The “third party developer” is Working Title who are no longer “third party” - they now work directly for Asobo. The whole point in bringing them on board was to add the missing functionality to the original G-1000. Even if they were still external developers, what would that matter? The goal is to have accurate and realistic default avionics - who cares “who” does the work, as long as it gets done.
The new NXi is still an optional download via the content manager because it is still in beta, but it will soon become the default G1000 in MSFS, and once that is done, they will turn their attention to upgrading the default G3000.
This is a discussion topic. Some people appear to think they are more correct than others. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between.
I only offer MY opinion - this thread will be promptly closed if we can’t respect differing opinions (and that may be the goal of some).
Some bugs have obviously been fixed, but others appear to have fallen to the wayside. If they affect the aircraft or type of flying you like to do it can be extremely frustrating.
This is exactly the point. Some people complain about issues they are facing as if they were issues that everyone is facing and experiencing the same way.
I have nothing against discussion about certain bugs that have not been fixed since launch, heck, one of my own peeves is the bridge one, since the very launch has annoyed me. And don’t get me started about all the sunken boats in marinas around the world. Oh, and the turnback bug when re-planning the approach, ■■■■ that’s annoying! At least that should be fixed in the next update. As well as the jetway bug, finally, have I been waiting for that for months!
What I have issues with is when people make sweeping allegations without any regard to validity claiming “nothing is getting fixed”, “they” are in this only for the money etc. Because that just is demonstrably untrue, irrespective of how my personal rating of the bugs in the sim is. I still can and have been able to enjoy simming the whole time.
And that’s the point. Take a look here, for example, that’s the point I’m personally most upset about. Yes, there are “only” 125 people affected. But, the roughly $12,500 paid by these “only” 125 people shouldn’t be enough to fix the bug after 10 months?!?
If you watch the video, you will understand.
10 months? Wasn’t that the bug that was introduced with SU5 culling to certain wide view VR lenses? I maybe mistaking, but none of those lenses are supported as of now officially by MSFS? Why would you demand them to fix it? Because people bought them and spent a lot of money?
The solution to the problem is relatively simple. Only the frustrum culling has to be deactivated.
In other games, where the devs didn’t want to do without it in order not to harm users with weaker systems, they gave us the opportunity to simply switch it off via a config file if nessecary . Didn’t take 2 days, despite the finished code.
Or possibly making more lenses supported has just not been possible due to the resources being needed elsewhere? VR in general has not had any support since it was launched in December last year, if you look at the release notes. I just don’t think it is very reasonable to expect an increase of the number of supported lenses when even the existing ones have not been getting much attention. However, the SU5 and the Xbox launch have been done, and as we heard in the Q&A the team has been growing, so I think we should be finally getting improvements also for VR.
It has nothing to do with the lenses, it is simply because they block objects above 115 degrees FOV to save memory and CPU load. 115 degrees, because wmr doesn’t know any more.
And why would they do that? Perhaps because the supported lenses and more importantly the current code more or less optimized for those lenses only supports up until 115 FOV?
Yet it was clearly communicated which lenses will be supported, I did buy Q2 very well knowing it wasn’t at VR launch. It was cheap and G2 wasn’t available at the time. If you thought SteamVR compatibility would mean automatic compatibility with all SteamVR compatible lenses, I have a bridge to sell you.
There was never any talk of lenses. At first it was said, just wmr, then the good news came, also for Oculus and SteamVR.
It works too. Just the extreme culling.
Even then, the error was relativ high on the priority list. The WFOV manufacturers also offered them help.
The help was declined and the topic slipped back down.
But maybe. if MS brings a WideFOV HMD onto the market, the problem will definitely be solved within a few minutes. xD
well, i have to sleep. Greetings to Switzerland and have a good flight !
I don’t remember anyone mentioning anything other that at launch WMR lenses are supported. Again, when I bought the Quest2, I knew it wasn’t a WMR one, I knew very well the sim wasn’t optimized for it.
