He may be remembering this:
5 Likes
I didn’t say it was simple, I said “It’s not really AI, just planes flying preset routes”. [on autopilot, he whispers].
Complex, but a solved problem more or less.
It’s still an order of magnitude less difficult than AI interacting with ATC in a flexible manner.
1 Like
It’s all fun and games until you actually have to implement the beastie! 
Ref- above Asobo Video about Multiplayer.
Ahhh … such dreams in those early days … great Goals, but over time, maybe not so realized.
Note: No mention of shared cockpit in the video.
And only little improvement to MP since launch … still the same issues as were in the pre-release Beta versions.
One might (from the outside) draw a conclusion, that quite a major re-design is needed, to fully implement the current Dream, (especially with any stable Shared Cockpit addition) and now MSFS is released, that re-design becomes order of magnitude more difficult to do-- or to fund with any priority.
In the meanwhile, there is Vatsim, PE, and other 3rd party MP info sharing apps, as well as a few attempts at Shared Cockpit solutions.
2023-2024 will be an interesting time to see where MS/Asobo take Multiplayer.
(Won’t even bring up , how ground crew and objects seem to have little awareness of each other., something that most other Computer Simulation Games seem to manage without too much trouble.
(ok, I did)
4 Likes
Sure, I don’t disagree. My point is there are hard problems and then there are harder problems.
My favorite red flags are:
“That’s easy, I can do that in a week” spoken by overconfident programmer looking at something you know is at least a few months work.
“It’s a simple task, shouldn’t take you more than 5 minutes” spoken by non-technical client, usually looking for the lowest bidder on a can of worms.
The known unknowns can bite hard, but it’s those unknown unknowns that bite harder
The reality is the continuum of problems really does span the gamut from truly simple up to unimaginably complex problems, but what gets me is when complex projects - even moderately complex ones - routinely get hand waved into the “simple” project zone for [reasons], which is why they typically fail. It’s a major reason why IT has such an atrocious record of project delivery, where up to 70% of projects fail.
I recently wrote a blog post about that very topic: Location Manager for MSFS - Development Overview - Sonicviz
[disclaimer: this isn’t a spam promo post, it’s an example of what we are talking about with regards to underestimating (or trying to estimate) complex tasks and how you derisk them in order to deliver something usable in a reasonable timeframe)
2 Likes
Yeah, they’re not the brightest tools in the shed are they. 
Tbf the other games manage that with quite a bit of work.
I’ve done some work with systems like that in Unity and it isn’t “simple” either., though there’s levels of behaviour you can implement.
Still, AI systems are “under investigation” @ #13 & “planned” @ #22, so there’s hope perhaps an internal solution will eventually arrive.
1 Like
One of the reasons I avoid “random stuff happening” is that, invariably, a couple of clods in airport vehicles park in the middle of my taxiway, light a couple of butts, and either start a BS session or fiddle with their smartphones while I’m sitting there burning expensive 100+ AVGAS waiting for them to get outta my way. 
Advantage of the DC-6: It’s tall enough to drive over them.
Yah we need NOTAMS about stuff like ground vehicles broken down on the runway.
1 Like
And the on-ground AI needs to know that blocking a taxiway is a “room temperature in Celsius” IQ move.
Oops! Did I just say “AI” again?
P.S.
For those nor familiar with the Celsius temperature ranges, “room temperature” in Celsius is about 22°±
yah maybe.
We still need NOTAMS if we want a true “study level” sim though.
1 Like
Is this sim being advertised as “study level”?
That would imply that it is certifiable by some aviation authority and would be valid for training and/or logging hours.
AFAIK, it’s being marketed as a “game”.
X-Plane is certifiable.
AFAIK MSFS has never claimed to be “study level” or certifiable despite the claims that it’s “as real as it gets!”
2 Likes
The version of XPlane you buy for under $100 is not FAA certifiable either.
But maybe you have a point if MSFS has no NOTAMS and is not FAA certifiable how can places like PMDG or A2A possibly claim to be making “study level” aircraft.
1 Like
I wouldn’t say that. They may have more options when it comes to commercial AI traffic, but we GA flyers have got WAY more planes to fly. It’s not even close. The airline pilots have really only got the 737 & A320 in terms of modern airliners.
1 Like
Depends on your definition of “study level” I guess.
In my mind, if I see that on a plane then I have an expectation that at the very least every single interactive item does exactly what the real world plane does. Ideally no INOP systems at all, or at least the bare minimum. I’ll forgive a drink holder not being animated, for example. 
Can I take the POH, and fly it as the POH describes, and get similar outcomes, that kind of thing.
2 Likes
Another task for the community, and the scenery gateway in that case.
1 Like
I don’t understand your point. I said it wasn’t simple. More than once.
eg:
I also wasn’t even talking about ground logic, vehicle, plane, or otherwise.
That’s twice you’ve quoted the same thing I said and misconstrued what I meant.
I’m not sure how you can misconstrue “I didn’t say it was simple” as “it’s easy” but please try not to next time! Also, I’ll say it again, “I didn’t say it was simple”.
I’ve done a fair amount of “game AI” to know what’s involved, enough not to bother touching it at this point in time given what i’ve looked at. If other people want to have at it, and they are, good for them!
It is an interesting technical challenge to say the least.
Also, the current state of the sim in this area doesn’t bother me at all. I usually just laugh when I see a nutter driving on the strip, reminds me of the days we used to do inflight transfers at the drop zone
I’d rather they fixed the traffic avoidance system first anyway.
1 Like
Some might argue that MSFS is a great “Study Level” product . Mayne not in the classic sense, of study level in aviation simulation, but more is a study of games development, developer/customer interaction, and the process by which a computer game gets developed, maintained, and publicized by its developers.
At time, this Study, can become far more intriguing and entertaining, than “Playing” the product itself.
One can almost consider MSFS to be a classic “Quest Game” – there you are, put in a “Strange New World” with very little information (Documentation/SDK), and it is up to you to explore, and figure out how to reach the ultimate goal … whatever you decide that to be, while avoiding the many disasters and pitfalls, along the way.
5 Likes
It depends what you mean by “study level”.
Personally, I’ve learned a lot more about earth, weather systems, software development, flight and certain aircraft++ than I knew before I started MSFS this time round.
This time, I think MSFS is a fantastic educational tool, warts and all.
PS: My first game was Adventure on the PDP10. Second was watching the progress of my photon torpedos playing Statrek on the PDP10 printer output. Third was tankwars on a tektronix green screen monitor. Sometimes simple is best, it’s what your brain makes of it that counts.
2 Likes
Same here … Colossal Cave Adventure ?
I recall many lunch times at work, spent in programming our own “explore the corridors & levels type” adventure game.
2 Likes
I was being grumpy.
(Waking up in pain will do that.)
I deleted my post as it was undeserved and (IMHO) unnecessary.
My most abject apologies.
What really burns MY biscuits is people who constantly gripe about things, (I’m not saying you do), complain how terrible things are, and then don’t have any constructive suggestions on how to fix it or mitigate the problem.
As I am sure you know, development isn’t always a walk in the park and “simple” problems often have more issues than a cat has hair.
Now, I will admit that, as far as constructive programming for MSFS is concerned, I have done nothing as my plate is already full to overflowing - I wish I had more time for the sim and flight practice.
What I CAN do is help confirm problems, try to characterize if possible, (analyzing log files, etc.), and testing proposed solutions.
Simply trolling and stirring up trouble is guaranteed to ruffle my feathers, and sometimes my patience and graciousness wears a bit thin.
However:
Point noted.
Again, my apologies.
