LOD & Trees
Being one among others documenting the exact problems with LOD and Trees for months, I was indeed quite puzzled they were answering as if they were just discovering there could be an issue with LOD and Trees. It is especially even more troubling to me that IIRC, in a previous Q&A the same topic was brought to their attention with the same reaction.
For those wondering, here are a few of the LOD and Trees reports I’m talking about:
TL;DR:
In the Forums:
- LOD problems - Trees Fix Revisited (265 votes since October 2020)
- LOD Problems - Distances revisited (133 votes since October 2020)
In Zendek:
- 61475 Photogrammetry, Ground Textures and LOD ring distances
- 66041 Vegetation impostors/objects ring distance algorithm failing in HIGH or ULTRA depending on the species.
- 70848 Terrain LOD distance is using the square root of its value.
VR
First I’m glad they’re making it a 1st class citizen because I didn’t think the mere 44 votes would do ( [VR] Dev Q&A and Feedback Snapshot: please make a VR only category ) given the 265 votes for Trees are not even sufficient to make in the radar in 4 months. But on the other hand I can’t help thinking there is something wrong with it, like the LOD and Trees topics.
Where do these “wishes” come from?
Screenshot of the VR bugs and issue taken today vs feedback snapshot VR
For example I can see this one in the list and I’m glad because it is paramount:
[BUG/FEATURE] Cockpit Size and World Scale in VR (161 votes)
TL;DR: The entire chain of IPD/ICD projection matrices must be cross checked with at least WMR OpenXR and SteamVR OpenXR drivers (the 2 most used) in addition to offering a user adjustable override (scale + bias factors).
But I don’t understand Martial’s answer about the “Brightness Slider”. I’m not certain he was joking or seriously not considering this an “important” feature. In my opinion (biased opinion being a developer too), what we really need in VR is not a “brightness” slider but something different:
[BUG/FEATURE] Implement a metering system better suited for VR (44 votes)
TL;DR: The Shader code behind the EyeAdaptation setting is fine in 2D but wrong in VR because of the difference between moving the head and moving the eyes.
[BUG/FEATURE] Provide a Sharpen strength setting, and more post-processing effect controls in VR (73 votes)
TL;DR: Not all headsets gamut is the same and we need Tone Mapping Gama Slider + Tone Mapping Brightness Slider at a minimum (and more details in the topic)
And what about this one:
[BUG/FEATURE] FS2020 is breaking the VR golden rule: don’t move the camera, the user is (75 votes)
TL;DR: Nausea inducing and actually preventing a lot of customers flying in FS2020 in VR
And this one which is important for flying airliners or the future G3000/1000 improvements in VR:
[BUG/FEATURE] EFIS Screens Problems and Solutions for higher legibility (43 votes)
TL;DR: solutions for rendering EFIS screens with high resolution even if you don’t have a G2 and a 3090.
PS: These VR topics I’ve listed above are prefixed with [BUG/FEATURE] because they are not only reporting a problem but they are also offering solutions which are readily implementable with minimal effort and time (all things considered of course).
AI Traffic and Liveries
I believe there is a disconnection again between language and facts. Jorg is telling us it is a simulator for simmers, yet, Microsoft is trying to control and shape everything for us, like the AI traffic liveries. Of course it will be hard for Microsoft getting all airline companies licensing, because it has always been. Long time developers like me having worked with ACE studio back in the day do know airlines are reluctant, do remember the American Airlines threats, do know the PT fiasco in trying to impose the community paying royalties for a famous airline livery…
This is not new, and this is why there is no commercial offering for this but a great choice of freeware libs of liveries and models for all other simulator but FS2020. Why wanting to control this (in addition to sandboxing 3rd party devs) instead of just creating what is necessary in the SDK for just helping these freeware authors doing the same libraries for FS2020?
I have no doubt there is some value in the actual FS2020 SDK approach for the XBox version, and this might suits well the need for some airliner developers on the PC version as well, but to me, and I’ve been working nearly 20 years in this industry, I believe what makes a simulator for simmers is 3rd party developer add-ons, not just the simulator itself.
Bugs and Repro
I’m glad to hear they are trying to repro some of the reported bugs, but wouldn’t it be just easier to get started with a proper logging system?
Debuging log - Self-Service / Wishlist - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums
Other questions
I might have wrongly understood but didn’t Sebastian told in the Q&A they do have a replay system already but it is only used for their Video capture needs where it can help them producing videos without any stutter?
This begs a question: we were told in previous Q&A the screenshots and videos they are presenting are always from the simulator version we also have, not a future version. However it has been brought a few times: some were wondering how do the official videos are showing stuff we can’t repro with our versions, such as building/terrain draw distance in ULTRA without stutters. The answer has been so far they’re running it on high end machines, but isn’t it just because the videos are recorded from a replay system designed to eliminating stutters instead? I’m puzzled with this one?!
@Jorg
I’m glad you’re mentioning the dedication of the simmers and our involvement with FS2020 and the forums. You seemed genuinely surprised by this and this is not the first time. This is why it is important to also see all I’ve written above not as a rant at all either.
With your strong commitment to a “simulator for simmers” it is also expected you get feedback and demands with a high degree of quality and detail. This is a driver and what also defines to me what is the simmers community and why I’m glad working in this industry for the last 20 years!
I believe you’re doing a great job in trying to not only assemble the most prevalent questions, but also with your ability to pick some niche questions sometimes buried in the chat or in these forums.
However it seems to me, in every single Dev Q&A, they’re spending maybe 1/3 of the time talking about the same things they’ve already said before, 1/3 telling us how great it is working with 3rd party devs, and 1/3 telling us about new things (actually I enjoy a lot Sebastian’s talks, please don’t stop doing!!). This is most likely what the Q&A is all about, maybe, but I can’t help on the other hand also having the feeling there is a complete disconnection between the decisions making process about resolving the issues, and the daily work you’re doing here with the community with the addition of the thousand of hours spent by the community reporting the problems and making suggestions.
All this (and more) makes me feel like the Zendesk reports and the topics we are creating for reporting and documenting bugs are not worth a dime at all and we’re just loosing our time, and I’d like some reassurance about this.