An Inside Look at Microsoft’s Newest Flight Simulator | Hacker News Reader

An Inside Look at Microsoft’s Newest Flight Simulator

inspire.eaa.org

207 pointsdaureg64 comments

> While the team is currently evaluating something like an in-sim store for supplemental content, there will be no requirements to use it, and no restrictions of any kind on downloading freeware or payware add-ons from other sources.

Great news. I was sure when I first heard the announcement Microsoft was going to try control the market, which would ruin the ecosystem.

This looks amazing, and I'd love to switch back to MS after having to switch to XPlane. However: no VR no buy.

No matter how many improvements they've made, VR + 13 year old FSX will be much more immersive and useful. It's insane that any sim developer would not even have VR on their post-launch road map. If running their engine at a sufficient framerate is an issue for VR, then it's insane that they didn't consider this from the ground up. Even 25 years ago VR was a consideration for flight sim developers (anyone remember EF2000 and the VFX1?).

I'm holding out for VR too. The headsets are just not good enough yet. The view outside the cockpit is easy, but showing the in-cockpit instruments without pixellation or picket fence effects was not quite there yet last time I checked.

I use a CV1 with XPlane and...OK the instruments are pixellated from a fully seated position, but lean forward a few inches and they're legible. Any such issues are fully compensated by the sense of height you gain and positional awareness. I could never go back to a monitor setup for flight sim.

If my CV1 is fine, I'd imagine that the current headsets are more than adequate for reading instruments.

Thanks! Maybe it's time for me to jump in.

I was like you before I went VR but I was blown away. It's so much better than people make it out to be. You forget the pixels after a few moments getting very into the experience. Nowadays I don't even want to play Elite Dangerous anymore without VR!

As a counter point, I have a Vive and while I use it for other games like Elite or Beat Saber, I can't use it for XPlane enjoyably. Controlling the flight stick with the motion controllers feel like trying to control it by poking down on it and is not good for precise or gradual movements.

But I can't map everything to my HOTAS so I need to switch to the motion controllers if I need to operate the autopilot or adjust the qnh etc.

Even on a Cessna there's enough cause to e.g. match the magnetic and gyro indicators that it's unavoidable that this quickly becomes annoying.

And yes, reading the instruments is also difficult.

I find the touch interface in XPlane to be fine. I can hold one Oculus Touch controller and also use that hand to hold a hardware yoke and throttle. But I would be very happy if something could track my fingers and I had haptic pads on my finger tips.

Definitely agree on trying to use Touch controllers to move the yoke...frustrating.

Have tried HP Reverb, the resolution is very impressive, they're a bit pricey and the windows mixed reality shenanigans is nowhere near as polished as steam or oculus but you can run them through steamvr for the most part.

Have you had an opportunity to try the latest-gen headsets such as the Index, Rift S, or any of the PiMax HMDs? The resolution and overall clarity has improved significantly from previous generations.

The instruments are perfectly legible on the Valve Index.

It's probably more that there isn't enough of an install base to make it worthwhile, sadly. Of course as a Rift owner myself, I think it'd be a damn shame if VR never arrived for MSFS2020.

I prefer the blade element theory physics of xplane. I started with Flight Simulator 4 waaaaay back in the day and I used to like the microsoft flight simulator, but since a long time I'm only using Linux which Xplane runs natively.

This looks very impressive. 60 volumetric cloud layers, plus 20 data layers of various other atmospheric conditions. Sounds like they're utilizing RTX to fullest because I doubt this is possible for real-time without ray-tracing acceleration hardware?

But this part in the article sounds weird to me:

> the new engine brings higher-fidelity collision detection, which makes things like bumpy runways, braking on slick surfaces, varying degrees of friction, etc. much more nuanced. Under the hood, the development team has done significant work with integration, using something called adaptive time steps. The upshot is that the simulation now always updates at the same frequency as the visual frame rate.

This sounds more like the physics solver can run adaptively at whatever timestep currently needed, based on the simulation conditions for the frame, no?

Edit: Sounds like a framedrop results in a dropped physics solver iteration as well I suppose?

They said that they aren't using raytracing I believe. That'd be great if they did, I don't think there are any killer apps for a 2080ti yet, but this would certainly be one.

I don't think there's anything here that would particularly benefit from raytracing. Raytracing usually shines when modeling stuff like reflections, refractions, and multiple light sources that are expensive with shaders, but I don't see much of that here.

Agree, but I suppose I meant more in terms of optimizing performance by making use of idle 2080TI RT cores. Volumetric cloud lighting as OP said, cabin reflections, water perhaps..

I'll take anything that would mean the community doesn't need to keep modifying .CFG parameters to get an extra few FPS

I thought rendering layered volumetric stuff is where RTX would shine but I don't know much about that type of rendering tbh.

this extremely interesting video show state of the art techniques used to fake global illumination without using ray-tracing and compares the result with the ray-traced variant https://youtu.be/CuoER1DwYLY?t=127

long story short moving object color casting light is the main visible difference that cannot be replicated with traditional techniques (like baking the light reflection in the scene at built time, but can be faked convincingly); ray-tracing is also not limited at reflecting elements that are on the scene like what you'd get from screen space reflection, which is less noticeable of an effect but is there if you pay attention and know what to look for.

For my RTX2080 (non ti) the killer app is VR, all the bells and whistles to the max and 80fps solid (Rift S) is worth it.

Outside of that use case a 2070 super makes far more sense (wasnt out when I bought mine though).

> Sounds like they're utilizing RTX to fullest because I doubt this is possible for real-time without ray-tracing acceleration hardware?

Nope, surprisingly it is a DX11 application with a traditional rendering pipeline. This is all PBR-rasterized; nothing raytraced.

They said they might have plans to port to DX12 in the future, but not before the release.

It was in development for 5 years so they had to go with existing technology, there were no predictions of RTX hitting consumer market in 5 years. Even then RTX is still early adopters stage, slow, buggy and expensive.

DX12 is older than 5 years so I'm still a bit surprised on that part. Porting to DX12 is not easy. it's like OpenGL vs Vulkan. Very different APIs

Nice one!!! Having played with many MSFSs in the distant past(90s), I can’t wait to try this one out. Another page with lots of info: https://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4953/

Are there any good space flight simulators with hypothetical space craft with realistic physics?

Do "construction" games like Kerbal Space Program have that?

The space flight simulation/orbital mechanics in KSP is very good/realistic, miles better than anything else out there anyway.

and you can mod n.body and real universe in it:

https://github.com/mockingbirdnest/Principia

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/177216...

getting them all to work together might be a little finicky, for a realistic simulation I'd go just with Principia, as the compressed distances and smaller forces seems to help a lot with game stability

Orbiter. It's free, too.

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

Many great videos on YouTube showing just how flight simulatorish orbiter really is.

You spend a lot of time figuring out how to time burns to manage your orbit.

I don't know if the physics are realistic, but Elite: Dangerous is the closest thing to a space flight simulator. Distance wise it's realistic at least, in that even with FTL speeds going 300x the speed of light you take forever to get to another planet.

The flight model in Elite is very much tuned for fun rather than accuracy. You can if you wish turn on a kind of newtonian physics flight model, but even then I very much doubt its representative of how actual objects in space would react.

Another vote for Elite: Dangerous.

By default you get a "fighter-jet" flying model, which is an easy and necessary toggle to full Newtonian physics as the situation merits.

Your first line and third lines conflict with each other. AFAIK FTL travel is not possible.

Along with the other suggestions, there's also "Rogue System" which is a sort of "hard sci-fi" simulator/game. However, development has unfortunately stopped due to the developer suffering an injury.

Kerbal does sound like it'd be a good match for what you are asking though; It's not perfectly realistic but probably the best (only?) combination of all aspects - from building to launch to space manoeuvres to re-entry - and there are plenty of mods for making things more hardcore-realistic (planet gravity wells, reaction wheel saturation, angular momentum, signal delay, life-support, better aerodynamics).

There's Spaceflight Simulator, which is for Android and iPhone. It is a 2D representation of space, which simplifies things a bit, but you still get all the orbital mechanics.

Independence war 2 is the closest I've played.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_War_2:_Edge_of_Ch...

I am working on exactly this with an engine I have developed in my spare time. So far, I have implemented a realistic physics model for both flight through a fluid (based on stability derivatives, much like Flight Simulator) and for space travel (currently Newtonian). Although I hope to one day support a large procedural universe, currently only a Terra type world with an Earth-like moon are supported.

http://ajudson.com/

Awesome. Looks promising!

SimpleRockets 2 is a space flight simulator

Wow, looks amazing! Quite an improvement over V1 of FlightSim. (Nevermind A2FS1 on the TRS-80, lol.)

...or my beloved F/A-18 Interceptor for the Amiga. I’d love to know how many hours of my youth were spent on this game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Interceptor

Came here for this :) it's such an old game and I remember it so fondly.

The missions are also so no-nonsense and believable.

I was about ... 12 or so when I played this, and its just stuck in my brain in a way few things are. Flying around that antenna and the golden gate bridge was awesome!

Yep. One of my favourite games ever. It just ran so incredibly smooth. And that music!

Blown away by what I'm seeing from the new Flight Simulator. Very excited about this.

Whilst on the (semi off) topic of combat sims, you might find this enjoyable - the trailer for the new F-16 sim in DCS World. It's also quite out there; it's an exciting time to be into flight sims as ever!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZsi7CTpys

Based on real world data, I wonder if this will get included in mapping products too? Maybe a Microsoft version of Google Earth?

I know it's called a flight simulator. but can you play and get enjoyment out it with only a gamepad? I don't know if I want to buy the right hardware for it until I've tried it.

Flight sims are much better with with a gamepad, than only keyboard/mouse.

I meant is it fun to play with only a gamepad in contrast to a joystick and more specialized flight sim controls. Are people really playing this with keyboard and mouse?

I use a flight sim (X-Plane, though) with mouse and keyboard alone. For me it’s mostly about navigation realism and IFR, most of the time I’m adjusting heading bug and watching needles on the instruments, takeoff/landing and emergencies aside.

While realistic controls could be nice, you’d never feel complete immersion due to lack of changing (and potentially disorienting in some scenarios) gravity forces. To me the tradeoff is not worth it right now, I’d rather fly an actual plane when I can.

Thanks, I guess I'll give it a go when it's released then. It looks interesting.

Yes, it’s really cool to be able to look up online the actual real-world area and airport charts with radio frequencies and all, plan your flight with something like SkyVector (free, no affiliation), and then reproduce it fully in the sim with actual weather and without relying on in-game map for hints.

To a bystander it may seem like watching paint dry, but it’s quite engaging and not so easy.

The worst (and/or most fun) is when you are in a cloud, lose your instruments/AP and suddenly notice your compass spinning like crazy (one time I forgot to switch the alternator on and the battery powering most of the instruments ran out, plus sims usually also have configurable random failures). It’s quite trivial to just lose track of your position as well at first.

I pick some old aircraft like Cessna Skyhawk usually, it has autopilot and most common instruments, but its AP is not so advanced that I’d have to spend a chunk of my time sitting around keying in data in order to fly it properly.

I played the original flight sim with keyboard for like 6 years then I got a mouse and flying was soooooo much nicer that I begged my parents for a joystick.

That said, ch pro makes a cheap yolk and rudder set that is basically the defacto entry to flight sims. Otherwise a simple Logitech joystick is all you need. If anyone knows of force feed back yolks that don’t cost $10k, I am interested to find them (or start a kickstarter with a few folks to make it reality)

yolk => yoke ?

As a long-time simmer, this is really impressive given the state of the art. A shame they did not adresse properly AI traffic and ATC which is really a big issue in current sims.

Looking at the videos and how much emphasis they've placed on the quality of the scenery, I get the feeling this version will be mostly focused on VFR flying, rather than flying in to big commercial airports with ATC and lots of traffic.

Agreed, imo atc topic has been neglected by all fs softwares so far because it is aimed for advanced users only. I mean it does not sale your product to the masses.

For ATC in FSX, on a less serious note, you'd be amiss to go past Airforceproud95's work in his Youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeC0ZTT8n7E ( and his coverage of the new FS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TY56kA8oY0 )

Ha ha yes I know this video ;). I actually tried vatsim a couple of times but it is not for me, a fully integrated AI solution for ATC would be better => adapted real world traffic, SID/STARS management, HOLD patterns, noise procedures, random events, and a good ui for managing all of this.

If you fly at 35000 feet, a lot of that scenery is either not visible at all or miles below and in front of you. Either way, you are not going to be able to appreciate the level of detail much. So, VFR is indeed where this shines.

Same with super realistic flight characteristics. That's nice but maybe not that relevant with the auto pilot on. With VFR that's a different story and very much part of the experience.

I've done a bit of VFR flying with x-plane and it's kind of cool to be able to navigate parts of the world that you know by simply looking at it as opposed to wondering where in this bland brown/green monotonous plane is my airport. Ortho4XP has been a key enabler for this.

But this is just a level beyond that. I've seen reports from several youtube pilots I've followed for years that went in somewhat skeptical and came out completely convinced. The basic message is that this is awesome, works as advertised, and is way better than anything seen before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8h6yibHHc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrJs0jK4a1g

TL;DR: New MS Flight Simulator features overhauled flight model, bringing it closer to (or up to par with) X-Plane; overhauled whole-planet scenery (again, parity with XP); still apparently no cross-platform support.

I’m a happy user of X-Plane 11, never used MS Flight Similator before. This update looks very enticing and may compel me to install Windows to try it out and potentially switch.

I wonder how well it does on navigation realism—compass drifting, radio (nav aids, ATC communications) and such. X-Plane frustratingly lacks realistic ATC in many non-US airports, resorting to “Top-level area controller”, and sometimes—admittedly rarely—IRL radio navaid frequencies I’d find online are not replicated within the simulator. If new MS simulator fares better in that regard, the switch may be imminent for me.

I’m also curious about VATSIM integration, but I’m not too fixed on it as something I’m yet to actually use.

Are you running X-Plane 11 with some terrain mods or something? I'm clicking through some Youtube videos of it and the terrain in X-Plane isn't even close to what's in this MSFS video.

I was only pointing out that the new MSFS has whole-planet terrain and many thousands airports, like X-Plane.

Whether the terrain looks better or not I don't know and frankly don’t care that much, it probably heavily depends on the setup as well.

I heard clouds in MSFS look better. If its weather doesn’t momentarily glitch out as it is being updated in accordance with real-life conditions, like what happens in X-Plane sometimes, that’d be nice to have too.

first thought: ack! I may have to buy a Windows machine

second thought: phew at least it will be a lot cheaper than my Mac and probably better specs per dollar ;)

Holy shit that is a level of detail. I can see my house on the picture with rain in south Seattle!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com