I’ll be buying it via Steam, but not until VR is available for all headsets.
6 Likes
Finally Jesus, Microsoft one-ups Frontier Dev
1 Like
yeah they could be lying
2 Likes
If its on SteamVR it will support Pimax.
2 Likes
that was a douche move, I hope for index 2 it be a standalone competitor to the quest.
index doesnt need a replacement.
no? you mean that Halo cardboard cutout gallery shooter didn’t push WMR sales?
Phil Spencer: None of our customers are asking for VR.
2 Likes
There is a gpu load of 30-50%
the difference between a Gtx 1060 and 2080ti are only 30% -40% in this game
Still not released yet, and as Heliosurge suggested, it looks like MS are just trying to get us to buy into their latest incarnation of ‘Microsoft Bob’ so they can monopolize the platform.
In one sentence, you just mentioned the two tech companies that have been the sorest of sore spots for me personally and in my view have done the most damage.
Hopefully MSFS 2020 will work on the 8kX, with decent HOTAS support, a decent flight model, etc, hopefully joining the likes of DCS World and X-Plane . I guess now we might finally find out mid-August. But I am not getting more hopeful than that just yet.
Sent from my Linux workstation.
3 Likes
Well tbh as long as sim devs hang on to there Archaic single core engines. Sims will not shine as well as they could. There still milking obsolete game engines and as long as simmers keep sinking money into them they don’t have a lot of incentive to evolve.
DLC is a big money maker for not a lor of real effort.
More like sim developers are currently focused on adding more aircraft and avionics for now. That’s natural - with as much intense development as goes into modern DCS World aircraft, it’s a lot easier for developers if they can bury their heads in one set of problems at a time. And from the sizeable assets that DCS World and XPlane have had for a while, porting to a new engine is going to be expensive without much in the way of existing interfaces for this.
On top of that, CPU bottleneck is a fairly new problem, as GPUs are almost exactly as limiting right now. To be worth solving the CPU bottleneck, we need multi-GPU support as well, and the entire VR industry is lagging behind on that.
Better interoperability is what we really need, so developers can focus on what they are really interested in. Separate companies making aircraft/avionics, terrain, communications software, etc, just makes sense.
Only one company near the ‘simulation’ business really deserves to be accused of laziness - FDev.
That is really the point it is easier to add new planes then to address the real issue and develop a multicore cpu game engine. Wouldn’t you agree? Some new maps textures and using an engine to plug in new things to pilot.
There not Unreal or unity that creates new improved engines. Just patch and release content. Like adding a new character to mortal kombat.
1 Like
No, I would not.
easier to add new planes then to address the real issue
In the context of serious flight simulation, ‘new planes’ are obviously not the same as ‘adding a new character to mortal kombat’. Real research and development is needed - figuring out what the aircraft does can take person years, duplicating that in software can take more person years.
In fairness, before alleging laziness, it should be abundantly clear the company is vastly underinvesting.
develop a multicore cpu game engine
No, absolutely not. CryEngine (along with derivatives), Unreal, Unity, are solid platforms already. Game developers should not develop their own proprietary engines. FDev demonstrated just how bad an idea that was with Elite Dangerous, a blatantly obvious mistake that should never be repeated.
What should happen is the creation of assets that can ‘plug-in’ to all of these game engines. Developers focused on their part of the work only, end-users taking whatever backend works best.
_
Now let’s get back on topic here.
The original point I was trying to make was about how much hope this latest bit of news does (or does not) offer for the future of MSFS2020. So far, it is a positive step to see any VR included at launch at all, but it is still not clear MSFS2020 will turn out to be a serious flight sim with support for best VR hardware…
It is indeed easier to add a new vehicle in a game. Sure you need to do research. However it is not as complicated as developing a game engine. This is indeed a fact.
The previous research notes can be ported to the new engine with a little bit of work. As saud milking the obsolete engine is a great money maker.
No different than ppl saying the same with big vr companies not really improving vr headsets other than primarily res and refresh bumps; tweaking the old designs with newer available components.
Not that it matters, but integrating these existing aircraft/avionics into an existing game engine would take much less than developing new aircraft/avionics. And that is what should happen.
Can you imagine if OSes said why bother supporting multicore cpus or moving from 32bit os to 64bit? We’d still be primarily stuck with 4g of memory.
However I am sure they would be very well optimized.
No, we would only be stuck with such severe limitations if applications only supported one particular operating system. Otherwise, at least one OS would improve, and people would move.
Coincidentally, that other MS product still has less severe limitations which are still not worth putting up with, except for a few of the simplest applications which only support that OS - video games.
Sent from my Linux workstation.
VR should ideally go the same way. Use whatever operating system, game engine, etc, that suits your needs, as an end-user, on any particular day.
And with that we need Sim DeVs pushing things forward with Modernized engines that utilize the hardware available instead of being an anachronism.
As long as people keep supporting outdated engines there is very little incentive to Develop a better one.
No different than our discussion on the inefficiency design of psu. Of which you showed me your ideas on making them better. If your making good money stagnation works until there is real demand/need for change.
What we need is a DeV whom is willing to lead the way. Then others will follow to stay relevant.
I agree with that. 
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.