Personal Opinion here...

See, I don't want MSFS developers to build "better than third party" aircraft simply because to do them all as well is near impossible in a time-frame sense.  They can definately set a high baseline by all means.

I want them to focus on building the best possible simulator platform, such that I don't need to tweak any config file to get a smooth flight.  (Credit to P3Dv4.5 as it's the least tweaked sim I've ever used). 

I also don't care about high frames, if it's smooth to fly, stutter-free then I'm not going to bring up the FPS counter on my screen, my eyes and senses will be focussing elsewhere. 

If the  MSFS developers can provide great quality aircraft that to me is a bonus, however if they can provide the best possible new-gen simulator platform for third party companies to create even more realistic aircraft than say the current excellent offerings of PMDG, FSL, Flysimware, Milviz, A2A..et al..by accessing more of the sims workings and not have to create ways around current day limitations this should speed up development, keeps prices in check and allow the community overall to get a new feeling of regeneration.

Edited November 29, 20196 yr by YMMB

13 hours ago, Greazer said:

ou will have option for reading the manual too.  If you have all the free time to read 1000 page manual to master one aircraft then go for it.  I think most people will prefer to quickly learn using the training system, and to more easily switch between aircraft with ease.  Also it is for casual Xbox users too.  Doubt they are going to read a 1000 page POH haha 🤣   Also because it is a feature of the core sim, all payware aircraft that go on sale should rightly support the training system which is good.

No quibbles with the casual fliers.  But then don't talk about "realism" - and understanding your aircraft is a part of real flight.

There's a very obvious dichotomy between those oohing and ahhing over every blade of grass and millimetrically accurate cockpits while also wanting switches that unnaturally turn bright green (or whatever) at the appropriate time.

Mind you the way things are going with the children of the magenta that will probably be a standard feature on the B7007Z or the A39999 🙂

 

Watching the video again, you can see quite a lot of traffic on the screens during a couple of the shots 🙂 

4 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Very impressive. When did that happen and how since you still have to define aifoil lift/drag and moment in airfoil maker? 

I think it was mentioned somewhere in some past release notes. In any case, the flight model output log (cycle-dump.txt) lists, among all the calculations, the vortex lift added to the wing, I think it's called Delta Factor Lift or something like that.

In any case things like these go to show how a finite elements flight model (like in XP or the new MFS) is more intricate than just dividing the aircraft in many surfaces and adding them up. We'll see how detailed it is, and what capabilities it has for modeling more complex aerodynamic configurations, etc.

Regarding the topic, contrary to other opinions, I think MFS will be a boon for the likes of Carenado etc.:

. MFS will increase the userbase considerably;

. A significant part of the increase will be from new or non-hardcore simmers, who want good prices and good visuals (something Carenado is very good at);

. The improvements in default system realism/capabilities (which appears to happen from what we've seen) will be especially favourable to Carenado and the likes, who make more use of default systems.

So I think they have nothing to fear, on the contrary.

8 hours ago, dtrjones said:

Nothing like a bit of optimism Ray!

I'm very much a pragmatic person and while I don't expect the default aircraft to match some of todays payware, I do expect if Microsoft/Asobo do there job correctly it will be easier for the likes of PDMG to attain a higher fidelity of simulation which is what we all want.

I am also a pragmatic person. The SDK is key to 3rd party developers being able to create reference level aircraft. I'm sure Microsoft realise that and will be as helpful as possible.

If i remember correctly their 320 flight model is simulated outside of P3D to achieve the accuracy they wanted. I'm not sure if this was also the case for concorde. If this was possible in FSX and P3D this should also be possible in FS20. However being able to use the sim natively would probably be preferable and might shorten the developpement time. 

Microsoft said they talked to several 3rd party developpers and listen to their inputs to write the SDK so I have no doubt it will be a huge step forward compared to the FSX days.

2 hours ago, lzamm said:

There's a very obvious dichotomy between those oohing and ahhing over every blade of grass and millimetrically accurate cockpits while also wanting switches that unnaturally turn bright green (or whatever) at the appropriate time.

I don’t get this at all. It’s a teaching tool like any other. How is this conceptually different from a student pilot sitting in a cockpit with an instructor who’s pointing out where things are (or prompting them when they’ve forgotten where a switch is or what to do next)?

This highlighting the next button for the checklist thing was a feature in the Virgin space shuttle sim that came out more than 25 years ago. Good thing, too, because that thing had about 5,000 tiny switches  in its cockpit...

I actually have no idea how real pilots are being taught these days, especially in ab initio trainings outside North America. But, speaking purely as an airline passenger, I honestly hope it’s not simply by throwing a couple thousand-page tomes at the students and telling them to commit them to memory. That may have been the cutting edge in scientific pedagogy two hundred years ago (probably not even then), but there’s a lot of research to show that it’s a lousy way to teach and to learn. That goes for any field, not just aviation. Reading is just one tool of many! Great to see a more interactive approach to help new “pilots” learn.

James

Enlighten me, I don’t understand how adding a switchable teaching aid in a complex cockpit  relates to eye candy.
 

2 hours ago, lzamm said:

There's a very obvious dichotomy between those oohing and ahhing over every blade of grass and millimetrically accurate cockpits while also wanting switches that unnaturally turn bright green (or whatever) at the appropriate time

🙂

 

 

Edited November 29, 20196 yr by domkle

2 hours ago, lzamm said:

There's a very obvious dichotomy between those oohing and ahhing over every blade of grass and millimetrically accurate cockpits while also wanting switches that unnaturally turn bright green (or whatever) at the appropriate time.

Well, you don't have an instructor sitting next to you.   This is a great way to teach familiarity with a cockpit environment on a PC.   It is important to make a flightsim accessible to people who might be interested in, but know nothing about aviation or flying.  That's what inspires new pilots and that's what grows potential markets for the third party providers.  That's what fills the VATSIM skies.   The more people who use it and love the experience, the better for all who sim.     Flighsimming should not be an exclusive club

Edited November 29, 20196 yr by ErichB

(re checklists)

Well, that certainly stirred up a lot of controversy!

As I said, nothing against it but I do feel that its importance (and the excitement it generates) is over-rated.  Just my opinion, of course.

 

57 minutes ago, lzamm said:

(re checklists)

Well, that certainly stirred up a lot of controversy!

As I said, nothing against it but I do feel that its importance (and the excitement it generates) is over-rated.  Just my opinion, of course.

 

Nobody said that a little controversy was not good . I've always wondered why P3D which aims at being a training tool (I know, I know...) had not implemented the 'blinking cockpit' to illustrate the work flow. 

In FSX, the Carenado Premier 1A has a so-called "Lift Dump" which cannot be activated via an assignable joystick button. I think one could use FSUIPC to access the "LVar" to do this job, but I never bothered buying yet another product for just one purpose. I hope that this will be over with the new simulator. Am I expecting too much?

1 minute ago, siggy said:

In FSX, the Carenado Premier 1A has a so-called "Lift Dump" which cannot be activated via an assignable joystick button. I think one could use FSUIPC to access the "LVar" to do this job, but I never bothered buying yet another product for just one purpose. I hope that this will be over with the new simulator. Am I expecting too much?

I expect as much. It is high time that the last baby in the FS family had a complete interaction between cockpit functionalities and our controllers.

5 hours ago, YMMB said:

Personal Opinion here...

See, I don't want MSFS developers to build "better than third party" aircraft simply because to do them all as well is near impossible in a time-frame sense.  

You don't know that for sure. Don't compare Asobo's output to devs like PMDG. 3pds in the sim space have limited resources, leading to very long dev cycles. Asobo has a pool of highly talented devs and comparatively unlimited resources for what they're doing. They can do a lot more in less time.

7 hours ago, YMMB said:

Personal Opinion here...

See, I don't want MSFS developers to build "better than third party" aircraft simply because to do them all as well is near impossible in a time-frame sense.  They can definately set a high baseline by all means.

It's all about the number of people involved on the project. And Microsoft + Have around 200 people working on the sim. I'm pretty sure they have enought people to do whatever they planned to do faster than any 3rd parties (like really good airplanes). They have the resources (a lot) and tech on their side.

The only thing that some few 3rd parties have and MS + Asobo don't is experience on developing specific aircrafts (I'm talking about devs like PMDG and FSLabs). But on that regard I'm sure Asobo + MS can overcome those limitations with their partnerships and superior manpower. Things that 3rd parties took years testing/developing can be done faster with the help of the real testing pilots and the plane manufacturers.

That said, I hope they deliver very good aircrafts, but limit their hangar to a few, covering most types of planes and helicopters. That way they can put all their devs focusing on core features like seasons, ATC, VR, A.I. etc.