Imagine where MSFS will be in 3 years?

[Guest akita]

Since MSFS was released:

1) 2 other platforms already have newer and faster rendering engines.

2) more "study level" aircrafts have been released to other platforms than what is available for MSFS.

just some facts to the record...

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by akita

[abrams_tank 7,657]

1 hour ago, akita said:

Since MSFS was released:

1) 2 other platforms already have newer and faster rendering engines.

2) more "study level" aircrafts have been released to other platforms than what is available for MSFS.

just some facts to the record...

 

But those two platforms have major shortcomings.  The first is the graphics, that is obvious.  But the second biggest shortcoming is that MSFS can stream satellite data to give you terrain that parallels real life.

Until XPlane and P3D stream satellite data so the terrain matches real life, including real life points of views, they are many, many, steps behind MSFS.  Especially when it comes to VFR, it's just night and day comparing MSFS to XPlane & P3D.

And the truth is, the only competing company that has that satellite data is Google and I doubt Google will freely give it to XPlane and P3D, not to mention the server costs that Google would have to pay to stream that data to XPlane or P3D.

Edited April 11, 2021 by abrams_tank

[Dominique_K 10,156]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

 

And the truth is, the only competing company that has that satellite data is Google and I doubt Google will freely give it to XPlane and P3D, not to mention the server costs that Google would have to pay to stream that data to XPlane or P3D.

The truth (such a thing exits ? ) is that neither Google nor Microsof have satellite, they licence their imagery from third party providers. One of the largest, Maxar, is working on several other projects with Lockheed Martin. As for the servers MS is not the only company having a gigantic network of servers able to stream data.

 

[abrams_tank 7,657]

8 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

The truth (such a thing exits ? ) is that neither Google nor Microsof have satellite, they licence their imagery from third party providers. One of the largest, Maxar, is working on several other projects with Lockheed Martin. As for the servers MS is not the only company having a gigantic network of servers able to stream data.

 

And how will the price of the servers, the manpower needed to maintain it, and the streaming of it factor into the cost of P3D or XPlane?  That costs a lot of money.  And you need a large enough player base to bring that cost down.  Otherwise, with the small base of players for P3D or XPlane, each player would have to probably fork out a lot of money for the server costs and manpower needed for it.

I don't see XPlane or P3D streaming real time satellite data to generate 3D terrain anytime soon. If they can do 1/2 of what MSFS does with respect to streaming real time satellite to create realistic 3D terrain and the cost of it is comparable to MSFS, bookmark this comment and come back to it and I will eat crow (ie. even if what you say is true about Lockheed Martin possibly having streamed satellite data in the future, will it cost $60 USD like it does for a Standard copy of MSFS, with no recurring subscription fees?).

Edited April 11, 2021 by abrams_tank

[G-RFRY 1,761]

In 3 years MSFS will probably take up more space on Avsim forum than FSX has in 15 years, and some will be running 5 Grand PCs 5090 GPU, and it may take days to do a full re-install for some, Happy Flying.😀. 

Edited April 11, 2021 by G-RFRY

[Dominique_K 10,156]

35 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

And how will the price of the servers, the manpower needed to maintain it, and the streaming of it factor into the cost of P3D or XPlane?  That costs a lot of money.  And you need a large enough player base to bring that cost down.  Otherwise, with the small base of players for P3D or XPlane, each player would have to probably fork out a lot of money for the server costs and manpower needed for it.

I don't see XPlane or P3D streaming real time satellite data to generate 3D terrain anytime soon. If they can do 1/2 of what MSFS does with respect to streaming real time satellite to create realistic 3D terrain and the cost of it is comparable to MSFS, bookmark this comment and come back to it and I will eat crow (ie. even if what you say is true about Lockheed Martin possibly having streamed satellite data in the future, will it cost $60 USD like it does for a Standard copy of MSFS, with no recurring subscription fees?).

I only corrected a misinformation in your post. I am not privy to Lockheed Martin's strategic vision of the future of Prepar3D.   

 

[abrams_tank 7,657]

43 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

I only corrected a misinformation in your post. I am not privy to Lockheed Martin's strategic vision of the future of Prepar3D.   

 

$60 USD is absurdly cheap for having satellite terrain data streamed to your computer, and there are no recurring subscription fees as well. If Lockheed Martin offers the streaming of satellite data at all, they would probably only offer it to their commercial customers but charge them an arm and a leg.  And even if Lockheed Martin charged their commercial customers for streamed satellite data, there would have to be enough of those customers opting in for it, before Lockheed Martin can break even.

Look, I don't think live streaming satellite data is coming to P3D and XPlane, to regular home customers like us, at a one time price of $60 USD (no recurring subscription fees) any time soon.  For that reason alone, there will always be a big gap between MSFS versus P3D/Xplane for home customers.

Edited April 11, 2021 by abrams_tank

[mrueedi 702]

On 4/9/2021 at 8:22 PM, RobJC said:

Software developers like things to be perfect, but this can also lead to very long development cycles. In fact, software may never get out the door if perfect is the requirement.

Absolutely, every complex software ships with hundreds if not thousands known bugs at any time. The bug tracking tools of big open source projects like Blender, Visual Studio Code or even the Linux Kernel are a glaring proof of that. A sea of bugs, often raised many years ago. Bugs, which will very likely never will be fixed. Dont expect anything else with MSFS.

Another distinction, which is not easily understood by many, is the difference between a bug and missing functional scope. People often are not happy with a product, because the delivered functional scope does not meet their needs. But the funtional scope per release is something, which is planned very early in each development cycle. E.g. whether the shipped functionality in the area of ATC is buggy or simply matches the somewhat limited yet planned functional scope for that release, you and I bascially are not able to tell. Only MS product management knows. Wrong ATC phrases could be a 100% compliant implementation of the requirement "Implement ATC on FSX level with some low effort enhancements". In many cases only a comparison with the requirement (which we dont have) can tell, whether a deficiency is a bug or simply lacking (but planned) functional scope. The former needs bug fixing, the later extensions. This distinction is crucial for devs.

What also needs to be considered is the life cycle of a complex software. I was deeply involved in a 200-man software development project and the first release only covered about 15% of the functional scope the system has today. Year by year another 15% were added, so today we are more or less feature complete.

Now apply the same to MSFS:

Imagine the perfect PC flight simulator having all the bells and whistles, you could ever wish or dream of. Now, with that near-utopical functional scope in mind, everybody can sketch a development plan, which a vendor would have to follow to accomplish that goal. Realisticly, the implementation of that plan and approaching that ultimate goal would take many years (10+) of dedicated work. If MSFS would have reached a state of wholeness right at launchtime or even after one year, where would be room for extension? Or, to put it more tangible, if ATC, the weather engine, the default planes, the system deepth, helicopters, the SDK, seasons, sailplanes, water masks and everything else already would be perfect, there would be no more work for Asobo or MS. No, it does not work that way. At some time, you release a software with considerable functional limitations all while the further development continues in parallel with ramping up a userbase.

 

10 hours ago, a321 said:

msfs is so bad at the basics, it's been saved by mods

Which sim isn't? Please unistall your mods on XPlane and repeat the comparison!

Edited April 11, 2021 by mrueedi

[a321 207]

32 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

Absolutely, every complex software ships with hundreds if not thousands known bugs at any time. The bug tracking tools of big open source projects like Blender, Visual Studio Code or even the Linux Kernel are a glaring proof of that. A sea of bugs, often raised many years ago. Bugs, which will very likely never will be fixed. Dont expect anything else with MSFS.

Another distinction, which is not easily understood by many, is the difference between a bug and missing functional scope. People often are not happy with a product, because the delivered functional scope does not meet their needs. But the funtional scope per release is something, which is planned very early in each development cycle. E.g. whether the shipped functionality in the area of ATC is buggy or simply matches the somewhat limited yet planned functional scope for that release, you and I bascially are not able to tell. Only MS product management knows. Wrong ATC phrases could be a 100% compliant implementation of the requirement "Implement ATC on FSX level with some low effort enhancements". In many cases only a comparison with the requirement (which we dont have) can tell, whether a deficiency is a bug or simply lacking (but planned) functional scope. The former needs bug fixing, the later extensions. This distinction is crucial for devs.

What also needs to be considered is the life cycle of a complex software. I was deeply involved in a 200-man software development project and the first release only covered about 15% of the functional scope the system has today. Year by year another 15% were added, so today we are more or less feature complete.

Now apply the same to MSFS:

Imagine the perfect PC flight simulator having all the bells and whistles, you could ever wish or dream of. Now, with that near-utopical functional scope in mind, everybody can sketch a development plan, which a vendor would have to follow to accomplish that goal. Realisticly, the implementation of that plan and approaching that ultimate goal would take many years (10+) of dedicated work. If MSFS would have reached a state of wholeness right at launchtime or even after one year, where would be room for extension? Or, to put it more tangible, if ATC, the weather engine, the default planes, the system deepth, helicopters, the SDK, seasons, sailplanes, water masks and everything else already would be perfect, there would be no more work for Asobo or MS. No, it does not work that way. At some time, you release a software with considerable functional limitations all while the further development continues in parallel with ramping up a userbase.

 

Which sim isn't? Please unistall your mods on XPlane and repeat the comparison!

Errr no. The default avionics work so well in Xplane that a lot of add-on aircraft use them so please stop the lies now and immediately. People like you just throw out stupid statements and spread garbage. 

Xplane out of the box you can fly IFR realistically. You can't in msfs without mods and often you can't at all. That's a fact! No need to uninstall anything, stop being a shill for bad decisions, and short comings.

Edited April 11, 2021 by a321

[mrueedi 702]

 

11 hours ago, a321 said:

Xplane with Xenviro or skymaxx pro 5, with Active sky xp, now shadeX and all the terrific add-ons

These are also just fixing the basics of a sim, don't they?

 

[HighTowers 1,444]

On 4/9/2021 at 9:52 PM, tpete61 said:

It will still be full of bugs and and un-finished product. Just about garaunteed.

The Hype train is still running strong praising this product that at best right now is just an average PC Game.

When the G1000 and FMS are on par with other platforms it will be closer to a flight simulator rather than a game.

I dont get this negative tone all the time. P3D is on V5 and XP on V11 and they still have bugs and its still unfinished.  Because it will always be.  Always room for improvement.  Not sure what you are expecting from MSFS after 6 mos or even a year after release. 

The hype train still running?  Thats called big time marketing, that has attracted alot of simmers from before who stopped, and streamers who have never touched a flight sim before.  I would say thats brilliant.  Its no average PC game if you look at all the reviews.  The G1000 and or FMS in other platforms is word not allowed by default.   Again how much do you expect from default?   This will be up to 3PDs to enhance.  

We've been whining about a next gen sim for a decade or more, thats modern and taking advantage of new tech both hardware and software, and now that its here, it gets dirt thrown at it cause it aint perfect.  Never will be. Just like any other sim. 

[a321 207]

58 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

 

These are also just fixing the basics of a sim, don't they?

 

Yeah they are, they are fixing it looks. But what they are not fixing is the fundamental things pertinent to a flight sim such as the avionics etc which are still very poor in msfs 

You can keep defending it, or you can hope they fix it  I hope they fix it so msfs can be the greatest SIM, but these things are really holding it back. 

 

Just go watch the videos on you tube..

Here is one, real world pilot 

Skip to 9mins and listen.. it's not the planes fault, it's the SIM...and it should never be like that. 1 day ago by the way.

Edited April 11, 2021 by a321

[Guest devgrp]

1 hour ago, a321 said:

Xplane out of the box you can fly IFR realistically. You can't in msfs without mods and often you can't at all. That's a fact! No need to uninstall anything, stop being a shill for bad decisions, and short comings.

Can you explain exactly what makes it possible to fly ifr in xp and in msfs you cant? I'm trying to figure out if ifr is just study level planes or flying blind with instruments

[a321 207]

8 minutes ago, devgrp said:

Can you explain exactly what makes it possible to fly ifr in xp and in msfs you cant? I'm trying to figure out if ifr is just study level planes or flying blind with instruments

IFR is using the instruments, it's the highest level of flying. Flying blind? Yeah that's the idea. Go do an Rnav approach in msfs and you will see. Or Try a VOR DME approach in the airliners, basic things completely missings. A32nx can't do it because the base SIM is borked. That's what I am talking about 

You can fly IFR in a GA if it is equipped, I hope you are not one these Xbox pilots who think airliners are hand flown fur 10 hours to their destination? That's not how it's done IRL.

IF you find IFR bland then fly vfr. I don't get what you are trying to say.

Edited April 11, 2021 by a321

[Guest devgrp]

4 minutes ago, a321 said:

IFR is using the instruments, it's the highest level of flying. Flying blind? Yeah that's the idea. Go do an Rnav approach in msfs and you will see. Or Try a VOR DME approach in the airliners, basic things completely missings. A32nx can't do it because the base SIM is borked. That's what I am talking about 

You can fly IFR in a GA if it is equipped, I hope you are not one these Xbox pilots who think airliners are hand flown fur 10 hours to their destination? That's not how it's done IRL.

IF you find IFR bland then fly vfr. I don't get what you are trying to say.

lol I know what ifr is, but since you said you can fly out the box in xp and not msfs without mods, I want you to explain what makes it possible in xp and not msfs. I fly ifr in the tbm all the time and I've done rnav approaches.