MSFS focusing for the hard core simmer market, not X-Box!

[jarmstro 2,418]

1 hour ago, blueshark747 said:

For people just to blurt out blatant statements like "it's dumbed down for xbox" shows you everything you need to know.🤣

The trouble is people who are not programmers (like myself) can only struggle to understand and interpret what they read. And when it is clearly stated by developers such as Aerosoft that their plane is necessarily compromised by the limitations of the XBox it's difficult not to draw conclusions from that. That's not to say that the vast market the XBox offers will not be of net benefit to all users of the sim but It makes me wonder whether MSFS can ever realise it's full potential when both Asobo and every other developer are consumed with XBox compliance?

Edited January 28, 2022 by jarmstro

[rka 916]

6 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

MS/Asobo have a LONG LONG LONG way to go before they appeal to me as a hard core simmer ... and no, what "I want" as a hard core simmer will not fix into the limitations of XBOX memory and I have no desire to wait 5 more years for the XBOX to evolve it's hardware to adequate memory capacity.

• If MS/Asobo was for hard core simmers, then why was their no real working SDK on release day?
• If MS/Asobo was for hard core simmers, then why is it 2 years later and we still don't have a complex aircraft available?
• If MS/Asobo was for hard core simmers, this post wouldn't exist in the first place.
• If MS/Asobo was for hard core simmers my RSG 530 and GTN 750 would be fully functional and integrated by now.
• If MS/Asobo was for hard core simmers, I'd have undocked multi-monitor support by now.
• If MS/Asobo was for hard core simmers why is AI traffic worse than it was in FSX?
• If MS/Asobo was for hard core simmers why are weather transitions still not working and not accurate?
• If MS/Asobo was for hard core simmers why is ATC worse than it was in FSX?
• If MS/Asobo was for hard core simmers, why does winds aloft enroute not impact fuel usage accurately?

And list continues ... MSFS is not for hard core simmers ... and why would it be??  Hard core simmers are a small market not financially viable for MS projects.

Cheers, Rob.

I disagree. They obviously released too early, but that doesn't mean it's not for hardcore simmers.

[SubtotalGuide 133]

That's why hardcore simmers are allowed to be dished on the official forums.

MS would rather have them gone now to not interfere with their plans. People like RXP already gave up, and that's just what they want.

[pstrub 1,003]

1 minute ago, SubtotalGuide said:

That's why hardcore simmers are allowed to be dished on the official forums.

MS would rather have them gone now to not interfere with their plans. People like RXP already gave up, and that's just what they want.

Any explanation as to why they would bring Working Title on board then?

[Dominique_K 10,156]

9 hours ago, pstrub said:

Regarding this, I watched again the first part of the Milviz video I mentioned earlier ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtc8c0hxZBw&ab_channel=milvizinc ) - highly recommended to watch at least the first 15 minutes of this long-ish status report, as they address several issues that make developing for MSFS more difficult for them. Take it with a grain of salt, of course to some extent they're beating their own drum, but it doesn't seem too far off from what I gathered from other people.

 

This is indeed a really interesting watch as they have already developed two good aircraft for MSFS so they know what they are talking about. They do not hide the difficulties but move forward. Interesting also these days is Simbol’s take on MSFS. As a dev he was rather upset early on but  rolled his sleeves and got to work.

No ranting about bad SDK, they deliver.

[SubtotalGuide 133]

  

45 minutes ago, pstrub said:

Any explanation as to why they would bring Working Title on board then?

That only happened after enough people complained about the Garmins. They would have happily continued as planned otherwise.

Remember Rob from PMDG saying how they have to convince Jorg to spend time and resources adding aviation related functionality?

It's simply not a priority.

Edited January 28, 2022 by SubtotalGuide

[March Hare 722]

Regardless of any current limitations and how it launched, on the flip side the target audience has never been the casual gamer that people perceive the Xbox audience to be. I was never a simmer, but I've flown flight games such as Ace Combat, and I can pick up and play those without any issues flying the aircraft, and without needing to read a manual or anything.

My experience with MSFS is very different. I have been learning various navigation methods. Had no idea about pitot. Still haven't taken the plunge in handling fuel mixture myself. Have stalled aircraft numerous times, which never happens in a casual game. Etc, etc. There is no manual. I've had to learn from pilots online, going out of my way to find specific information. I've had to download real aeroplane handbooks to learn various things such as takeoff speed, etc.

To experienced pilots and simmers, this stuff has probably been second nature and, to you, is basic. Pilots can almost treat it like a casual game because they jump in, know what they're doing, know which buttons do what, understand navigation and approaches like the back of their hands... I don't. The default aeroplanes are complex, to me.

A friend of mine is evidence of this. He bought it, tried it, and hasn't gone back, because he can't simply fly it like a game, and he hasn't got a desire to pour through aircraft handbooks and learn.

I'm still only scratching the surface, don't have a great amount of time to dedicate to learning everything -- but it certainly is a learning experience, that requires time and dedication, not a casual gaming experience.

Edited January 28, 2022 by March Hare

[rob0203 717]

8 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

DC-6 is already here not on the XBox though. Whats up with that.?

It is too slow for me 🤪

[turbomax 3,419]

46 minutes ago, March Hare said:

I've had to learn from pilots online, going out of my way to find specific information. I've had to download real aeroplane handbooks to learn various things such as takeoff speed, etc.

congratulations! welcome to the club. this must be a most gratifying experience for you, especially considering this has cost you a mere 69$. being a pilot myself, I am still learning a few things about aircraft I have never flown and complex procedures. trust me, you wouldn't enjoy MSFS as much if you didn't have to go through all this. learning all this the hard way, you will benefit and remember things much better. the necessary resources are all online and free. I had never taken a single class when I passed my written test for the pilot license (except for the practical test off course), this can all be accomplished through self study. with any of the 3 major simulators. all it takes is energy and devotion.

Edited January 28, 2022 by turbomax

[Biology 1,347]

19 hours ago, jcomm said:

If MFS is better or inferior to other tittles is a question of focus / interests basically.

I found it remarkable visuals-wise, but so far pretty much not up to my expectations regarding flight and systems modelling.

It is still under development, so, I'll have to give it the benefit of the doubt.

I'll reconsider evaluating MFS when a sound & stable weather system finally get's available and a better flight dynamics engine + SDK made available for 3pds.

While I understand and agree with the issues regarding flight modelling, I am really confused about the systems modelling part - what exactly are the issues with systems modelling? At least for me systems modelling isn't even an inherent property of a base simulator but third party add-ons, hence it is confusing to me when one says it is not good enough for systems modelling.

Edited January 28, 2022 by BiologicalNanobot

[Adrian123 1,016]

6 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

exactly are the issues with systems modelling

There must be certain aspects within the Sim to allow aspect of addon development?

[jcomm 6,121]

14 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

While I understand and agree with the issues regarding flight modelling, I am really confused about the systems modelling part - what exactly are the issues with systems modelling? At least for me systems modelling isn't even an inherent property of a base simulator but third party add-ons, hence it is confusing to me when one says it is not good enough for systems modelling.

Yes, most of the time the systems modelling is done outside of the core sim, but I would prefer that some basic systems get integrated and coherently modelled in the core simulation engine.

These might include the electric / hydraulic / pneumatic systems that can be used in various types of aircraft, engine systems as a whole for the various types like reciprocating, tuboprop, jet, ...

Probe systems, like those used with various types of aircraft instruments and sophisticated devices should also preferably be modelled right from the core simulation engine IMO...

Etc...

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by jcomm

[pstrub 1,003]

1 hour ago, SubtotalGuide said:

  Remember Rob from PMDG saying how they have to convince Jorg to spend time and resources adding aviation related functionality?

 

I remember Rob saying many things (also about stuff missing in MSFS), but nothing about having to convince Jörg to add "aviation related functionality" ... Do you have a link to this?

And according to the FBW team, all the functionality is there (except weather API), it just works differently than before and in certain cases more complicated. 

Why would they implement improved aerodynamics for helicopters (and planes too) if this was only intended to be a flying game? A simple flight model would be enough for the gaming crowd. It remains to be seen how well this works on release, but ONLY hardcore simmers will be able to appreciate this.

I'd definitely say they have issues with getting some bugs under control, maybe due to a mishmash of old and new code, maybe due to issues with project management, and most things take them longer than promised. Of course they have to please more users than just the hardcore simmers, otherwise the project simply wouldn't exist. But intentionally ignoring the hardcore simmers? I don't follow.

Edited January 28, 2022 by pstrub

[NZ255 312]

Edit: disregard

Edited January 28, 2022 by NZ255

[Fiorentoni 4,583]

If we replace the word "focus" with "do something every now and then for them, so they don't jump off the boat", I can agree. It's crystal clear that until now the priority for Asobo and/or Microsoft has been the casual market. That's where the money is, and that's where the money will be invested mostly.

Oh and even if they would focus on hard core simmers, they would most likely screw it all up. I am quite sure that the turbo prop physics will a) not work (as they should) and b) completely wreck all other aircraft development. I mean why do people still have faith in Asobo? Their "improvements" on live weather made it only worse in 18 months (visually AND technically). The only good thing they have done in those 18 months was the performance increase, which I really cherish. Oh and the snow, yes.