He didn’t make your point, as realism comes at the cost of development time, not hardware requirements. Do you think that when paying hundreds of thousands of dollars on a full motion simulator they can’t afford to pay one or two extra thousands on the PC running the sim?
Fact is that professional full motion simulators that are certified for flight training suffer from the same problem as all other certified equipment: Certifying a new version is extremely hard and the platform itself is very rigid., so people will run the same hardware for decades. It’s not like you can simply take your full motion 747 rig, upgrade your GPU and CPU, add some extra RAM, install the latest sim version, and you’re good to go.
So no. Realism doesn’t cost hardware, it costs time. Which is why you cannot compare consumer simulators with professional platforms. And again, as P3D has demonstrated (which, btw, is more graphics intensive than FS2020 due to poor engine optimizations being carried over since FSX), realism doesn’t have anywhere near the cost you think it does, with many study level aircraft and systems readily available.
There is indeed a post about “Harvard Boston University” it’s mine. You seem to have missed the point about it though.
It was a question about foliage scaling - with an image of a regular shrub scaled with 20m leaves (which is technical) and not about how a garden looks.
yes he did. He wrote:
“why waste money on the looks of the world when you don’t need it to learn to fly”.
that clearly implies that realism comes at a cost which is all I am saying. It correctly implies that not having a very realistic scenery saves money. Correct.
It was only an example but giving the limutations of average home hardware, that increased scenery realism will come at a hardware cost.
you wrote:
"So no. Realism doesn’t cost hardware, it costs time. "
So what you are saying is that Time is free?
As far as FSX and P3D are concerned, excellent as they are, I have both,
i really dont think you can equate the flying dynamics of MSFS2020 with the ‘running on rails’ of either FSX or P3D excellent as they are given the limitations of the underlying platform.
I think you are pushing credibility there.
In a commercial simulator, where developing every extra features costs much, much more than for a consumer simulator.
You switched from “it costs money” to “it requires hardware” as if the two are the same.
Again:
It takes a long time and thus it costs a lot to develop a new feature for a commercial, certified simulator, because any new feature must be checked and double checked, and it must be certified.
We already have study level aircraft for P3D which shows you do not need more hardware than we already have. In fact, we’ve had study level aircraft in FSX for over a decade.
You cannot compare a commercial certified simulator with FS2020. The two have vastly different goals.
No, i’m saying time isn’t hardware.
Which part of “study level addons” do you have trouble understanding?
Fact is that you keep pretending like current hardware isn’t capable of running study level addons with accurate flight dynamics, when those study level addons with accurate flight dynamics have been available for over a decade.
This is where the two viewpoints present in this community collide. For me, I don’t much care about default planes, and the realism is barely there, let alone “enough”. But i totally see your point. Not everyone cares about the same things, and that’s fine. And i would even agree with you that Asobo should focus on things like multiplayer and DX12 because they’re the only ones that can deliver that. But because i believe that, i would also like Asobo to give third party developers more freedom so they can deliver the realism myself and many others are wishing for. That way everyone can be happy.
I’m sorry but CristiNeagu is correct. Hardware is not the limiting factor for professional sims. Capable hardware has become dirt cheap, and certainly compared to their other components.
The reason why professional sims don’t have a very realistic world is because it would take time to develop scenery that looks good. And why would they do that? They don’t need every airport to look like the real thing to learn to fly. As long as a runway and its markings look good, and a cloud realistically restricts visuals they are good to go. They don’t have to waste money at including your house in their sim.
That doesn’t mean they can’t, there just is no reason to do so.
@CristiNeagu@Tjoeker
I concur, the reason professional simulators are not as good visually has nothing to do with hardware.
As a matter of fact we’re working on a new professional simulator integration which uses the Reality XP GTN and more, and they are developing their own simulator from scratch. Not only it will be 100% accurate to their aircraft flight characteristics, but it will be also 100% accurate to their aircraft operational conditions, including our authentic Garmin simulation of course. They are doing the entire rendering in-house and they can have any world database they want to, but like said above, they’ll only invest in doing the airport and sceneries they are caring about for the mission training.
This is some sort of joke right? Google VR, while impressive, doesn’t even begin to compare with what FS2020 is doing and take a close look at a lot of photogrammatary (sp?) in that app, it looks terrible if it exists at all (a lot of areas in the world don’t have 3D even in Google maps.
I am saying that increased realism demands more from a PC which in a domestic setting means better = more expensive, graphics card and processor and memory and faster Internet connection.
All that costs money. Its really not complicated.
One cant say that not producing realistic scenery saves money and then pretend that providing realism in a PC simulator doesnt cost money.
look at the hardware recommended for MSFS. Chunky stuff.
The more you add, the more programming that needs to be paid for by users and more expensive the hardware will be to handle it all.
That is also realism.
“You cannot compare a commercial certified simulator with FS2020. The two have vastly different goals.”
I wasnt. I was saying that not providing realistic scenery saves money, so providing it, costs money.
“You switched from “it costs money” to “it requires hardware” as if the two are the same.”
No, I am saying it costs extra money that ultimately has to be paid for. It also indeed follows, I didnt think I had to spell this out, that the more complicated and detailed and realistic these things are, the higher end the domestic PC has to be, and that costs money. There are reasons why folks are upgrading their GPU etc.
If however it is your contention that you can turn P3D into the equivalent of MSFS without hardware consequences, ( extra cost) then I am sure they will want to hear from you.
And what is very evident by looking at both P3D and FS2020 is that if you can run FS2020 today, you will have no problem running study level addons as they are presently available for P3D.
And again, you are assuming that increasing the realism in FS2020 is impossible because no one has the required hardware, when reality indicates otherwise.
It’s already been done. It’s called FS2020. P3D has worse performance on my computer than FS2020, at much, much worse visual details.
Not just them. I actually was not referring at all to external flight models. Though they bring a lot more creative ability, and are likely to be the ‘ultimate’ solution, a correctly set-up default flight model with correctly adjusted weather in either FSX or P3D will NOT run on rails. It may not be as technically accurate in all areas, but just on that one point of ‘running on rails’ the default flight model is being unfairly criticised.
i have realized in the last year or two, is there is a vast number of flight sim users that have literally no idea what is actually available already.
during alpha i had to explain to someone with years of experience in flight simulation what vatsim was while discussing the joke that is AI driven atc… he literally did not know a multi-platform human atc system using real world procedures already existed and had existed for decades.
I cannot speak to what you want or don’t want, but what A2A have to offer are the most accurate and true to life GA addons ever released for consumer flight simulation, together with the experience of actually owning such a plane, which includes servicing it and maintaining it. Just look up a review of their Comanche for P3D. The manual coming supplied to it is available on their forum, and you can see all the features built into it.
As has been pointed out by others, it’s realistic because they say it is, but what difference does it actually make in terms of flying it in a simulator?
“Piston combustion engine modeling (sic). Air comes in, it mixes with fuel and ignites, parts move, heat up, and all work in harmony to produce the wonderful sound of a Lycoming O-540 engine. Now the gauges look beneath the skin of your aircraft and show you what Accu-Sim is all about.”
Poetic words but, ultimately, meaningless since there is no engine, just some code pretending to be an engine. These games are games of the imagination and bogging things down with persistent plane states and, for some people, doing maintenance, may well get in the way of developing features that the majority may want. Super detailed simulation is, like or not, in the minority and given that these things already exist on other platforms why would this one want to replicate it? You may want a super detailed 737 (study level if you must) and you may be willing to pay £100 for it but, once again, that’s the minority and answers the basic question of this thread, people are asking too much from the core game.
I can say exactly the same thing about anything you might find important. You want better graphics? There’s games with better graphics. You want to see the world in VR? There’s other games that do that. You want multiplayer? Other games also do multiplayer. As you said: “given that these things already exist on other platforms why would this one want to replicate it?”
Your response is pretty ignorant and pretty insulting, to be honest. Dismissing an entire category of players because you don’t care about what they consider important is a very narrow mindset that is hurting the community.
Please, do point to a similar game with graphics like FS2020
I’m not dismissing anybody, I simply don’t care for the things you want to see in this game that would detract, in my view, from making it work better and more fluidly than it does right now. As I have said, the “hard core simmers” are in the minority. All the things you mention are core elements of any game (multiplayer, etc) Wear and tear, persistent states, physics accurate tyre wobble on landing and fully functioning circuit breakers are not.