Radical change of course for product development

Definitely, which is the difficult in the part of

It looks like the wisdom is already applied :wink:

1 Like

If you look at the schedule, they have lost a month to fixing SU5, and they have given themselves six weeks to get us back to a stable program, which everyone wants. I hope they succeed. The Reno races are due in mid November, and they’re going to continue to try to appeal to a wider audience with Top Gun, etc. Essentially, both simmers and sightseers (raises hand) have lost three months to bringing the game to X-Box. There has been no radical change in course. So far, it’s ■■■■ the torpedoes, and we’ll be back to that just as soon as stability has been achieved. You can’t tout the scenery when half the buildings in a city aren’t there and terminals are floating in mid-air. They have six weeks to get us back to stability. For now, I think we’re all behind that and wish them all the luck in the world.

1 Like

I just hope that audience aren’t too disappointed when they find they won’t be able to fire any weapons with that update. Fast jets, and carrier landings, but I doubt it will be more than that.

1 Like

I can see what you are saying after rereading my post, but I wasn’t intending to say the exact same thing. I should have stressed my main point more clearly:

Truth is we don’t have a choice other than to be patient, but that doesn’t mean that I think a year+ to give attention to core sim bugs is reasonable.

1 Like

You assume that the devs working on the WU features and scenery would be the same people who would deal with the other issues.

Most likely they’re not.

Thanks for clearing up!

Well, I’m not sure about the length if solving things. If i may take an extreme example. If ATC is overhauled (after injecting “we have at least something” legacy), it would definitely take a while. As i ofcourse have not seen any source code. My expectation would definitely be like 5 full fte’s for at least 6 months. Without taking any test strategy taken into account and as long as there are no current game breaking (not talking unfortunate) issues.

This as just an example :wink:. And this is just one issue.

For a second I want to inject some adult thought into this discussion. So many of you have no idea how software is created and supported.

My guess is you think there is some building somewhere full of drones called “developers” who can do anything. Develop a flight model, create scenery, fix AI traffic…just say go.

That’s not how it works. Devs are usually hired for specific tasks and because of specific skills. Those aren’t interchangeable. And devs usually work in teams. It’s not always possible (even if skills allow) to suddenly inject new heads into a team with a defined schedule (resource constraints, dependencies, etc).

Just food for thought as you folks demand this or that from the FS dev team.

7 Likes

Don’t bother, you’ll have the system abused and your post will be reported by people who don’t like it be it truth or not.

1 Like

Huh? Reported for what? Injecting some rational thought and logic into a conversation, based on decades of experience?

I’m confused. What did I say that’s not correct and demonstrably true?

The thought process of this thread is analogous to someone suggesting that the way to clear up a backlog of surgery in a hospital is for the orderlies and nurses to stop what they do, and switch to doing surgery.

After all, they all wear scrubs and a mask, right?

2 Likes

To be fair he wasn’t criticising the sim, he said he’s having a great time so there’s no need for him to play GTA. I think Asobo has done a great job broadening the appeal of MSFS, and it offers something for most people. It still has a way to go, but they are definitely on the right track imo.

I haven’t seen Covid mentioned yet. Any reasonable person might remember the effect Covid is having on all kinds of industries.

I personally keep hoping everyone at Asobo is OK.

yep… how frequently…

Our beloved developers all around can consider themselves lucky that we’re just a bunch of gamers instead of paying customers. Because if we were, we’d stop the payments, wouldn’t we?

Yes Flight Sim.

What most of the posters are looking for in this thread is a flow and procedure simulator for airliners and want to stop all development on other aspects of flight until things like ATC are fixed so they can play at airline captain better…

We have two flow and procedure simulators already in P3D and XPlane. We do not need a third one.

1 Like

This extremism in either direction is getting old… “just sayin’”

1 Like

I believe understanding 2nd degree is a lost art… :rofl:

1 Like

This got me wondering too:

I beg you a pardon but we paid money for what’s advertised like “the most realistic simulator blah-blah-blah”. I wouldn’t spend a dime on a scenery simulator. Not to mention there is really a lot of games out there so why making MSFS a game?

5 Likes

But this just isn’t true, is it!
These people are not volunteers! And however compartmentalised the teams are that these
people work within, everybody will expect commensurate remuneration for their endeavours.

So, consider this issue in terms of hard cash. And now a cogent argument can be built
to the effect that ALL the monies spent on funding ANY development should primarily be
concentrated on expanding and accelerating ONLY those activities devoted to finessing
the core functionality of the simulator first.
Only after which, all the elements of gamification etc can then take to the centre of the
developmental stage.

1 Like

Because you people already turned P3D and XPlane into the most boring things imaginable and almost killed the hobby with the obsession with study level procedure simulators.

MSFS is a breath of fresh air yet there is this massive push to turn it into a more scenic version of XPlane.

Why not just make XPlane more scenic ?

3 Likes