Since MSFS & FSX are Microsoft products, I wondered whether any HJG members are considering porting any aircraft over to MSFS? The sim badly needs some historical aircraft & HJG has a stellar collection of possible candidates in its portfolio. Thank you C45
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 31, 2020 20:20:59 GMT
I've "purposely ignored" this thread to date (only because some peoples expectations exceed our capacity to be able to deliver, or, other reasons exist as to why we can't often easily do something) .... BUT .... will now comment as follows ....
George is likely "right on the money" .... in so far as "what we at this time now know" and have suspected (for quite a long while previously) would ultimately become the case.
"NONE" on the current HJG offered 3D models (those we own or have otherwise imported) are FSX native .... with the exception of Mario's superb FSX version MERCURE 100 simulation.
All of the 3D models HJG currently offer are "FS9 NATIVE" .... most of which, but not all of which, are FSX "PORTABLE" and without any major issues (those issues that are apparent are only in relation to keyboard controlled animations particularly those governed by the FS9 CONCORDE VISOR commands which require different keystrokes in FSX) .... and the genealogy of some of our models extends way back to FS2000.
As was explained to another prospecting party earlier this year "HJG can't authorize the further upgrading of some what it offers that isn't it own to authorize upgrading of" .... and there are other complications to which I won't go into publicly.
In respect of the "FSX compatibility" though of what HJG currently offers .... see my following 2018 dated posting for clarification in regard to these compatibilities ....
In regard to MDFS/2004 .... "so far as we're at this time aware" add-ons for this new sim version (which I won't be moving to incidentally .... a decision I made a long while ago and will likely adhere too) will need to be customised especially for it "in order to do these products any real justice in order promote the desired enjoyment using them" .... and which (apparently) requires methodologies that'll need to be learned "beyond whatever fundamentals still remain".
Beyond this/my basic commentary it's still probably a wee bit too early yet to start marking definitive judgement/s.
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Sept 1, 2020 13:28:58 GMT
I just got this email from my ex-Delta pilot friend (767s and 747s) from the museum who post career has become an avid simmer:
Just received a phone call from a good friend who builds his own computers and is very much into flight sims concerning MSFS 2020. Wait! Don't buy at this time – maybe never. From what I was told, instead of a flight sim Microsoft has released a game. Some of the detractors:
It took his very fast machine about 4 hours to download. (Could be a slow ISP connection, but it is about 90+GB.) Warthog stick and rudder are the only stick and rudder that will work with it. Xbox controller does work. Merely touching an instrument or lever, etc, in cockpit results in a large label popping up identifying it. Cannot get rid of labels. Very poorly represented airports – Brainard unrecognizable, BDL, YYZ, very poor. Runways and taxiways good, everything else poor to bad. (People standing/walking on runways, buildings unrecognizable and/or mis-placed, etc.) Scenery appears to be streamed. To make the program work one must essentially become part of an online network. To what extent this permits MS (or whomever) to enter your computer is an unanswered but worthwhile question.
I also spent a few minutes perusing the avsim forum for FS2020. Interesting.....for example my CH yoke, throttle, propedals are not natively supported and have to be manually mapped which sometimes doesn't work well. How many simmers have CH products?? Other issues are listed.
Kudos to those brave simmers who have taken the plunge. For myself, given the expense of a new machine to run the sim, I'll be waiting awhile until the dust storm settles out.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 1, 2020 20:04:09 GMT
All noted .... and thanks for the feed back Mike.
My only comments re some of those observations are as follows ....
Very poorly represented airports – Brainard unrecognizable, BDL, YYZ, very poor. Runways and taxiways good, everything else poor to bad. (People standing/walking on runways, buildings unrecognizable and/or mis-placed, etc.)
The like of object displacement and inaccuracies associated with representations of sceneries etc isn't at all uncommon for every past version of MS FS too .... some replications being worse than others.
I also recall FSX being regarded as more of "a game" in comparison with the preceding FS9 when it was first released .... and MS FLIGHT was apparently even worse still in that regard .... or so I heard
It depends upon what people want/expect out of any such program/game that's going to determines how well they are, or aren't, satisfied .... and for others satisfaction/contentment is simply going to be an "adaption process over time" .... whilst yet others probably could care less either way
Wait! Don't buy at this time – maybe never
"NOT YET" .... is probably the best possible advice/call for anyone contemplating migrating to this new product (if they're going to do so at all) .... I won't be though since I'm just "not interested" (too many other things I want to do whilst I still can .... I just don't want to get into/bogged down into it)
CH yoke, throttle, propedals are not natively supported and have to be manually mapped which sometimes doesn't work well. How many simmers have CH products?? Other issues are listed
Once the like of SDK's are available it probably won't take long for the after/supporting market to kick-in and catch up accordingly with regard to the like of controller devices and pedal compatibilities etc .... so MSFS will undoubtedly "drive the market", to some extent, and just as it usually always has in the past .... it's just a question of "time and further development" I'd say
Mike, I'm sorry, but whomever that guy talked to is *extremely* uninformed.
I'm gonna be a bit blunt here because I'm tired of the BS that's been going around about MSFS.
1) It's been known that scenery is streamed since the get go. If you didn't know that, then that's on you. They advertised it. They put it *IN THEIR YOUTUBE VIDEOS*. There is also an offline mode where you can pre-download a certain level of scenery complexity and then fly offline. You can also set limits to how much is downloaded or what bandwidth is used.
2) Download/install times are based on your internet speed, not your computer. Sorry, but if this "builder" of PC's isn't aware of that, then I'm not sure why he's building computers. I downloaded the whole thing and installed it in less than an hour. I have very fast internet, so I know I'm not the normal.
3) ALL controllers work just fine. I have the X52 which is fully recognized and will auto-configure for you. My CH Throttle, Yoke, and Rudder are not default recognized beyond being what they are, but you can quite quickly assign the axis just fine. Even better, you can create multiple profiles and quickly change between them as you change airplanes, allowing you to somewhat bypass the functions of FSUIPC (although they don't have a "per airplane" profile capability yet).
4) If he's getting large labels, it's because he turned on full assistance. All he has to do is turn it off. If he doesn't know that, I again question whether this guy is really who he claims to be.
5) Scenery fidelity - again, I question this guy's setup. I'll post a few pics after this of the airports in question, but they don't look horrible. They're not perfect, but they're not horrible like he claims.
Now for the rest of the truth - Anything beyond the piston singles aren't great. They fly decent enough, but the level of functionality of the cockpits is much lower than many expected. The switches are there, you can flip them, but many do nothing. The G1000 is only about 50% of a real G1000. Then again, you're paying ~$5 per plane, so there is a good argument that for that money, the complexity is about right. Looks nice, flies okay, but not much else. Asobo, in my mind, definitely made a conscious decision to not make the default planes too good because they knew there was already a much better community out there that could do better than they ever could. So they gave you a starting point. Which is what has always been the case with Microsoft Flightsims.
1st, all 3 airports are "standard" airport. They are not the "hand crafted" airports that are pointed out in the previews. So, take into consideration that these are the equivalent of the default airports that we are so used to in FSX/P3D.
2nd, I had all air traffic turned off, hence the deserted airports. With either real-world or online traffic on, it's quite a bit busier. I wanted to take real-world weather, but during daylight, so I couldn't use realtime traffic either.
3rd, yes, there's instrumentation in the external shots. I was hand-flying, and I liked having it up for reference. You can customize not only where, but what instruments show in the external view.
Anyway, here's the summary of the photos and my evaluation for each airport listed in the first e-mail.
Brainerd (1-3) - Yeah, the hangars are tall. It's been pointed out and is on their list to fix. They made all hangars a "default" height that is correct for France and Europe, but a bit out-of-place in the US. Only thing I see missing is the old terminal building which would be directly in front of the DA40 in the first pic. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the problem is comparing the images on Bing (which the scenery was built from) and FS that makes it "totally unrecognizable".
Bradley (4-10) - Again, same problem with building height, but considering how the default terminals and hangars look in FSX and P3D, I'd say there's still quite a bit more variety. Photogrammetry missed a couple buildings it looks like, but they can be seen. Terminal looks to have the right number of gates and lines are pretty close to real. Got both the CT ANG and CT NG ramps and most of the buildings. Got the trees next to the Signature facility but the wrong building type for the Signature hangar. Heck, they even have the new tower and it's the RIGHT model.
Toronto (11-16) - Everything is there. Again, default models, but the terminal doesn't look horrible. Terminal 3 is there. The midfield de-icing complex is there, including all the lead-in lines. It's not bad. After departure, I showed a pic of the Toronto skyline.
*BONUS* Toronto City Center (17-24) - I flew over to Billy Bishop since it's close to YYZ. This is one of the "handcrafted" airports. I do see a few differences from what I've seen of YTZ in real life (mainly through FlightChops videos at the airport), but overall, it is certainly much better and I would argue is actually payware level. It's definitely better than some of what I've seen on SimMarket being marketed as "payware".
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 8, 2020 5:03:50 GMT
whomever that guy talked to is *extremely* uninformed
Chris's "not" pulling apart any of Mike's commentary since he/Mike's only sharing what was communicated to him .... and I'm not "not" pulling apart any of what Chris's related either
"Not" saying this (what I'm about to say) is indeed the case, but, it's possible (I don't know .... since I'm only guessing) the guy whom expressed his opinion to Mike may not be familiar with past generations of FS, and as such may be new to FS .... and was maybe expecting more of MSFS than what's been delivered (as some folk inevitably do) .... and therefore possibly unaware M$ have traditionally detailed some scenery features reasonably whilst others very poorly.
Again .... I'm "only guessing" in regard to the above possibility
For some folk MSFS will be their first simulator.
Some folk are undoubtedly content with MSFS .... some aren't, but, will likely grow to adapt to/like it over time (there's always a tendency to compare the past with the new and in some cases peoples appreciation of something new can take a while to be realized) .... no surprises there as that's always been the case with every earlier release of FS .... and some of the FS market has traditionally been "difficult"/impossible to please completely anyway.
For my part though .... and as I've already mentioned herein a couple times (and expressed elsewhere on this forum over more than the past year or so too) .... regardless how good, or bad, MSFS may be I simply "WILL NOT" be migrating to it .... a decision I reached quite a while ago without ever having seen it.
I've now spent 20 years with HJG .... and been involved with it being transitioned from FS2000 to F2002, then FS2004 to FSX (where the latter's been possible), and I (personally) don't want to become involved with/bogged down with yet another version of FS (even if what we currently offer could be transitioned again) .... and end up potentially "staring at a screen" for the next couple of years or so. I consider myself fortunate to be knocking on the door of 60 years of age whilst still not requiring head lamps/glasses
What I'm about to say next might seem "selfish" to some .... but in all honesty .... I'm possibly nearing that point (not saying I've arrived at it) where I feel I've sacrificed enough of "my own personal time" for other peoples FS enjoyment. There's other things in life I'd much rather do .... and want to do ... "whilst I still can".
Just reasoning in regard to "my own personal preferences" .... and nothing else .... so .... conclusions shouldn't be jumped to
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Sept 8, 2020 12:58:18 GMT
As Mark said I was just the messenger. I appreciate your input as I suspected the email my friend got was a bit "overblown" and the reality is somewhere in between.
And as Mark, and those of us who have been simming since Sublogic, wire frame, Meigs field (yes I'm that old and have been doing this for that long!!) know, each release of a sim takes about a year to fully develop.
Thanks for the pictures of Brainard and Bradley. I found it amusing that for Bradley, there were two control towers: one in it's proper location, the other sitting in the middle of the airline ramp which is of course ridiculous. And a jet bridge at Brainard?? The fellow's criticism of Brainard being unrecognizable I have to agree with after seeing your pics. The ramp should parallel and extend along 2/20; and runway 11/29 is totally wrong. That just shows me that there is still rendered scenery in the the new sim and that it is not 100% streamed, Google or Bing earth. Frankly, my FS2004 freeware (can't remember who built it) version of Bradley is much better than the MSFS2020 version you showed.
But, scenery is only part of the deal, and for most of us, the planes have to fly right. I appreciate your candor on the aircraft performance. Much has been made of MSFS flight dynamics dropping the table based FDE and going with a more x-plane calculations. sounds like your experience is that also needs work. And, with EVERY MSFS release the stock planes suck....am I right?? Payware will follow soon, and as people learn the SDK, I bet freeware after that.
Like I said, in the meantime, I save my pennies for a new computer and maybe migrate to the new sim in about 6 months to a year while keeping a close eye on the avsim and flightsim forums which are the best place to get a feel for how people are dealing with this.
Mark - I tried to be pretty clear that I wasn't talking about Mike or his thoughts and that I was talking about the guy that "builds his own computers" which Mike's friend talked to and gave him that "information". I think Mike got bad information, as did his friend that sent him the e-mail. I'm being harsh at the guy who gave the information, not Mike or his friend.
I think we are talking about 2 different airports and I apologize for that. I thought he was talking about Brainerd (correct spelling), Minnesota. When I searched "Brainard" I didn't find anything, so I suspect that's where the disconnect happened. Brainerd, MN looks exactly correct to the Google and Bing images, including the jetbridge. However, as I was reading your response, I now realize you were talking about Hartford-Brainard airport (KHFD). I almost slapped myself upside the head when I realized that. Why you would be talking about Brainerd, MN is beyond me when I know you're in Connecticut. Here is some screens of it - imgur.com/a/Zjdz5yJ
I will say that apparently this is one of the airports that got missed or had bad photogrammetry data. Asobo and Microsoft have said some airports had issues that didn't get caught and as a result are "flat" or have weird objects (see the "houses" in the water treatment plant in image 1). However, it appears that the photo data was read properly to position the runways, ramps, and even the "painted grass" area of the taxiway near the approach end of runway 20.
Also, be aware that one of the things the streaming scenery is going to enable is that as the Bing maps database and photogrammetry data gets better and more wide-spread, the AI generated airports will update. This means that some of the "flat" airports or the ones that currently have to be "helped" by human hands but not totally human made should get better. Things like new runways (there was mention of one in a Discord chat that last year got a whole new runway on a different heading, but the satellite is 3 years old for that particular area, so it doesn't show the construction at all) new ramps, and new taxiways are something that might be able to happen without any direct human intervention.
As for the flight model - again, the flight model seems fine. When they took time to build it, the reports (especially of the piston singles) has been that the fly quite well and "feel" like their real counterparts. The problem most have is in the system depth, which has always been an issue with FS default airplanes.
Last Edit: Sept 8, 2020 23:21:58 GMT by christrott