I have to say, from what I've seen so far on YT, I'm pretty disappointed in who Microsoft have apparently selected as testers. In so many of the videos I see the "pilots" haven't the slightest clue about flying an airplane. And it's not just an inability to fly with even a minimum level of aptitude, but also the fact that there are so many - SO MANY - little things that to an actual pilot just make no sense.

Now, if ATC stops giving 60-degree heading corrections every 20 minutes because you're 3 degrees off course like we've been dealing with for the last 20 years (FSX/P3D), I will consider ATC in MSFS to be a victory. But the phraseology is all wrong, up to and including instructions or reports that I've never heard given to an actual pilot in my lifetime. So one has to wonder, where did they come up with some of this stuff?! The FAA publishes a Pilot-Controller Glossary. I'm guessing the Europeans publish something similar (and what there is of somewhat standard ATC speak in the game is clearly European-centric). Yet clearly none of this was used. WHY?

And honestly, the trees in the Caribbean look like Cliff Claven's beard in the beard challenge episode of Cheers. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1HyVLGTSJQ). They look like a few scraggly whiskers until you get closer to the islands. And from the beginning of the official videos to the leaks to now the previews, the clouds look really bad. They look like ice cream in this one. Watch it from 2:00 on. It looks awful - the clouds, the trees. The only thing that looks good really is the water:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qyAnj5Ur5Q

And this is an account with 14 million subscribers. I'm guessing he has a decent PC. I just rewatched this video, and the first approach looks more like Grand Theft Auto than a flight simulator.

After the sell we've had on this around here for the last 6 months, I really hope I don't wind up disappointed. The stuff I'm seeing is really starting to make me wonder.

Edited August 11, 20205 yr by mtr75

6 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

I have to say, from what I've seen so far on YT, I'm pretty disappointed in who Microsoft have apparently selected as testers. So many of the videos I see the "pilots" haven't the slightest clue about flying an airplane. It's not just an inability to fly with even a minimum level of aptitude, but also the fact that there are so many - SO MANY - little things that to an actual pilot just make no sense.

I think you have some misconceptions about who this product is primarily aimed at.

Did you expect Asobo was going to request the pilot license of people who applied as testers, or perform an aptitude test before they were deemed worthy to test their product?

Most of the things you mentioned, especially ATC "phraseology", I would guess that maybe 5-10% of the customer base of MSFS will really care about.

Edited August 11, 20205 yr by Der Zeitgeist

There is plenty of real license pilot in the Alpha. So you know...

Just now, Der Zeitgeist said:

I think you have some misconceptions about who this product is primarily aimed at.

Did you expect Asobo was going to request the pilot license of people who applied as testers, or perform an aptitude test before they were deemed worthy to test their product?

Most of the things you mentioned, I would guess that maybe 5-10% of the customer base of MSFS will really care about.

They certainly asked me if I had a pilot certificate when I applied! And if you think 90-95% of customers have never and will never be on these forums, then you're correct. But from what I see, most sim pilots take it pretty seriously.

9 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

They certainly asked me if I had a pilot certificate when I applied! And if you think 90-95% of customers have never and will never be on these forums, then you're correct. But from what I see, most sim pilots take it pretty seriously.

Yes, and that's fine.

But I'm really growing tired of that point that pops up all the time around here that some testers shouldn't have been picked because they apparently don't know how to fly an airplane. I would argue that this group is precisely the one that Asobo tries to get as buyers. So their experience in testing the sim is at least as important than that of real-world pilots.

Edited August 11, 20205 yr by Der Zeitgeist

Just so you know according to the insider forum metrics there are approximately 16K plus beta testers and then another separate group of internal testers 

Just as another note. It's not because a bug hasn't been fix in game that the issue was not reported by the alpha tester. Asobo is working each issue in order of priorities they have set.  I think a lot of you just sound salty you didn't get in.

3 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

I would argue that this group is precisely the one that MSFS tries to get as buyers. So their experience in testing the sim is at least as important than that of real-world pilots.

You probably don't understand why but the above quote is just spot on correct. That is why MS hired a bunch of gamers there in France to put this together. They are 100 percent after Little Johnny's lunch money. That is for the most part why these forums have been a dumpster fire for a year now. It is not a bad thing. It's all about sucking in the dollars. It may progress into something more like a flight sim as time goes by, but it is becoming more and more clear as the release approaches. Good for you in breaking the code.

14 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

You probably don't understand why but the above quote is just spot on correct. That is why MS hired a bunch of gamers there in France to put this together. They are 100 percent after Little Johnny's lunch money. That is for the most part why these forums have been a dumpster fire for a year now. It is not a bad thing. It's all about sucking in the dollars. It may progress into something more like a flight sim as time goes by, but it is becoming more and more clear as the release approaches. Good for you in breaking the code.

To be honest if your basing a business decision in creating another version of MSFS and only plan on catering to real world pilots then it's not really a sound business plan. That's the long and short of it. 

Edited August 11, 20205 yr by joec63

38 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

have to say, from what I've seen so far on YT, I'm pretty disappointed in who Microsoft have apparently selected as testers.

After reading your post I understand how you feel, but your issue/s are not with who was chosen as testers (as your title implies), but rather with MS's/Asobo's list of design priorities. Not trying to make any excuses and I certainly hope that in time the things you mentioned will be improved upon (among other things) but I think that we all need to remember that the MSFS series has enormous scope to it. There is just too much to be done all at once for every single one of those things to be done at top notch quality and or to global aeronautical standards for that matter. It's a 10 year project (if it survives) so I'm sure that along the way there will be scenery and ATC improvements. There are already 3rd party offerings for both these things in the works.

It's also been pointed out already that this is not supposed to be high end FAA approved software... it is supposed to be a learning and recreational title for the masses which just also happens to include real pilots...so some things will be dumbed down, not just to save money but also to ensure that more than just the aeronautical snobs among us will want to bother with it 🙂

It's ok to be disappointed...many will be, I'm sure of it...but try to put things in proper perspective for what you're actually buying into here. It's a recreational game for $60-$120. Divide that up by how many hours of play time you think you'll get out of it and there is your hourly rate. now compare that with how much you'll pay your FBO per hour for using their table top sim to log some instrument hours and it's hard to complain really. Especially if you compare the 2020 version with FSX and what came before it. it may not be perfect but it certainly has improved in many ways (or so it would seem).

Edited August 11, 20205 yr by hangar

Yeh there seems to be a superiority complex going on. A pilot with great flying skills paying 60 bucks gives Microsoft no more than someone buying for 60 bucks who thinks you start a 747 by turning a key.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion on the scenery or clouds or anything else I sometimes wonder if they are playing a secret flight simulator I dont know about since x-plane or P3d are hardly setting a high bar.

6 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

 It may progress into something more like a flight sim as time goes by, but it is becoming more and more clear as the release approaches. Good for you in breaking the code.

Em its a flight sim now! Real world navigation updated to the latest cycle each month. Default planes coming with working fmc's. Sids and stars supported out of the box. I must be missing out. Which flight simulator are you using right now that has all this? P3d?

37 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

I have to say, from what I've seen so far on YT

I think you’re missing the entire point of YouTube. It’s essentially acting as a free marketing platform for Microsoft through user generated content. What you see on there will never be reflective of reality. In this case, don’t base your thoughts on the alpha/beta user selection strategy off of what you see on YouTube.

7 minutes ago, hangar said:

...which just also happens to include real pilots...so some things will be dumbed down, not just to save money but also to ensure that only aeronautical snobs will want to bother with it 🙂

I don't belive they said that. They will make the sim accessible for the masses (it's coming to xbox guys), but they ARE aiming to make a high fidelity sim. They also said that they are not dumbing things down to make it work on the xbox with a controller. 

Instead of thinking it has to be one or the other, I rather think it's more helpful to think they have all these layers of complexities to choose from. You can go for the dummy settings, the real pilot settings, or anything in between. 

With that said, it's not necessairly Asobos job to make study level airplanes. It IS their job to make a platform that facilitates next generation of study simulation. 

Edited August 11, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

People here will simply need to accept that MSFS is not and does not try to be a replacement for P3D or XPlane, at least not out of the box.

Looking at all the marketing, the priorities in the testing program, the things that Asobo was interested about concerning the experiences of us testers, the questions they asked, all of that, there is one major priority for the developers that is a really big point, and that is accessibility.

So if anyone is looking at preview videos right now and is getting worked up about how the ATC uses certain phrases, let me just say right now that you probably won't be happy with MSFS at release and the ATC will be the least of your problems.

 

Edited August 11, 20205 yr by Der Zeitgeist