I really hope they'll keep updating the airliners

[flyerboy 114]

OP sounds entitled.   The simulator is just a base.  I don't think I will expect PMDG 747-8 quality on the default 747.

[vin747 316]

1 hour ago, tweekz said:

In XP you get a lot for free (Ortho, NOAA weather, ...) but you have to spend hours installing and tweaking and even then it's far from perfect. You can see that it's a patchwork.

MSFS will have a basic version of an authentic MCDU of the A320 (and hopefully the other airliners as well) - something that even some XP payware does not offer.

Personally, I'm looking forward to what 3rd parties will put on top of a solid sim.

please don't make these kind of sweeping statements.. there are at least 2 to 3 XP11 airbuses with extremely detailed FBW, MCDU etc. Toliss 319/321, Flightfactor 320 etc.. these are way ahead of aerosoft systems depth and maybe just short of FSL.. what XP lacks is systems depth in widebodies.. XP's narrowbody range (zibo, Toliss, FF 320) is among the best in the market.. what's missing in XP is a PMDG level widebody.. and the weather needs major overhaul too.. but so does P3d V5 in its current state.. 

[tweekz 2,165]

1 hour ago, vin747 said:

please don't make these kind of sweeping statements.. there are at least 2 to 3 XP11 airbuses with extremely detailed FBW, MCDU etc. Toliss 319/321, Flightfactor 320 etc.. these are way ahead of aerosoft systems depth and maybe just short of FSL.. what XP lacks is systems depth in widebodies.. XP's narrowbody range (zibo, Toliss, FF 320) is among the best in the market.. what's missing in XP is a PMDG level widebody.. and the weather needs major overhaul too.. but so does P3d V5 in its current state.. 

I wasn't specific about Airbus. FF and ToLiss are extremely good! That's what XP was missing for so long. But there indeed are payware addons (>40$) that do not model the correct FMC.

For example:

The X-Crafts EJets model some FMC that is actually not used in the real aircraft.
The Airfoillabs KingAir 350 - considered high quality - uses the LR default FMC.
Pretty much any business jet in XP. I think there is none that actually models an authentic FMC.

Similar category: The Eclipse 550 from Aerobask has very good reputation, but uses Avionics (Dynon Skyview) that does not exist in the real plane.

That puts the default quality of a 60$-120$ fully stocked sim into perspective IMO.

Edited July 27, 2020 by tweekz

[cepact 517]

So hoping that the airliners will be better in MSFS makes me entitled ... wow 

From the updates I see they keep updating the airliners and it's a 10 year project. I hope knowledgeable people will report every single inconsistency on their airliners so they can fix them

 

[Tektolnes 184]

I'd assume they'll only update them to a certain point. They want the established TPDs to all sit down at the table to get the whole ecosystem established so they're not going to eat their lunches by producing comparable work. I'd guess they'll settle for high fidelity for the simpler planes and middle of the road for the more complex ones which will be fine for the majority of the user base.

[captain420 3,099]

I would hope that the default A320 would be on par with the Aerosoft one at least if not better.

[RALF9636 1,904]

1 hour ago, Tektolnes said:

I'd assume they'll only update them to a certain point. They want the established TPDs to all sit down at the table to get the whole ecosystem established so they're not going to eat their lunches by producing comparable work. I'd guess they'll settle for high fidelity for the simpler planes and middle of the road for the more complex ones which will be fine for the majority of the user base.

 

1 hour ago, captain420 said:

I would hope that the default A320 would be on par with the Aerosoft one at least if not better.

I also hope that the default aircraft will reach at least Aerosoft quality.

And I don't think that would be eating the 3PD's lunch:

First, there is always room for improvement, only the bar is set higher. Even FSL still adds something new with every update.

And second, 3PD can still make all those A319, A321, A330 etc.

Edited July 27, 2020 by RALF9636

[vin747 316]

@tweekz, oh yes you are right.. I agree some of the XP payware aircraft are horrible quality.. and there's no question about the phenomenal value for money that MSFS offers (even the premium deluxe version)..  I was just pointing out that there are high quality buses in XP which will have way more features than default bus in MSFS.. which is not a fair comparison, because default aircraft cannot compete with highly priced payware planes.. we should not even expect it.. what MSFS is offering is already a mouth watering deal.. 

[captain420 3,099]

I never had any good experience when it comes to tubeliners in XP. I wasted a lot of  money in them. Simply put. XP isn't a good sim for tubeliners. But it's good for GA and VFR. What I regret was the Ramzzess 777 Wordliner Pro and the FF A350. What a joke, and not to mention how extremely ugly the interior cockpit modeling job it was as well. The only tubeliner that was decent are the FF A320 and Zibo's 737.

Anyways, back on topic. Sorry had to rant for a min there.

[shivers9 1,174]

8 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

To me the interesting question is not if the default A320 will reach  the FSL level (most probably not), but if Asobo keeps continuously improving the existing default aircraft, both airliners and GA, after release. With that I mean not only bug-fixing but adding system depth and flight model finetuning over time.

I hope they will do.

Well if they do then it will be Historic. In the flight sim world the included airplanes have been more of a place holder unless you are happy being just a pretty basic user. Nothing wrong with that either.

[vin747 316]

You can add FF 757 & 767, Toliss 319 & 321 and Rotate MD-80 to that list of pretty solid tubeliners..  and ya, FF 777 is from the jurassic age.. wasted 90$ on that.. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by vin747

[jon b 2,041]

I think we have to remember that the default aircraft have to be designed to be used and accessible to everyone who buys the product, that includes children and people with no prior knowledge out of the box, so they’ll never be that complex.

They need to be simple enough for your 10 year old to fire it up and shout, Mum look at me I’m flying a 747.

You’re not going to have  a situation where your 10 year old comes in crying saying I selected the number 1 hydraulic air driven demand pump on too quickly before checking the system 4 electric Auxiliary pump had brought system 4 up to full pressure. Now I’ve dumped fluid from system 1 into system 4 through the shuttle valve and can’t dispatch because I’ve got a HYD PRESS SYS 1 EICAS ....and I wanted to do aerobatics under the Golden Gate Bridge, it’s not fair.

[RALF9636 1,904]

I don't understand why people again and again come up with the concept that an arcade-like easy to fly aicraft and a high quality aircraft with decent system depth have to be mutual exclusive, thus default aircraft could never be complex.

They can create an aircraft with high system depth and then just add an optional "arcade-mode" or some kind of realism slider for the "kids" - and have catered for both.

Edited July 27, 2020 by RALF9636

[shivers9 1,174]

9 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

I don't understand why people again and again come up with the concept that an arcade-like easy to fly aicraft and a high quality aircraft with decent system depth have to be mutual exclusive.

They can create an aircraft with high system depth and then just add an optional "arcade-mode" or some kind of realism slider for the "kids" - and have catered for both.

It is all about the $$$$'s. That might make sense if this sim was going to be sold for say $2495.00 per copy and that is assuming that millions of folks would pay that price. It is not about what could be done. It is all about what can be done and make a profit at $80.00 to $120.00 per copy.

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by shivers9

[Chock 17,769]

17 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

I don't understand why people again and again come up with the concept that an arcade-like easy to fly aicraft and a high quality aircraft with decent system depth have to be mutual exclusive, thus default aircraft could never be complex.

They can create an aircraft with high system depth and then just add an optional "arcade-mode" or some kind of realism slider for the "kids" - and have catered for both.

Theoretically yes, and some add-on aeroplanes do have this option already - for example I think quite a few Aeroplane Heaven fighter aeroplanes give you this choice, with less frenetically-realistic flight models available which will not see you spinning into the ground as on the harder flight model if you don't fly the thing properly.

But the problem is that if you spend years developing a super-duper Concorde or whatever, which simulates a voltage drop when a passenger flushes the toilet etc, whilst it isn't going to be too hard to add a simpler flight model in the D/L and maybe a GUI which can select it, this is not the issue. What you can't easily do, unless you are into commercial suicide, is knock it out at a price which will suit the person who wants that simple flight model, since you have to recoup the costs of years of development of the fancy version, unless you go to the trouble of releasing two versions of it, and really, who is going to do that?

This is why Aeroplane Heaven have created their Control-Ezy brand, to separate development into two streams and make it obvious from the branding which one is which. Nothing wrong with that; we all like to fly jump in and go planes sometimes and in fact they do have the advantage of being developed much more quickly; look how fast Virtualcol got that CRJ out for the first 64 bit version of P3D, I think it was available within two weeks of the release of the base simulator if I recall correctly.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Chock