Quality Mindset of MFS-Team

Discussion Hub General Discussion
21

I’ve own every single version of Flight Simulator and I have bought it to fly.

To take off from an airport and land in another.

The enhance graphics are a bonus. But, if I really want to see a place and have it look real, I jump on a real place and go to the real place and see it live.

Enough with the whining and complaining that a screw is in the wrong place or the seats on the plane look different than on the real plane.

Really tired of all the negativity after MS and Asobo have done such an incredible job in what they have created!!

6 Likes
22

WU3London
WU3London1920×1006 213 KB

Toulouse2112, the area you sent a pic for should look like this.

5 Likes
23

This problem plagued world update USA, where you had to fly really close to POI’s to even see them. Glad it’s present in World Update 3

/s

1 Like
24

Your expectations are totally unrealistic and it shows that you do not know how the sim builds the world. It is all done by A.I., the whole world. So you either expect A.I to work perfectly in every single place on the planet based on sometimes low-resolution satellite imagery, or you are expecting Asobo to go through every single place on the entire planet and check if A.I did a good job and if not then correct it manually. Both requests are unrealistic.

1 Like
25

Don’t make claims you haven’t tested yourself. I just flew there myself, and could see all the bridges from miles away.

3 Likes
26

WU3Bridges
WU3Bridges1823×1164 189 KB

Correct, bridges do not “pop-up” in a correct WU3 install.

4 Likes
27

I didnt think its all modeled by hand, its already out there e.g. google streetview and even the LIDAR Scans that can model building bettery I am guessing? or are we still waiting on this to get better, still its good. …just getting there…

28

LIDAR scans and aerial photography (Photogrammetry) are not better quality than hand-made objects, unless you scan them manually from the ground. The resolution from aerial scans is just not there yet.

Google is google and Microsoft has Bing. Google has thousands of cities in photogrammetry, while Bing only some. Bing is Microsoft property, so Google data WILL never be officially used in MSFS.

1 Like
29

It’s already confirmed to be a problem in this update. Try flying towards Cliffs Of Dover. Unless you are less than mile away, they don’t show up.

30

looks like an LOD or caching issue there.

31

It’s been a problem in world update USA. Deleting cache/refreshing it, downloading manual cache never worked.

32

Anyone who believes Microsoft when they say they’ve committed to anything is remarkably naive.

1 Like
33

…and if we don’t frighten them off and we allow them to continue to make money (they are a business after all) maybe we can get more than 10 years.

34

Indeed, how dare they come along after more than a decade of absence and give us things that we dare not dream of before.

It’s probably more naive of MS to make the commitment. They don’t know who will be at the helm, what state the market will be in or many other things.

Not sure I’d be dissing them for it though.

3 Likes
35

Yes, look at the graphics. I know. Let’s have more graphics, and more pretty graphics. Let’s cherry pick some graphics shots and put it up against the worst of X-Plane.

Kudos to Asobo for dressing up the FSX core and putting pretty graphics on it.

Apart from looking pretty, there’s nothing I “dream of” here.

I’m looking at the rest of it, and the systems and structures behind it both in the code and the developers. Clutzy things like inconsistent UI that should be fixed but aren’t. Poor testing. Things that don’t work half the time, like say the inability of the downloader to count reliably.

Hacks, like when you load a flight back in, you can’t edit it. That’s for two reasons ; one it doesn’t work, two they don’t know why it doesn’t work, so they stop you doing it, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. This is likely to be endemic with seventeen year old code.

I’m not dissing Microsoft for making the commitment. As someone who goes back as far as Windows 2, and is an MCPD I’m telling you it’s not worth anything.

3 Likes
36

If I wanted to look purely at graphics then I wouldn’t need to do any cherry picking. I could choose almost anywhere and see an overall improvement.

If I wanted to look at the sim as a whole then of course this sim has some weak points, but less than 24 hours after WU3 release the focus is on graphics and on specific areas because that is what the update was all about.

MCPS, TTFN or whatever, some of us have been here way before those times and however good XP, P3D or even FSX have been, FS2020 is hitting more of my sweet spots as time goes by, still remembering that not much time has gone by since release.

If full emulation of complete systems and lack of any gamification is what you demand then you have other choices. My biggest concern is that the gamification will never be possible to hide and so using FS2020 as the base for a full pit might be difficult, but my last full pit pretty much used only the graphics engine of the base sim. Project Magenta, EPIC cards for interfacing et al were the tech of the day.

I look at FS2020 on release in August 2020 (or even in Alpha in late Jan 2020) and I look at it today (with the likes of FBW’s A320) and I do wonder why such negativity still exists.

Just the way of the world I guess.

2 Likes
37

The improvement is obvious, but not that spectacular. I flew X-Plane and FS2020 over Porlock/Lynton/Lynmouth in the UK, chosen purely because it is an interesting layout of terrain and roads and rivers and quite difficult. You can see the improvements in 2020 ; X-Plane struggles to cope with the main road which is almost on the cliff. Is MSFS better ? Absolutely, very noticeably. Is it massively better, no. Can you tell at 3000 feet, probably not.

I can understand why they’re working on the graphics. They wrote that bit, they know how it works. The problem is the legacy code. It’s always tempting to work on the easier stuff.

No, I don’t want “gamification” or “full emulation”. I’d quite happily settle for FSX level - limited in functionality but what is there largely works. That’s actually better. A starter currently has the problem that they don’t know whether the sim is doing it wrong or they are.

“Full emulation” aka “Study Level” appears to be the new getout clause AFAICS. People do not expect full study level from MSFS. X-Plane’s default’s certainly aren’t, there are plenty of INOPs. What they expect is what is there to work, primarily the avionics.

I think they’re going to have to gamify it. I see from your bio that you’re a long time simmer, so you’ve got lots of prior knowledge to get you on the right track, but I reckon most of the XBox crowd won’t be and may not want to.

I wonder how much hidden work is going on with things like missions and combat and the like. MSFS has a lot to offer VFR/GA flyers even now, but your average casual pickup gamer ?

Sure, some of them will end up simmers going through cold/dark powerups and the like, but many will want to shoot things. Flying round your house or the Taj Mahal or whatever, I’m not sure that has long term playability.

2 Likes
38

A very good post. It’s easy for us as individuals to overlook or outright ignore what other people want from their sim / game.

I just hope that it becomes easy to turn on / off many of the things we don’t want to give us all something closer to perfect.

All the best.

39

Oh dear… not that discussion again!

Maybe inform yourself first about the technology behind it and why “AI based / created worlds” - especially based on imperfect input data like blurry satellite textures, incomplete / wrong road/waterways/… data - are just a “best effort approximation” and why it is not an easy task to change a couple of “world building / constraint / relaxation” parameters for one place, because those settings impact other generated places / situations as well (in a negative way perhaps)!

So unless you have a master degree in data analytics, AI, clustering, image analysis or any other great idea that you’d like to sell to Asobo / Blackshark… why not sit back and enjoy what we HAVE!

4 Likes
40

Expecting perfection is the ultimate downfall of every single medium. There’s no such thing as perfection and expecting MSFS to be perfect, while simultaneously ignoring that X-Plane 11 in it’s standard, vanilla form, is not better than MSFS and comparing heavily modded X-Plane to vanilla MSFS is disingineous and ignorant.

Curious to see people moan “…but MSFS has graphics only!” all of a sudden when such pretty simulator actually releases, then dev spoils you with free world updates that normally costs hundreds of bucks. I could’ve swore that those same people were installing thousands dollars worth of addons to make X-Plane look better, but not even remotely close to what is at offer here. Those same people slamming MSFS for looking pretty, spent hundreds to make X-Plane look only marginally better, then when devs not only show transparency to a degree, they are slammed for their effort. I slam Asobo too sometimes for their inability to deliver updates to small reported things, but I recognise the technical marvel that MSFS is.

It’s not “us” who overlook or ignore what other people want from their sim/game. Other people who slam this game actually ignore people like me who genuinely enjoy this game for what it is, and see the potential and actually recognise the progress. Yes, I am not affraid to call this a game, but I will not be someone who segregates people as gamers or simmers. We are all here and if you segregate people then you can go, the door is right there, wide open, no one’s holding you here and we will be better off without segregation. Just because x doesn’t work like they want it to, doesn’t mean that suddenly msfs has “graphics only”. MSFS has a lot more than just graphics. It has first time, in history, a proper VFR abilities, that no other sim before it had. It’s astounding how people dont’ recognise what kind of achievement this game truly is. Not only from scale standpoint, but from standpoint of technicalities such as machine learning, streaming large quantities of data to end user without problems, and simulation of so many systems working together.

I don’t care what people say, if those same people choose to ignore me. However to deny the accomplishment of this sim, is like denying the progress we’ve made in the past 60 years. You simply cannot overlook what is done here, otherwise you come off as ignorant and elitist.

/Standard/ aircrafts in any sim are ALWAYS barebones, never study level, and have room for improvement. X-Plane is just as guilty of that, but people constantly choose to be disingineous about it and compare modded game to vanilla one. That is ignorant.

8 Likes