A basic but working Flight Simulator as advertised

I rechecked my notes on the innumerable “Agile Development” classes I attended - as any good corporate citizen is now required, even if you’re not a developer - and what’s one of the first things I see scribbled again and again?

“Minimum Viable Product”
“80/20 rule”

That’s not to disparage the hard work that has been put into this creation. Let’s face it, to revitalize the Simmer market meant disrupting the current model.

That meant what could they do beyond another locally installed and managed sim that didn’t end up as Call of Duty bloatware? How could they find a way to integrate Petabytes of data in the real world, and make it available on an end-node? Honestly, 1st generation attempt to Stream real-time mapping and POIs injected into the scenery while flying? That was not a homer, but it was a two-base run. Kudos to their chutzpah - they pulled off something that others are now going to have to look at to be in the game going forward.

That being said - back to my original point - Agile. This is an MVP. The sooner people acknowledge that and come to terms with it, we can all “move on” and give as much useful feedback as possible on how to make this better.

MVP. 80/20. A product that was not polished, but gave the baseline features and functionality SOMEONE thought was good enough to pull the trigger on and publish.

I get it - a lot of stuff was identified in Alpha, but not fixed. Why? No idea, I wasn’t invited to it, I applied. But by Alpha tester feedback since launch, there’s a lot of stuff that’s still churning that they picked up on.

Public crisis. WFH. Shared resources. Factors that intensify a non-optimal way of working and collaborating to move this product forward.

Not making excuses - I’m pointing out things that people may instinctively know but not have consciously formulated or come to terms in their own mind.

Everyone’s a critic, until they aren’t. That means the day they didn’t criticize is the day their horse crossed the finish line. There is a priority list somewhere. We as end users don’t have access to it, but we have some sense of level of effort Asobo is saying it will take to address. Follow the timeline of the Garmin fixes; now there’s somewhat of a stake in the ground. What’s the wildcard? Well, ask Jorg how the Community Mod Collaboration is going - because it would be immensely foolhardy not to factor in all the work Working Title has done on fspackages. Yet, it’s not a simple solution as integrating their collaboration. Or is it?

Keep asking questions folks, but understand you were sold an MVP, and you bought an MVP. People who are used to Waterfall (like me) find this approach to product delivery immensely disruptive and frustrating, but that’s the way it is now. Get on the train or be run over.

1 Like

I agree with the general sentiment here, I too would like to see a strong focus on polishing the base systems first and foremost. The foundation has to be stable and strong, and then one can build further on it. Now I know that he team has many different departments, and of course one can’t just say “everyone work on X” when most people aren’t specialized for it. But in general terms yes, fix the core aspects and build out from there.

Seeing how some flight dynamics such as on the a320 are essentially inverted, how many times autopilot is russian roulette etc, it’s problematic. It is good to see fixes happen, but the root cause needs to be addressed. And while I agree on the SDK for third parties, the base airplanes should all have a proper working state, especially premium since people paid extra for it, and the community is unable to supply fixes for them.
This also means things like matching performance characteristics to their real world counterparts etc, making sure the flight behavior is at least close to expected.

I see how people could see it as a scenery simulator, but just because graphics are a big deal this time around shouldn’t be a free pass for the flight physics and airplane systems to not properly mirror real world setups. As someone who is coming into this as their first proper sim, it is much more interesting to learn to operate real systems than fussing around with game-style workarounds.

2 Likes

Gosh, as a System Analisys teacher, I really see your point! But I have trouble believing this product is under agile development, which should be used when the system requirements change rapidly. I don’t see they changing here.

To me, it seems they are under incremental development, but released the product much before the intended minimal requirements were met. Now, the development team is working both in planned but not implemented features at the same time they are trying to adress the bug maintenance.

1 Like

The forum says this is your first post, so welcome!

When you said “scenery simulator”, you made me laugh out loud and cry shortly after!

Perhaps, if this game was not named Microsoft Flight Simulator we wouldn’t be so disappointed. The history of excellence of the franchise up to FSX made at least me to expect such excellence, to the point of convincing me to pay more than double the price of a tripple A game in my country. For instance, I paid R$ 480,00 while the preorder of Cyberpunk 2077 is R$ 199,00. I paid it without thinking for a second if it was worth it. Now I know better.

Agree, I made a summary of important bugs and features which need fixing in this thread:

2 Likes

Amen. Thanks for saying this. I thought about making a similar post but didn’t want to be labeled as a complainer. Even if they would have rolled out certain functionality in stages it’d be great.

If I just flew the C172 VFR I’d probably be mostly happy with the sim. But getting into the airliners and high end avionics it’s just a mess.

2 Likes

I agree with this a thousand percent. I am sure Agile has its benefits, but from my viewpoint it has only resulted in bad releases that undermine the reputation of the entity publishing them. There doesn’t seem to be much pride in releasing a good product anymore, because you can just fix all the bugs in the next release. It’s frustrating when you have spent significant money on the software and peripherals to use it.

2 Likes

Hi, Agile/waterfall/Devops is not a philosophy/methodology for developers to be used as an EXCUSE to deliver incomplete solutions. It is to facilitate flexibility during the development in order to be able to work less constrained (PMBOK)
If we do the same (80/20 MVP) in the industrial/mining environment, and stop production due to it, I will be out on my ■■■ quicker than you can say MVP.
So please stop covering for a product that was intensively marketed as THE sim of the century, if they indicated the limitations to the buyer, and we still decided to buy, it would be another story.
P.S. I am surprised that so many bugs was missed by beta testers, didn’t they use live weather, or airliners.. or autopilot etc etc

That said, I love my current GA flying.

Regards

5 Likes

After an update that caused a wave of panic (things seem to start to calm down a bit), my first wish is that Microsoft will stop selling the dream and finally send only the sand …
After all, this SU5 was just downgrading the graphics to improve performance, if I understood correctly.
Although using a mid-high end PC, I don’t have a screen that lets me be shocked at the differences.
No, the problem for me and many others is CTDs caused by addons that no longer work.
Now, why do we need addons? Yes, the graphics, the weather, the autogen of this game are a great achievement, but no aircraft in this simulator are accurate (except, maybe,very simple planes like the C152, for example wiith steam gauges and no automatism)
You choose to represent a modern aviation with full glass cockpits, I agree, but now, assume it !
So my wish is to dispose of a list of accurate planes (not all, not 30 models) but at least one of each category (aerobatic, bush, light, high end light, twin, turboprop, jet and airliner), so 7 or 8, wich can be usable EVEN after a major update !
We don’t need « study level » planes, but only planes with an accurate behaviour, accurate main systems (mixture, fuel flow, for example), accurate avionic (the G1000 still with 10% of his abilities, even with Working Title work), and some eye candy (doors…)
It’s not very difficult : a handful of developers (individuals or groups) have already completely rework almost all of your aircraft ; and you know where to find it : at the same place where you find the liveries for your commercial communication.
So, contact them, buy their works, and create an « accurate » category of planes which will be maintained over time and will continue to work update after update.
Thank you very much in advance.

Uh oh. Can’t say that around here. Someone told me to go back to Fortnite because I was logging an Achievement bug (they’re ALL bugged and broken, for the record).

The community for the most part doesn’t care and those of us that do are admonished to put it on the back burner for more “serious” and “urgent” issues.

1 Like

This thread is a great reminder as to the state 2020 was in when’s launched. Doesn’t seem all that different to 2024… :man_shrugging:

2 Likes