loki

The only way they can realistically reduce that effect is to have mirror servers around the world for the scenery and weather. A costly solution...

Which is what they have with their Azure servers. There are plenty of CDNs these days for exactly these sorts of uses. Netflix, iTunes, Google and Bing maps, and many others are already doing this, so this is not a new or unique problem.

FSelite has a good article covering this and other technical questions.

https://fselite.net/originals/an-overview-of-the-technical-details-for-the-new-microsoft-flight-simulator/

I think the PC v. XBox version debate could go on for as long as the FSX v. FS9 debate!

I don't expect there'll be any difference between the two, apart from the performance limitations of the PC you're accessing the sim from.

...

As you'd expect, the XBox website also states: "Games play best on Xbox One".

It's very wise of Microsoft to launch on PC first, the console gaming audience's reaction to open-world sims has always been "There's nothing to do, it's boring, I want my money back" and none of us want a repetition of that!

Well, they aren't planning on releasing for the Xbox next year.

Yes, Microsoft Flight Simulator will come to Xbox consoles at some point, Neumann said, and it will be an Xbox Game Pass title on that platform, just like its Windows 10 version will be. And, yes, the game will be available either as part of XGP or as a standalone purchase.

 

But the game's announced "2020" launch window is for Windows 10, not Xbox consoles, and there's no indication of whether the console version will have specific limitations. Might it require online streaming? Might it require an Xbox One X minimum? Microsoft isn't saying.

PCs will be the more powerful platform and be more capable than the Xbox. Always have been, and probably will be for some time. A number of games with both desktop and console versions will take advantage of the desktop's additional power, often with higher resolution textures and more detailed scenery, and sometimes other differences too.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/09/the-new-ms-flight-simulator-taught-me-how-to-fly-an-actual-plane/

The play best on Xbox thing is aimed at the Xbox's primary competition, the Playstation. With the latest updates to Windows 10 and the Xbox, Microsoft is slowly bringing the console and desktop together under one roof and one platform. Xboxes will be those who don't want to mess around with hardware etc. that want to turn it on and play, and the PC will be for the ones who want more flexibility and/or the most powerful computer money can buy to have the best experience possible. So sure Microsoft wants to get some of the Xbox market flying in the sim, but so far they have given every indication that the PC version is first and foremost in their work at the moment.

Yes indeed, and the interviews, watched the videos and so on. If there will be 3 modes for PC users to access this sim, surely Microsoft are trying to tell us that PC is not the ideal platform to get the best experience with it?

I don't see how having 3 modes means the PC is not the ideal platform at all. What it does mean is that they're trying to bring the enhanced scenery engine and visuals to as many users, both PC and Xbox, as possible. With the amount of data involved, there is no way any current PC could reasonably download and store all of it, and many people still don't have high speed (say >15 Mbps) or reliable internet connections. They've also said the vast majority of the developers are focused on the PC version and that they will be working on the Xbox version later. Having an Xbox version will be a great option, though will likely have limitations compared to the desktop PC.

So, FS 9 and X with Megascenery photoreal scenery?

Photoreal scenery, like Megascenery, is flat, whereas the upcoming sim's scenery is much higher resolution as well as being drawn in 3D.

A good question, bam1220: The two things we know about streaming content and flight sim photoscenery so far are this:

Streaming=buffering

Photoscenery=blurries

That's the worst of both worlds for a PC flight sim. It might make no difference on an XBox, and let's not forget that although this flight sim is being developed on PC's (MS Laboratories' PC's mind you... not yours or mine!) this release is part of Microsoft's latest XBox launch next year, and is aimed squarely at that target audience. Microsoft would like the approval of the "traditional" flight sim community of course, developers and simmers alike, but we're not convinced by videos/screenshots until we've actually tried to run the thing on our own PC, are we? :D

Hmm, have you read any of the articles talking about the new sim?

What we do know is that Microsoft has around 200 developers working on this as well as some of the best cloud server resources in the world to throw at it. There will also be 3 modes for scenery to adjust for differing levels of interest speeds and access. One is streaming directly from the cloud, though it will cache data for areas you regularly fly in. The second is a pre-cached mode where you can download the areas you are interested in ahead of time and save them locally. And the final one is a sure offline mode with lower quality scenery for those with really poor or no connection at all. The recent event where they brought in people for some hands on time was apparently running a 25 Mbps connection, and looks to have worked quite well.

If it is aimed squarely at the Xbox crowd, which includes many people in the flight sim community too, why would they have spent so much effort on enhancing the flight, weather and atmosphere modelling? Not to mention the other areas they have been and will be working on. So yes, the proof will be in the pudding, as they say, however this is shaping up to be a proper successor to FSX.

For the big global companies, surely it's a big issue. And on the developer's side, there's a big difference between theory and reality. Microsoft has screwed up, mismanaged repeatedly with its "SaaS" Windows 10 updates, and that's cost them $$$ and lots of bad press. At my place of work, we still have the option to restrict pushed-down updates, but consumers can only postpone them ... and hope there aren't bad effects when they eventually do install.

While Microsoft has had issues with their QA, I don't see how that is related at all to any EU regulations. And the latest Windows 10 feature update gives home users more control over the updates too. It also isn't clear yet how the new sim will be managed either.

Isn't the move away from software version numbers also a dodge from financial penalties in the EU, the Euro legal requirements that "new versions" of software must be backward compatible and "inter-operable" with previous versions?

 

So, Microsoft, Adobe, all the big software companies are moving away from version numbers. Service Packs are now "build" revisions, etc.

I'm not familiar with the EU regulations, but I don't see that as being a big issue. The main reason for companies like Adobe and Microsoft going away from version numbering is the move to SaaS and subscription models. On the developer's side it creates a steadier revenue stream and, for the user, updates are pushed out more frequently without the need to do major version updates.

Can we all respect the fact that the developer of the sim has named it Microsoft Flight Simulator, & not FS 2020 or any other random name!

Is it really that critical that we refer to it exactly as Microsoft does? Adding 2020 to the name removes a lot of ambiguity, depending on the conversation. Not to mention the long aviation tradition of giving aircraft, among other things, nicknames different from the official title (ex. A-10s are probably called Warthogs more often than Thunderbolt IIs).

For those interested in following updates from the Asobo team, and signing up for the tech alpha testing program, here's the website. To sign up for the insider and tech alpha, you will need a Microsoft Account. See the FAQ on the site for more details.

https://www.flightsimulator.com/

You are probably totally correct.

It would be great if they ran FSX and MSFS as side-by-side products to cater for all types of flight sim users.

If FSX was 64bit, multi core, made better use of the GPU, it would be a heck of a sim even today.

So basically you want the new sim. :p

There is plenty of information out now that covers just about everything you've brought up.

https://fselite.net/originals/an-overview-of-the-technical-details-for-the-new-microsoft-flight-simulator/

The sim has 3 modes when it comes to scenery. First is the full online live streaming mode, second is the ability to pre-download areas you are interested in, and the last is a completely offline mode with reduced scenery quality. One area of testing they appear to be interested in is download speeds and performance. Currently all screenshots and videos are coming from a pre-alpha build, which means there is probably plenty of room for performance optimizations and improvement.

It will also be possible to run current FSX add-on aircraft in the sim, likely with minimal updating or tweaking. This won't get you access to the improved flight model though.

https://fselite.net/originals/hands-on-with-the-new-microsoft-flight-simulator

And something that people seem to forget is that having multiple sims installed on your PC works just fine too.

I think X-Plane already has a system similar to what we might see. They've long had regular updates with a steady stream of fixes and new features.

I think the suggestion is more along the lines of what Microsoft is doing with Windows 10. They've claimed Windows 10 is the last version of Windows and will essentially evolve over time without major new versions or upgrade cost as happened in the past (ie. Vista to 7 to 8 to 10). If MS can create a steady revenue stream, perhaps through a combination of new purchases, add-on sales through their own online shop and the Xbox Game Pass, they may do the same with the new sim. Presumably the next version of X-Plane will be a paid upgrade, on the other hand.

I've watched the FS98 and later "new" flight sim forums appear, so I'm a bit puzzled by your statement about first new forum.

He's referring to the new forum here dedicated to the upcoming sim from MS.

As for DominicS, he's been around here for some time now. [emoji4]

New sim looks great, but then a promo video isn’t enough to judge. They only use the top equipment and some video editing.

 

Also, I’ve read it’ll be DLC heavy. Plus a monthly subscription fee or something like that.

 

No thanks.

I would suggest watching the interview on the front page here, as well as read many of the articles that have come out in the past couple days, rather than go with what you heard somewhere. Add-ons will available from multiple sources the same way they are now, for example.

Also, I think Parallels only runs Windows 10 (not sure on this) and I'm pretty sure FS2004 struggles to run in Windows 10.

Parallels and VMware's Fusion both support Windows versions going back to Windows 2000, if not further. Running old versions is one of the key reasons to run a VM.

As for FS2004 on Windows 10, it does run well, though may need a couple extra steps compared to previous Windows systems. There's plenty of information in the forum here for those that need it.

Some may love the new MSFS, I already don't like it. If I want to see photos of the world, I can pan around Google Earth.

Have you checked out the latest footage? It isn't just flat photos of the world.

However, a 32-bit OS can only use 4 GB of RAM anyway.

 

A 64-bit OS can use petabytes of RAM, and the VAS of a 64-bit application the same...

 

Jorgen

It's a little more complicated than that. 32 bit Windows desktop operating systems are limited to 4GB of address space due to Microsoft's decisions, while some 32 bit Windows server OS can access far more thanks to PAE support in the CPU. There were issues with third party drivers and system stability on desktop systems that lead to Microsoft capping the memory limit.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/memory/memory-limits-for-windows-releases

A classic statement and example of what I mean by people 'pushing' their opinions...

While il88pp's statement is misleading, for a long time there was demonstrable evidence that Intel CPUs had better performance in the areas that mattered to FSX (Intel had much better single core performance while AMD started going towards multiple cores), so were the best ones to buy if you were looking for the best performance. This didn't mean AMD CPUs didn't work, just that you would likely be lowering the settings a bit further to get the sim running smoothly. With more recent CPUs, the difference has dropped with CPUs from both sides being more powerful than their predecessors, and both sides are able to run the sim better.

Similarly on the GPU front, there were demonstrable cases around the time FSX came out where an AMD card would take a performance hit while the Nvidia ones wouldn't. Flying through clouds was one situation. Nvidia also provided specific driver updates for FSX long after AMD stopped caring about the sim. AMD has long since changed their GPU architecture, removing those issues with their GPUs.

It is not uncommon for games and applications to run better on one CPU or GPU over another, and can be more than just opinions trying to push and agenda. FSX will run fine on most Windows computers these days with the right settings.

Intel and Microsoft have long worked closely together and shared knowledge with each other. NVidia also works closely with Intel. Microsoft software is all optimised to work well on the Intel and NVidia chips.

 

Fsx (Microsoft product) will run best on a Nvidia card, which runs best on an Intel CPU.

No, that is not why people recommended Intel and Nvidia at all. Microsoft also works closely with AMD too.

yeah I seen a video about that. it said this new FS isn't going to be very good.

Seeing as very little is actually known about the new sim, claiming it won't be very good is a little premature. Visually it's looking very promising, but we will have to wait for details to really know what the rest of the sim will be like.

They can certainly put on a good show!

Is there such a thing like a pilot calculator much like a scientific calculator? I love my scientific calculator. Use it all the time.

Yep, there are manual as well as electronic flight computers.

https://www.pilotmall.com/collections/flight-computers

Anyone want to buy a Mig-29?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29292/you-can-buy-paul-allens-mig-29-fulcrum-jet-fighter