I wouldn’t start a new blog, just use the existing development update and showcase 1 or 2 small improvements/new features/bug fixes there every week. Just something small, to satisfy our hunger. Showcase a bit what’s coming. Hey, perhaps we even catch something that is not good enough and we’re able to communicate it in time?
Ok, blog is maybe too much, but a “developer journal” or a reshape of the developer updates like discussed in another post (have no immediate link at hand).
But, if there is nothing something new to tell in a weekly update because it’s the same story as previous, what would be possible, we are back at square one again “where is my issue”, “why is a or b not talked about”
That was the only reason for a blog, or developer journal etc… these things have no definite set time to communicate a new ‘article’ as these weekly updates are. Also these will be more relaxed, as it’s in “spoken” words.
And “simulator” is a video game genre. Gran Turismo also markets itself as a “driving simulator”; that doesn’t mean it’s not a video game.
I would cycle through the different teams, so each team has about 4 - 8 weeks (I don’t know how many teams there’d be with some useful stuff to showcase)
It’s something small, after a while the community should get used to the fact that the devlogs don’t cover everything? 
You’re definitely right there. It would definitely be something. If it’s set up correctly it could calm both the ‘game for gamers’ and the ‘sim for simmers’ discussion. (I’m generalizing tendency here, as a lot if posts share this in the core of the discussions)
There could be tech and non tech posts. As you say ease the hunger. For people who definitely interested, it would certainly be a nice addition.
A post could be about why a certain issue for example is taking a long time, the difficulties involved, the challenges faced, the impact it has, etc… And possibly be rotational. The thing they need to be carefull in is that it does not become another marketing channel. Which a lot of other dev journals/blogs/updates just are.
The understanding part? Well… i’m afraid i will be refering back to previous posts 
.
In the end, I dont think anything would help against toxicity. But what you are saying would definitely help for the reasoned.
It’s a sim game for sim gamers.
I never said they didn’t…I’m looking forward to them. The point I’m trying to make is that this sim should be in a better state of functionality on a basic level. There are so many limitations and oversights to count, and I know, everyone here will complain to me that this is a WIP. I get that.
What I don’t get is how a lot of missing pieces didn’t even cross the minds of developers while they were building this thing in the first place. Helicopters? Replay? Autopilots that work? Charging for planes that have extremely-limited functionality? They were genuinely surprised at the Q&As when these issues came up early on. These are basic things that we all expected would be in a out-of-the-box release, but they weren’t, and here we are.
Which is fine, make those points (you’re entitled to such an opinion). However your latter comment really doesn’t make sense, there is really no correlation to wanting weaponry just because of air races.
It’s called slippering slope, a very usual logical fallacy.
How this comment could be flagged by people here is beyond me. I’m shocked, seriously.
“It’s a sim, first and foremost.” Jorg Neumann
They can’t even get the altitude readouts correctly to be used by VATSIM or IVAO for crying out loud! Kind of an important detail, isn’t it?! They haven’t thought about exposing the weather information of their proprietary engine to 3PD, which is kinda important to build weather radars. Not to mention the constant issues with live weather, ground handling, etc. etc.
You know, I really believed that the mass market is required to support this title over a long period of time and that things will improve. But being in this since day -300 something (Alpha tester since day one) and seeing so many things having gone worse rather than better, I lost my will to believe in major improvements anytime soon.
“Flag” him for misleading advertising. 
“First and foremost”
Never forget.
Are we still discussing this? What is a definition of a sim? Who defines it? Is there a universally accepted definition we can point to and say, look, MSFS is not a sim? When you talk about sim vs game it sure sounds like there must be.
I think it got flagged because at the end of the day, too many people speculate something that may not be true. It’s misleading to suggest Asobo is incompetent, because if you’re not part of the team internally, you just don’t know.
I believe you’re not entirely accurate, they’ve said much more than just “it’s a sim, first and foremost”.
What does “take me on the list” even mean??
I’m sure I read somewhere here that the software dev for vPilot himself said that the issue at hand was because MSFS was now modelling standard and non-standard Baro correctly or more accurately modelled, so there’s now work to be done on VATSIM etc clients to mimic this so that other platforms can show/see/report their own and others altitude correctly too.
I’m sure it was in these forums somewhere - it was a good interesting read.
At fluctuating low fps with aircraft and scenery popping into and out of view and no VR support?
I can imagine that. But it’s not a pretty picture.
I think War Thunder pretty much has you covered for all the above…with added grind and microtransactions it pretty much ticks all those boxes. 
They have just announced in the last dev update targets for VR bug fixes. Just as I predicted. The massive task of optimizing the performance, cleaning up the code and releasing to XBox has been completed with SU5, now they have more resources to allocate for VR and can start improving it.
Copy and paste of a post I made in another thread…
You don’t even have to use live weather on VATSIM however it’s nice to let the controller know about it if you don’t, an example regarding this is for ground speed purposes. We already have weather engines that differ in accuracy. I use Active Sky in P3D and XP and something I’ve noticed is when looking at the weather map (which shows other aircraft using Active Sky) very few are actually shown using it (which surprises me) even though many aircraft are around me, weather or not there is a limitation of how many aircraft will be shown using Active Sky I don’t know but I can have 20 aircraft around me and very, very few show up using it. I have not stopped using VATSIM simply because of this problem (nor the traffic visibility issue). I simply deal with it by using the clear skies preset. This tip is spread like wildfire within the VATSIM network.
The METAR that a controller uses (from VATSIM) is not always reliable. I’ve had controllers tell me an altimeter settings that are very old. Whenever a controller says something like “…more than an hour old” I open up the Active Sky panel and check to see what the altimeter setting actually is because chances are it’s not outdated. That isn’t to say that real life METARs will sometimes lag behind (they do) but I mean c’mon, I’ve come across controllers that are stuck giving METARs that are hours and sometimes more than a day old.
They could easily pull up AWC and grab that but many don’t, VATSIM has it’s own METAR system which like I said can be outdated. If a METAR reads PRESRR or PRESFR it can cause havoc if it doesn’t get updated on schedule.