped again in video the “amazing” flight model where individual surfaces can effect motion etc in their vid on aerodynamics.

Other than Asobo a pile of “influencers” all with less aeronautical experience than it took me to go solo 35 years ago took it upon themselves to hype this product far beyond its actual capability.

During the Alpha an  Beta the real world pilots where posting time and again on flight model, handling, engine model issues.

For instance both the Turbojet and Turboprop models are completely incorrect.

It was like Asobo was more interested in the hype than the reality of how flawed the sim is as a simulation and started to believe they didnt need to fix its problems.

So we are here now with a game not a simulation and its going to take years to fix if its fixed at all.

A huge opportunity lost to do it right or close to right.

But Asobo stoked the hype flames video after video...

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darren Howie said:

But despite looks it still has a terrible engine model for jets and turboprops, the flight model is highly unrealistic ie their version of element theory generates highly inaccurate motion due turbulence etc.


must admit, have not got down to the fine details of published ‘1000 points of aerodynamic data’,

 

most curious as to what is actually happening ‘aerodynamically’ in-sim,

 

but still happy with AUD$99 spent on the basic version & hopefully it improves over time.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, craigeaglefire said:


must admit, have not got down to the fine details of published ‘1000 points of aerodynamic data’,

 

most curious as to what is actually happening ‘aerodynamically’ in-sim,

 

but still happy with AUD$99 spent on the basic version & hopefully it improves over time.

 

I think its more "whats not" happening in the game.

The turboprop?turbojet engine model is reversed where engines are temp limited on the ground and torque limited in flight at altitude.

With the PT6 your well clear of temp limits on the ground up to 35-40C with "most" models.

As the air is dense you have plenty of air for fuel to burn in keeping temps at high torque settings well ie 30C below red lines.

As you climb air density reduces meaning less air is around to burn meaning to generate the same torque and torque reduces on the climb the engine gets closer and closer to redline.

Right now in the PT6 you overtemp on take off and you get further away from redline on the climb and exactly the same issue with the jets.

A turbofan will only get near redline on take off with max thrust minimal airflow situation.

Its strange right now the engine model works in reverse of reality.

On turbulence go have a look at one of the weather video's on YT.

Watch the aircraft randomly jump about its almost like they forgot to add any kind of momentum/inertia model to its movement.

Now xplanes flight model has some holes like ground handling which is still quite poor but of P3D/Xplane and msfs its "feel" of the aircraft flowing through the aie is to me easily the best in any sim. It just feels the way it does in a real aircraft. Aeroplanes dont jump about like Godzilla has it by the wingtip the move like say you do in a fast flowing river riding the bumps, corrected by its inbuilt stability aerodynamics unless the motion was so large its needs a control input.

The lighting in the sim is amazing and i watched the other day while flying around Okinawa as a typhoon past by the huge seas running.

They could easily make a sailing sim or boating simulator as well from the world they have created. However this is supposed to be a "flight simulator" and if it cant simulate flight to any degree of accuracy relative to P3D and xplane plus DCS it just becomes redundant very quickly.

Combine that with performance issues with "default" aircraft that are very poor at best and limited in scope can you imagine what will happen to performance when a CPU intensive addon arrives one day "if" MS relent and allow devs to access areas of the sim currently locked off?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darren Howie said:

if it cant simulate flight to any degree of accuracy relative to P3D and xplane plus DCS it just becomes redundant very quickly.

 

the choice is yours alone, Darren,

 

i have all the flight sims you mention & more,

 

MFS is now another really cool sim (& of course improvements are down the line),

 

i'll go so far to say that MFS is the best 'bang for buck' flight sim $purchase i have made so far.

 

YMMV

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...