FS2020 "PRO" needed?

People need to look into the SDK documentation sometime. There’s a lot of incredible stuff behind the scenes that’s not being used to it’s full potential yet. Remember a simulator is a growing platform, it won’t be like this forever.

6 Likes

I think we are already inundated with too many “pro” labels attached to products that are charged at a premium, which don’t really provide that much of an upgrade/update.

Let them get MSFS finished before we start asking for another unfinished version with “pro” attached to it.

5 Likes

But bear in mind some of the experienced 3rd party devs are saying the SDK also lacks some very fundamental functionality that should have been there from the get-go. That and poor SDK documentation is slowing or halting their study-level planes for the time being.

I have no doubt it will get to where it needs to be in time though. And it will likely surpass expectations. It will take time for this product to mature properly.

2 Likes

Yeah, totally in agreement that the sim is premature in it’s current state. Lots of potential.

1 Like

Yep. Really we don’t need Asobo to develop a “Pro level” simulator. What we need is for the SDK to continue to be developed so that third party developers can address the various areas where the realism falls short. In other words, we need Asobo to focus on making the platform the most open and customizable flight simulator on the market. If they do that, then the rest will take care of itself.

5 Likes

“That latter group want it as hardcore and true to life as possible. And there’s nothing wrong with that at all. We’re going to have to rely on 3rd party devs for that though. Asobo are working hard on the still very lacking SDK to bring us that experience. But it will come in time. I can understand why hardcore simmers are angry or disappointed with the current state of the sim.”

Agree 100% with this. MS and Asobo just need to finish and improve the experience as it was intended and fix the SDK for 3rd party dev’s, so they can improve the hardcore sim experience. The realism and complexity hardcore simmers want will only come from 3rd party dev’s as payware, with a few exceptions (Workingtitle comes to mind and the A32NX). Let MS and Asobo do their thing, and the really good stuff with come.

2 Likes

Asobo has already made it clear that MSFS was(is) supposed to be developed with the serious simmer (“hardcore?”) in mind. Additionally, the secondary goal of MSFS is to be accessible for anyone who has an interest in aviation. So I expect the end game here is to have at least the same simulator functionality that other more developed platforms currently have. IMO a “Pro” version would be a Level D simulator. So that’s out!

As the SDK develops, this simulator should become the platform we’re all looking for…I hope! I feel Asobo already has its hands full trying to fulfill the commitment on their plate, while we’re still in the midst of a global pandemic.

2 Likes

I’m with you on that one.

But I think that the initial group they’re catering to is the more casual gamers and XBox crowd. MS sunk tons of money into this project since it started. That’s likely why we saw it roll out before it was ready for prime time. They deemed it good enough for the gamers and casual simmers. Marketing and the bean counters wanted to recoup their initial investment.

And in the last Q&A, they said MS considered it as a great success. Likely they did recoup all that initial investment and then some. I suspect that VR and XBox are still the top priorities for the time being since that’s their next big flood of money. But after that, I think we’ll see development focus shifting drastically towards high fidelity simming that the hardcore crowd want. Part of that requires some changes to flight model, weather, etc, and the rest is for the SDK to get the 3rd party devs to work their magic.

1 Like

I’m old enough to remember this statement. I’m not sure if this individual is still on the team, but I’m still holding Asobo/MS to this! Go to 14:09 if the link didn’t automatically take you there.

1 Like

I think what we’re seeing is the reverse. Asobo has the best intentions and they genuinely wanted this to be for flight sim enthusiasts first and foremost, but the bean counters and marketing folks at MS hold the purse strings and therefore control how it’s being released. They know the lion’s share of the money is going to be coming from the “10 [-15] year old Timmy” crowd who are using an XBox controller.

We’re going to have to wait a bit longer for our hardcore sim. It will come, and ultimately I think it will be better because of this (since MS see this as a huge success and will put more money into it).

Terrible idea, not to mention completely unrealistic.

There’s simply no reason to split the product range (which also means splitting development resources and adding complexity to the development pipeline, which increases likelihood of issues) when the simulator is already going to get more and more complex over time, like all previous simulators in this genre did.

Anyone who thinks this is just a “game” doesn’t know what the definition of “simulator” means and either is at their first rodeo, not knowing how previous products in this genre developed and how they launched, or is looking at the past with very rose-tinted glasses.

Seriously, the elitist “this is not a simulator bwaaaah” gating needs to end.

The “non-pro” MSFS version already exists. It’s simply the simplest aircraft with the aids turned on.

The “pro” MSFS version also already exists. It’s MSFS. It’s already “as real as it gets” with a simulator in this stage of development, as it has always been and it always will be.

3 Likes

I can definitely see your point.

This is the same argument as game vs simulator asked many times here.
It is made for Xbox and PC. I think one can conclude from this what the target market is. The gaming market.

1 Like

Thx 4 the Link.

14.28
“We are building this Flightsimulator for Core Simmers”.
Serious#ß??!

Give GTA5 and Smartphone player what they want, and the rest a plane with Cold and Dark choice to simulate a “real flight”.

I mean, whats the deluxe edition? More planes and airports?

There should be option for hardcore vatsim, online,fulltime,ifr, without timelapse, playerz. You all know what i mean.
This is, what i wish all the time. An option for “Look on my super smartphone, i can land a plane outside of the cockpit” people, and be aware, u r in the professional mode, the airplane is on the Gate with the Cold&Dark Mode.

GTA5 Pilots are Welcome, Newcomer also, but the priority is on “Flightsimulation”. Thats what i see on this video.

Here is a comment from the page you linked:
“For me its the fact that they are clearly incompetent and know nothing about airplanes.”

Computer flight simulators are games. There isn’t a “game vs simulator” argument.

It’s just a logical fallacy that pretend pilots use to shield themselves from having to admit that they’re spending a lot of time and money to play a game.

No matter how realistic a flight simulator is. It’s still a game. Releasing it for a console doesn’t make it any more or less of a game.

Chess is a deceptively simple but actually very complex strategy and battle simulator. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a game.

1 Like

Dont need Pro they just need to improve the sim and the SDK and make a good base program for the 3rd party devs to make it a good and finnally in a few years a great sim for airliners.

This community is prejudice as hell against people who play GTA wtf…:rofl:

There needs to be a Pro version with additional aircraft (737 Max, TBM 940) and Professional flight models.

Sorry, but… Gotta love a comment that starts like this…

By that logic,

anything we use to approximate reality is a game.

All rectangles are parallelograms , but not all parallelograms are rectangles. A rhombus can also be a parallelogram.
So while a game is something we play and a simulator is something we use, what class it fits into is what defines it. What if we use a game to teach a skill, does that mean it is now a simulator? And what happens to a simulator that we use to entertain ourselves? By definition we are now playing a simulator and not using it. Or are we, as stated above, using it as a game?

Tell me that there are simulators that have no game qualities, and I will show you an eight year old that can find a way to play with it. When we have a quality simulator that runs on a computer, can be used as a training tool and has realistic flight and weather dynamics we will all agree that it IS as simulator, but I will still be able to show you the eight year old that can have a blast playing it!

No-one will win the argument. We can only agree that we want hard core simmers and wild eight year olds to be able to enjoy it for years to come. Do we need two versions? NO. Do we need one really good version? YES.

4 Likes

You are absolutely correct in your post in respect of the simming base of enthusiasts is not large enough for Microsoft to make money from.

MSFS is part of the portfolio of products under XBox studios. MSFS target audience including existing simmers is the 15 million subscribers to Gamepass etc. MSFS got the green light to go ahead from Phil Spencer as part of that strategy and to date it’s working as I am here from the Xbox community playing it on my PC and will play it on my new Xbox. It’s a stunning technological project