Avatars and Walk-around: Just how far should this be taken?

[Sonicviz]

@SmotheryVase665

Which means that, at the top, one can’t actually walk around the viewing platform, as one’s head “hits” the underside of the next level:

In hindsight, I should have tried to crouch to see what happened!

@SmotheryVase665 @mamuDesign @Baracus250 @CharlieFox00

This is a great example of what I meant by the following:

@Sonicviz

I’ve walked around plenty of POI’s/Locations with a variety of results myself.
It’s great in concept, but I think people way underestimate the amount of work to do it properly (ie: good character controller FP/TP and intuitive consistent environment interaction with all Living World ™ assets).

Everything has to be tested for avatar correct scale, interactions, collisions, pathing etc once you start assuming MSFS is a walking simulator.
That doesn’t just extend to Gaya or whoever else is doing scenery addons, but every scenery addon developer. Testing = time. Lots of time. And iterating. And bug reports. And waiting for bug fixes. etc.

Drone camera? No problem already works to explore the scenery.
Avatar mode also works aok (generally) for the scenario where it’s originally developed for: aircraft walkarounds. That adds real value to the core sim focus, which is flight simulation and associated procedures to get in the air from a cold start. You have to draw a line somewhere. See point about testing above.

That said, if they’re going to add a better character controller please add the ability to Fly, like Second Life. Walking in a virtual world loses interest quickly, especially when you confront ugly auto ground texturing or PG Dali ™. It’s a virtual world, avatars should be able to fly in a flight simulator. Invent a magical anti-grav suit with some movie tie in if they have to.

[Roadspider]

I have to chime in, even though some of what I have to say has been expressed well by previous posts. And, bear in mind, I am on FS2020. When I see an update like this, with amazing visuals that is not possible (or at least not available) for FS2020 I am tempted to make the switch.

FS2020 and FS2024 are FLIGHT SIMULATORS. They are a fantastic, highly evolved descendants of many previous flight sims. We are so lucky to have this technology and level of realism visually, not to mention the realism of aircraft systems.

But, again, THESE ARE FLIGHT SIMS.

Highly detailed games with walkaround environments were designed to excel at that feature- walking around and examining worldly objects and environments closeup.

They don’t have a fraction of the computing depth and sophistication required in creating a modern airliner, or embodying 1000’s of procedures, ILS frequencies, weather interactions, etc. etc. Not even close.

So, yeah, they weren’ designed for, or allow for, every type of ground interaction.

Do we want the developers to spend time and brainpower making MSFS more kike those other “games”, or improve the things that are sprcific to flight simming… systems, airports, weather, accurate lanscapes, detaied cities, etc.

Complaining that we can’t walk around as accurately as a game designed for that is not only unrealistic but interferes with the things we really need the devs to advance in both sims.

The reason I am still on FS2020 is because I don’t need the more “game-like” features like examining blades of grass or career mode or avatars, so I decided to not make the switch while countless posts complained about how bug-ridden and incomplete 2024 was.

Heck, I don’t even really care if an airport has Interiors in terminals that I can walk around in. They add nothing to actually flying and dealing with flight. If I want the inside of a building there’s a thousand games I can play. But airport vehicles, airport personnel , accurate taxi signs and taxiways, and other things that a pilot actually has to deal with, I gladly accept. I always thought that a flightsim was created for the user to be the pilot, not a passenger.

Now it seems that 2024 has gotten really good and there are lesser reasons to not switch, not to mention Developers preferring that platform for their add-ons.

But I hope the devs will not put more effort into the game-like aspects and put all their effort into making 2024 more fantastic, like this current update and not worry about it not being like other “games”.

[CharlieFox00]

Or you could just crouch.

[Sonicviz]

@CharlieFox00

Or you could just crouch.

That’s a nice dodge (or crouch perhaps!), but is avoiding the core issue:

@Sonicviz

Everything has to be tested for avatar correct scale, interactions, collisions, pathing etc once you start assuming MSFS is a walking simulator.
That doesn’t just extend to Gaya or whoever else is doing scenery addons, but every scenery addon developer. Testing = time. Lots of time. And iterating. And bug reports. And waiting for bug fixes. etc.

[CharlieFox00]

Nah, not a dodge. Just crouch. The ability to see the “back side of the Christmas tree” is pretty important for a lot of reasons. Some of the POIs have deeper meaning in the details and deserved to be admired up close.

[Sonicviz]

I guess there’s not enough things to complain about already in MSFS, so why not add walking to the list.

@CharlieFox00

Nah, not a dodge. Just crouch.

Or use the drone camera, which is what it’s designed for - among many other scenarios.

[CharlieFox00]

Sure, drone is fine, too. But I’d wager that you’ll get more engagement if people can do avatar things with their avatars. Selfies, etc. It’s pretty boring and limited right now.

I’m looking for engagement that helps people get into flying and stay into flying. There are a lot more people out there than the typical FS crowd, and I’ll wager again that they’re needed to sustain the business. Things they’re familiar with are part of that stepping stone.

I mean, this is several steps down on the list - teaching people how to fly, better documentation, etc, squashing the buggy FMs, and completely rebuilding career mode should come first, but avatar mode has a lot of unrealized potential and it’s not that far off. I mean, Mamu basically unlocked a basic GTA mode with vehicles. It’s been a lot of fun being able to drive into town after a flight and explore.

[Sonicviz]

You underestimate the amount of work needed to do it properly.
What [Polls] World Update 22: United States National Parks - #224 said as well, considering some of these points.

[CharlieFox00]

Yet, third parties are breaking the mold. Camping, fishing, hiking, driving. There’s still a lot to work around (due to sim limitations) and it gets very buggy, but the potential is there. And I’m not underestimating anything - I’m not asking for a GTA environment or Minecraft. Just give the avatar some more flexibility.

[Sonicviz]

It’s potential. All good fun hacking the game. Turning it into a polished experience is a different thing entirely.
Best of luck playing with that can of worms, considering how many other aspects need focused time and effort to deliver on the core flight experience already.

[CharlieFox00]

Engage more users, make more money, have more resources to fix the flying. And I’ve already said there are definitely higher priorities. This is obviously not yours and this topic always brings out those who want to yuck someone’s yum, but I’ll keep pushing for more engagement. Get their foot in the door, keep ‘em coming back for more.

[Sonicviz]

@CharlieFox00

Engage more users, make more money, have more resources to fix the flying. And I’ve already said there are definitely higher priorities. This is obviously not yours and this topic always brings out those who want to yuck someone’s yum, but I’ll keep pushing for more engagement. Get their foot in the door, keep ‘em coming back for more.

That’s my view based on the platform’s scope. People can want different things, but the constraints don’t change. A low‑fidelity ground environment doesn’t automatically translate into meaningful engagement or a bigger user base, and it definitely doesn’t justify turning MSFS into a walking simulator. Walkarounds were added for aviation tasks, not to open the door to full ground‑level gameplay. If the goal is long‑term growth, getting the aircraft and the aviation environment close to 100% is a far more realistic foundation than trying to bolt on Minecraft‑style exploration.

Also, please add flying avatar mode.

[CharlieFox00]

Eh, I’m thinking different kinds of interactions and positional modalities more than the fidelity of the ground exploration, anyway. There is so much potential with interactivity in a virtual twin world - not just sightseeing, but all sorts of mini-games that also include flying aspects and how that interacts with the ground (SAR, races, capture the flag, find/collect the McGuffin, etc).

But still, collision boxes are a bit stifling, which was the original point. Good news is there are devs like Mamu who figure this stuff out pretty quickly, despite the limitations.

Same with the flying. Open it up more, make it more transparent (including weather) and better-documented, let the community get more engaged, and most of the flying aspect could be fixed pretty quickly. Until they do, a lot of this is moot and wishful thinking from all parties.

[hobanagerik]

Cannonball Run, that kind of thing. Go from point A to point B, any route, preferably avoiding PG areas as they are not nice to taxi or drive over.

[johnwhite92]

@Roadspider

FS2020 and FS2024 are FLIGHT SIMULATORS

Correction: they were.

“Vehicle simulator” would be more appropriate.

[johnwhite92]

And why not “just have fun simulator the way you like” ?

[FlyingsCool5650]

@Sonicviz

Why should they?

Because in the 2024 intro video series at the Grand Canyon, Jorg literally, (not figuratively), said that was his goal, to build the sim into a world we could explore however we feel like. And he showed videos of avatars exploring several sites on foot and in vehicles. Why there isn’t a written specification stating for partners such support for the MS addons is beyond me. Why our avatars can’t climb stairs and jump is also beyond me. It’s not like Asobo doesn’t do this in their other games.

If the addons are built to scale, and the SDK is written to properly add/select surfaces for collision, it shouldn’t take that much time.

As a side note, it would be even cooler if we could meet up with other avatars and explore together while chatting.

And, yes, if I was developing any of these POI’s yes, I’d be developing them so users can explore them. I’m doing that right now with the National Warplane Museum at Geneseo airport in NY I recently released. I’m upgrading it as we speak, I released a rough version over the weekend and hope to release another update tomorrow with more detail in support of their air show coming this weekend. And I plan on continuing to update it.

I’ve spent about 20 hours on it so far, I expect to spend about another 40 to 60 to take it as far as I want. The initial release took me about 8 hours to complete.

[Pilotfirst9999]

Very good point. We have all these vehicles in the Sim and we are able to walk around, drive, row, fly, slew, float, use spaceships, dragons etc - so why can we not just enjoy it the way we want to.

This sim is about having the fun you want, not restricting others to a choice we prefer!

[FlyingsCool5650]

I think the question is should Microsoft be mandating proper collision boxes on POI’s so people can walk around? I personally think yes. Some people would rather Asobo spend their time fixing the sim side (even though the POI/scenery folk have nothing to do with that side of the business) rather than “waste time” on making the scenery detailed enough for that.

You could argue, however, that time is money, and money spent on that level of detail could be spent elsewhere.

[CharlieFox00]

There’s definitely a “not a pound for (air to) ground” mindset that proliferates. I get it, perhaps there truly is a zero-sum issue lurking behind the scenes, that resources spent on a POI developer are resources not spent on an aircraft developer, etc. But it could simply be other factors that hamper various elements - legal/contractual, direction from management, communication barriers, or other factors.

It could be argued that POIs and WU like this one have robbed from the aircraft, but wow have they created engagement. And that’s good.

Personally, I like avatar mode because it provides a “last mile” connection from the aircraft to the airport and surrounding environs. That environment is all part and parcel of flying, too, meaning different things to different people. And as I said, I think there’s a lot of opportunity for it to enhance engagement, which could mean more longevity for the sim itself. But if I’d had the choice, I’d definitely have made different decisions as to how to employ it.

Regardless, the issue is MSAsobo painted themselves into a corner by attempting to do all the things at once. They often come off as works in progress, which is understandable to an extent, but more often than not cause frustration due to their incomplete nature. Whether they’ve truly robbed from one another or not, it exposes some of the deeper structural issues of which we can detect the existence. But because we really don’t have insight behind the scenes, we’re kind of guessing as to where the root issues are.