20 minutes ago, viz said:

I think it's safe to say she isn't very impressed...

She's treating it similar to a procedure simulator and doesn't care about the visuals and other gaming aspects of a sim. This is not for her.

1 minute ago, Slides said:

She's treating it similar to a procedure simulator and doesn't care about the visuals and other gaming aspects of a sim. This is not for her.

Apparently the purpose of the stream is to compare the A320 with the real aircraft. People looking for visuals etc can get that elsewhere via the million other videos and streams.

Just now, viz said:

Apparently the purpose of the stream is to compare the A320 with the real aircraft. People looking for visuals etc can get that elsewhere via the million other videos and streams.

Yeah that's going to be a fail for any default airliner.

22 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

I am not surprised. It's mostly a VFR sim at this point. We knew this for a long time but this is just default aircraft. Once the real plane appears on the marketplace, everything will be ok.

Yep

1 minute ago, Slides said:

She's treating it similar to a procedure simulator and doesn't care about the visuals and other gaming aspects of a sim. This is not for her.

My thoughts exactly.
If these are the expectations that airliner pilots have about the default aircrafts, then I do wonder why Asobo/MS wasted time and resources designing those planes. They should have focused on the GA birds and provided support to PMDG and others to make sure their products are ready for launch, and then devote the free resources to fixing more bugs and adding more base features (e.g. replay).

24 minutes ago, Turpentine said:

If these are the expectations that airliner pilots have about the default aircrafts, then I do wonder why Asobo/MS wasted time and resources designing those planes.

According to Aerosoft, those models are meant to ease newcomers into airliners, nothing more. Plus, it would be a huge feature regression from Flight Simulator X not to include airliners in the base simulator, no matter the quality. It was one of the reasons that Microsoft Flight didn't market very well.

47 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

I am not surprised. It's mostly a VFR sim at this point. We knew this for a long time but this is just default aircraft. Once the real plane appears on the marketplace, everything will be ok.

What do you mean by “VFR sim?”

It’s not like instrument systems aren’t modeled... ILS, LOC, RNAV, VORs, NDBs all exist and all function properly. Just because the sim doesn’t have an A320 that perfectly models the FMC doesn’t mean it isn’t able to fly in IMC conditions or under IFR. 

Plus, IFR =/= airliner flying. I personally think it’s 20x more fun to go IFR flying in a Cessna 172 because at least then you aren’t letting a computer fly your airplane 🙂 you’re using actual skills to track VORs, maintain altitudes, intercept radials, fly holding patterns with a timer, etc.

Just now, FlyingInACessna said:

What do you mean by “VFR sim?”

It’s not like instrument systems aren’t modeled... ILS, LOC, RNAV, VORs, NDBs all exist and all function properly. Just because the sim doesn’t have an A320 that perfectly models the FMC doesn’t mean it isn’t able to fly in IMC conditions or under IFR. 

Plus, IFR =/= airliner flying. I personally think it’s 20x more fun to go IFR flying in a Cessna 172 because at least then you aren’t letting a computer fly your airplane 🙂 you’re using actual skills to track VORs, maintain altitudes, intercept radials, fly holding patterns with a timer, etc.

I meant what I say because most of the avionics in all the aircraft including the airliners have broken IFR like functionality. Like the ILS will not align you properly, pressing some button on the G1000 will crash your sim, You can't dial VOR to VOR on G1000...etc

Do you want me to continue ? I can do this all day.

1 minute ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

According to Aerosoft, those models are meant to ease newcomers into airliners, nothing more. Plus, it would be a huge feature regression from Flight Simulator X not to include airliners in the base simulator, no matter the quality. It was one of the reasons that Microsoft Flight didn't market very well.

Yep, you’re right. The entire reason I ever downloaded the FSX demo was because I had seen videos of the “Caribbean Landing” mission at TNCM in the CRJ-700. I had no experience whatsoever with anything related to aviation, but I thought, “WOW it’s so cool that you can just land an airliner!”

Fast forward a few years and I’m an active member on VATSIM flying PMDG planes as realistically as possible, and I’m also a student pilot pursuing my PPL and have completed a solo cross country flight. FSX’s ease of use and approachability quite legitimately changed my life 🙂

1 minute ago, fogboundturtle said:

I meant what I say because most of the avionics in all the aircraft including the airliners have broken IFR like functionality. Like the ILS will not align you properly, pressing some button on the G1000 will crash your sim, You can't dial VOR to VOR on G1000...etc

Do you want me to continue ? I can do this all day.

But the ILS did align properly in the video you’re referring to; he just didn’t have the NAV button engaged along with the glide slope.

Where have you seen a lack of VOR to VOR ability on the G1000? And are you talking about entering in the flight plan to the GPS or actually flying and tracking VORs?

Just now, FlyingInACessna said:

But the ILS did align properly in the video you’re referring to; he just didn’t have the NAV button engaged along with the glide slope.

Where have you seen a lack of VOR to VOR ability on the G1000? And are you talking about entering in the flight plan to the GPS or actually flying and tracking VORs?

I've said too much already. You can find out on Tuesday.

31 minutes ago, Turpentine said:

My thoughts exactly.
If these are the expectations that airliner pilots have about the default aircrafts, then I do wonder why Asobo/MS wasted time and resources designing those planes. They should have focused on the GA birds and provided support to PMDG and others to make sure their products are ready for launch, and then devote the free resources to fixing more bugs and adding more base features (e.g. replay).

As someone who has played every FS since 98, and am not a professional pilot, I don’t think Asobo wasted their time at all.

1 hour ago, viz said:

I think it's safe to say she isn't very impressed...

Consider me shocked

2 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

I've said too much already. You can find out on Tuesday.

I thought you were basing this on videos you’ve seen. If that’s not the case, then you’re flying an old version of the sim. The G1000 has been vastly improved since the Beta / preview 1.16 build and is still being improved as we speak. They are a whole version ahead of what you’ve played, and several quick fixes ahead of that as well (1.17.12). 

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by FlyingInACessna

37 minutes ago, viz said:

Apparently the purpose of the stream is to compare the A320 with the real aircraft. People looking for visuals etc can get that elsewhere via the million other videos and streams.

Then someone needs to tell her to fire up the FSL in P3D. What she's doing is useless and distracting to put it nicely.

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by B777ER