1 minute ago, eaim said:

I think Asobo and Microsoft know what they're doing, so everything will be in hand.

We can only hope, unfortunately the latest video still shows issues of tree scale. Go figure!

9 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

We can only hope, unfortunately the latest video still shows issues of tree scale. Go figure!

You just don't understand the meaning of an Alpha build do you?

4 minutes ago, eaim said:

You just don't understand the meaning of an Alpha build do you?

In my 25+ years of software development I've never heard of an alpha build, what is that? Please explain....

If the latest video is using a recent build (which I suspect it is) and it still shows issues of tree scale then that means they've made little or no progress on that issue.

It might be that they don't consider tree scale an issue at all, which is a worry.

Edited February 23, 20206 yr by MatthewS

21 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Don't they have over 120 employees? I'm sure one of them has time to capture footage from a recent build, rather than use something that is months old...

As I already said, it's probably not just one person from the development team assembling the footage around, but the developers talking in the videos as they are responsible for each of these tasks, which is why you are seeing footage from their work or development tools. After that they are probably handing the footage over to an editor to create the episode, which is also something that will take time. So it is inherently impossible to use footage from days before anyway.

From the Feedback Snapshot it is evident that they are working on more pressing issues right now. If the trees and other scaling issues aren't fixed yet, it doesn't mean they don't care about fixing them, it could mean that they are just lower on their priority list and that they'll get to them eventually. Fixing crashing and controller compatibility issues is more important than something that the overwhelming majority will not even notice. You could say that the developers responsible for the scenery are not the same ones working on the application, but there might be other serious scenery issues that of course they are not going to demonstrate to the public, so we can't know what their true priorities are. Those who are part of the Alpha will know better about this.

The fact that the E3 trailer and Global Preview event footage showcased those horrible photogrammetry trees and that more recently we are seeing the much better custom models means that they have made improvements in that regard, and will likely continue to do so until the game's release.

6 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

Fixing crashing and controller compatibility issues is more important than something that the overwhelming majority will not even notice

I understand what you're saying but for myself (and several others I've seen post on this forum) the issue of tree scale is very important and noticeable. 

When trees (or buildings) are too big it tricks your mind into thinking you are flying lower than you actually are.  It's an issue, and I turn off autogen completely in P3D/FSX because I just can't stand it.

2 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

I understand what you're saying but for myself (and several others I've seen post on this forum) the issue of tree scale is very important and noticeable. 

When trees (or buildings) are too big it tricks your mind into thinking you are flying lower than you actually are.

I agree and I'm sure many others do so. But it is not something they can fix immediately considering the humongous amount of tasks that need to be completed, and that it is not an easy task itself. The replacement of photogrammetry trees and the improved night lighting shows that there is progress on the appearance of the scenery, and since they read these forums very closely, correcting scale errors is probably already on their list. Continuing to inquire about the issue and requesting proof right now is likely not helping matters though.

33 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

Please. 

Your right we need to get back on topic.

TBF to myself, I'm just a bit bored because I'm busy downloading/installing P3D onto my M.2 drive on my new PC along with all the addons.

Edited February 23, 20206 yr by eaim

3 minutes ago, domkle said:

I was to make a similar post. Matthews raises debatable but real issues... in an exaggerated way which is somewhat unfortunate as it  leads the discussion to degenerate. But he is not a troll and what he says is worth discussing. Accusing him of that will lead the thread to be closed. 

Well actually, he didn’t raise it. It’s been mentioned well before about oversized objects. Quite some time back.

And undulating runways? Nobody knows except the alpha testers and Asobo if/how it might/is/will be implemented. So, why keep going down that track like a persistent pest?
 

There is a right way to question something. And there’s a way to act like mature poster without becoming annoying. 

 

 

 

So back on topic....

I just watched this last discovery ep again and yep I'm still amazed at how great MFS appears to be turning out.  This is going to be such a virtual VFR wet dream come true!

I still wish the IFR ep was coming next rather than the Multiplayer though, I want to see instrumentation and IFR details!!!!!

4 hours ago, suncoastflyer said:

I can see majorly wrong here is lack of apron lighting

+1, love the detail, would like to see it at night.

The Grand Canyon sort of confuses me a bit. Look at the edge of the canyon in both. One has nice sharp drop off 

 

And the other, looks like icing on a cake melting

I've seen that exact thing using Ortho4xp. And I'm sure it's the mesh, and shadow. But doesn't that just look odd in the second pic? The top one is great!!!!

We can see various deep of field in screen shoot publied since first update. 
 

Certainly in grand canyon related with deep of field..

17 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

I've seen that exact thing using Ortho4xp. And I'm sure it's the mesh, and shadow. But doesn't that just look odd in the second pic? The top one is great!!!!

Perhaps the mesh was not fully loaded in the second picture. In one spot, the river seems to have a weird elevation issue as well.

I took a closer look at the AI aircraft touching down in the last shot of the episode. I replayed it on YT at the slowest speed but I'm still not sure. It seems they are still kind of slamming into the runway, albeit not as hard as in P3D/FSX. There is likely still much work to be done with regards to the AI aircraft system, but I'd really like to watch other aircraft touch down smoothly while on my way to the runway.

21 hours ago, sightseer said:

Could you explain "DAPP".  I've never heard of it and apparently neither has google.  thanks.

DAPP (Destination Airport Analysis Program)  It's a program we use.  Here's a section from our GOM:

"The purpose of this program is to establish procedures and criteria for reducing the effective runway length required at the destination and alternate airports. In order to reduce the effective runway length, the criteria set forth in this section must be met prior to a flight’s departure or at the time of arrival. This program applies to FAR 135, FAR 91 Subpart K, and Part 91 operations...Always take into account current braking action reports and the likelihood of an update prior to the flight’s arrival at a particular airport. The runway to be used must meet at least the following:
1. The runway gradient shall be no greater than 2 percent or as specified in the AFM.
2. The runway shall be free of all contamination such as standing water, ice or snow."

There's much more, but I highlighted the section pertaining to RWY gradient.