Not everyone can or wants to go to VATSIM for realistic ATC coverage, but the default one is just dreadful. Obvious phraseology mistakes, happily vectoring you towards terrain, asking you to descend 20k ft. in 2 minutes, and the only way to communicate with it is via a list of pre-determined options.
MS with their investment in OpenAI is actually well positioned to do something here as well. So, it's odd that they haven't.
There's also some crazy errors that are visible from the air, like many rivers being raised up hundreds of feet[0], and many bridges being solid underneath[1].
I always assumed one of primary things in a sequel would be to train an even bigger and better satellite maps -> 3D scenery model, especially one that understood a wider (and better-localized) variety of building configurations, so we'll see.
[0] https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/river-altitude-raised-w...
[1] https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/fix-photogrammetry-brid...
99% of that engine value is procedural terrain and graphical shaders. It looks great but has no scientifical value.
Just like the "digital twin" hype train, cool simulations have fancy graphics, useful simulations don't.
This was the prevailing wisdom in AI before generalized transformers as well. We're rapidly moving toward black box hyperintelligent AGI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator#Loc...
After I passed driver's ed, I still spent the next two years getting lost within a few miles of my house. But drop me in any alley in GTA5 and I can get to any other spot in a pretty short path (although I confess it often does involve dangerous jumps).
Some people would buy boats, private planes, art, ... I would hire a team to replicate my child neighbourhood perfectly in a gran turismo or preferably GTA 5 engine lol. You'd get pretty far with a million USD in the modding community
We approached Microsoft when we were selling the company, and the response we got was "you're too close to work we're doing for us to even look at you or talk to you". I assumed that meant they are building out a digital twin, with capabilities to run in a browser at high speed with high resolution (which we did). That was 3 years ago. I'm surprised we haven't seen something from them yet.
It's quite the experience. I can't wait for 2024.
"Le Mal du Pays is usually translated as 'homesickness,' or 'melancholy. ' If you put a finer point on it, it's more like 'a groundless sadness called forth in a person's heart by a pastoral landscape"
It contains tutorials on how to control the planes, but no storyline, no built in missions. If you are motivated by a narrative, this is not a game for you. It only does the simulation, but doesn’t really help people get into the game through a kind of narrative.
I have no desire to learn all the details of an aircrafts controls. I might have that, if there was a reason for me to learn those things, as a motivating story that would drag me in. I think it’s an enormous missed opportunity in terms of making the game appeal to a wider audience.
I still hope it will be there in 2024 edition, but this interview didn’t give me much hope.
So in theory from what I have seen, your story is that of a career pilot, with intro cutscenes and voice acting etc. This has all been shown already.
If you find it most fun to haul cargo, your story is that you will go get the licences, grind the smaller jobs. For more casual fun experience you might choose to specialise in agriculture jobs which are going to be more engaging/shorter.
The truth is though, it is a simulator, and flying takes fooreeever. You can't make casual flying and flight sim meet in the middle without throwing away 90% of the flying experience, which is level flight at altitude on your way to a destination.
This is why although I am an aviation fan, and a train fan, I don't play either sims. I have not got 2-8hrs to hurry up and wait.
https://msfsaddons.com/2024/09/19/heres-how-the-career-mode-...
the entire point of a simulator is to give you the sandbox to do whatever you want while having as near of a realistic experience as possible.
if they try to add these things to the mix, i assume it is to make it more accessible to game pass audience, who might not shell out the full price just to try it out.
for many who love to play this genre, especially content creators, instead of expecting the game to give a storyline, they make their own! like for me it would be trying the 787 in the air routes where the landing strips do not support large planes for a hypothetical scenario, for example.
it not quite the same, but your own creativity is what give games like minecraft so much longevity. on the other hand, once you finish a "career mode" (as proposed for mfs 2024), you may not be motivated to restart.
> I have no desire to learn all the details of an aircrafts controls.
Then there are different games where this is not expected. I have always thought MFS is meant to be as close as possible to true flight, to such an extent it can be used to practice actual routes.
My impression is that they were much more focused on highly abstracted spaces designed to facilitate work and social interactions.
https://www.drive.com.au/news/grand-theft-auto-v-used-by-res...
Most airports that people care about are modeled to a pretty high standard at this point. Even the tiny, remote ones. It's not just about making them look pretty but also about ensuring signage, taxi ways, etc. is where it's supposed to be. It's all licensed under the Creative Commons license too (CC BY 3.0); so MS could make use of this. It's one of the things I always liked about X-plane, the third party add on ecosystem is great.
And of course there are commercial scenery plugins as well. Orbx makes scenery for both X-plane and MS Flight Simulator. Which despite the awesome scenery that they have out of the box still requires stuff like that if you really want the best looking scenery. The default scenery is amazing of course; but it has its limitations.
I've not used that personally but it looks awesome. For X-plane, simheaven.com (very detailed open streetmap based scenery) combined with free satellite scenery generated using Ortho4XP gets things close enough. Not quite to the level of MS Flight Simulator but it's not that bad. And free.
With Orbx it actually looks comparable. That's actually a good way to compare the two simulators if you care about the visuals because the only difference would be the rendering engine; the content is essentially the same with orbx and much better than what comes out of the box with either simulation. There are some videos on youtube comparing the two side by side. They both look great. But also very different.
IMHO MS has an edge with things like clouds and weather. But it can also look a bit over saturated and slightly too pretty. X-plane is shooting more for realism. And part of that is that visibility usually just isn't really that great from a plane. And they have gradually upgraded a lot of things. E.g. the clouds and weather just got a major upgrade in a patch release and the physics based rendering in v12 is a big step forward and they are still doing major updates to things like HDR and cockpit rendering (which is a hard problem because of the way human eyes compensate for the huge dynamic range difference inside and outside).
I want to see the hyper-realistic rendered world in as high resolution as possible.
I want to fly around the planet.
But I don't want to be limited to the detailed specifics (and speeds!) of real life planes.
Why can't we have a mode to make a plane as easy to fly as it is in GTA5. Or "superman" mode where I don't even have a plane, and I can just move around at (almost) any speed [i'm sure rendering would become a problem]
Given that you can jump to any point in the planet, I don't think it's a high priority for them.
It might not be correct the first time, but as we map the changes from prediction against the reality, we could adjust for factors that we hadn't considered.
It seems to me that we shouldn't be too far from accurate weather prediction and perhaps with huge amount of data capture having a digital twin of the planet in which we have enough confidence in to model potential climate impacts of policies, products could allow us to have robust discussions around where we're headed and what paths we could take to adapt or overcome the impacts we're already facing.
This is quite a comment.