Jump to content

billythebassman

Registered Users
  • Posts

    32
  • Joined

billythebassman's Achievements

Expert  Simmer

Expert Simmer (3/7)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

10

Reputation

  1. You may have read recently that MSFS celebrated ten million copies used. Assuming only a quarter of them paid full price, that is one hundred and fifty million dollars in sales. For this kind of money, I think we could expect more.
  2. I guess it just seems to me that one type of sim could emphasize aerodynamics and the other could prioritize complex avionics systems. Much of the instability and "update chasing" that we are seeing today arises when one causes issues with the other. I think that many would agree that they spend far more time troubleshooting than actually flying because sims have reached the point where no one is capable of pleasing both camps and the results can often look a lot like chaos.
  3. I have always felt that it would be a good idea to have two flight simulation programs; one for jet airliners which many people enjoy and one for GA. There is a world of difference between flying a plane and programming a plane to fly itself. The efforts to combine both in one sim have, IMHO, been the source of unnecessary complexity and instability in the flight sim experience. What are the common factors between, for example, landing a Bonanza in a crosswind and a thousand mile trip in a 737. Wouldn't dividing these simulated activities into separate programs contribute to more optimization in both ...and a tighter more reliable code?
  4. Why are there shots from so many other sims in the "MSFS Screen Shot Forum"? I keep coming here to see a shot from MSFS only to find screenshots from FSX FS2004 etc. Shouldn't they have a separate forum just for the sake of clarity?
  5. @ Cobalt who asked "What exactly are the expectations you had that are unmet? Please be precise -- " My reply would be: That there would be usable ATC That there would be usable Traffic That older planes from FSX and P3d would be usable in the sim That users would be able to record and replay flights That the weather engine would be stable and reliable That it would look remotely similar to the videos used to hype it. There was, to my recollection, no mention that this would be far from complete almost two years after release and that it was in fact a "ten year project"
  6. MSFS has a few strong points. But I think the greatest source of disappointment is the huge gap between what was hyped for years before release and what was actually delivered. Also the fact that with each update [sU] so many add-ons also need to be "updated." It has reached the point that much more time is spent on compulsory updating than on actual flying.
  7. Glad you're good with it, brother. BTW it is a lifelong dream of mine to visit Yorkshire. The many films and videos made there reveal a most beautiful place!
  8. Were we really told not to expect a finished product (i.e.one usable for more than 5 minutes without a CTD) until 10 years had passed? If so, I must have missed it. Nine more years of frustration, misrepresentations, broken add-ons, degradation of the one distinguishing thing that would have made this sim worth considering--graphics? Nine more years of: -graphics degradation being "sold" as "performance enhancements" - being advised to "disable this--turn this feature off", -Advice not to look left or right while flying I think this reinforces my original point: If we continue to say we are content with this process--that it's OK with us--we are sure to get nothing other than more of it. I sometimes feel as if I have bought a shiny new car with a promise that "the wheels will be available in a few years." Perhaps you have a point; I should have read the fine print.
  9. I don't consider this question of standards to be "foot stamping." In fact, I think it has been the over-arching (and unacknowledged) subject of debate since the beginning. It is exactly the context in which these differences of opinion can be understood IMO. After each update we are simply told to lower our expectations yet again. Is this good for the community of users?
  10. Of course, of course--the problem is with us the community of users--not with the company that has strung us along for a year before release to almost a year after release with promises to deliver something it knows it doesn't have---a usable sim. We have, in this "update" what we have always gotten-- a huge downgrade in graphics quality which is touted as a "performance enhancement" And please, I know that there are those for whom this is "good enough" or those that are sure it will be fixed one day (based on what evidence-certainly not history) There are even those who say "It is only one year after release how dare we expect it to function as a flight simulator." I would just point out to them that they have their standards and we have ours.
  11. Any ideas on turning off both gauge and windows reflections at the same time?
  12. Milton Shupe has been generously contributing top quality aircraft for many many years. My personal favorite has been the beautiful D18. He is a true hero of the community. Thanks again Milton!
  13. 1. v5 is still "in development" 2. V5 requires you to re-buy the sim. 3. Most importantly, unless you have more than 8Gb of VRAM, many issues have been reported. 4. As a result of #3, with V5 you are jumping into the latest "read and tweak" festival--V4.5 is for those who want to spend their time actually flying
×
×
  • Create New...