Somewhat disappointed - Still a Beta game

[teenflon5 21]

I think I have to change my original post 🙂 

Day 2 and I have to say my opinion of the game has completely changed, I think my initial issues were due to not actually understanding the aircraft. I just flew Manchester to Norwich, a trip I’ve done many times in real life, and the experience was fantastic. I flew the TBM, the nav and vertical speed hold worked perfectly, I could even load the exact approach from my real world charts in the MFD, the ILS frequency was in the TBM computer, and the graphics were insanely accurate, down to the busy road that runs parallel to final. I think there are some issues but in my opinion the rest makes up for it by far. 

[Huascar 179]

3 hours ago, teenflon5 said:

think I have to change my original post 🙂 

Day 2 and I have to say my opinion of the game has completely changed, I think my initial issues were due to not actually understanding the aircraft. I just flew Manchester to Norwich, a trip I’ve done many times in real life, and the experience was fantastic. I flew the TBM, the nav and vertical speed hold worked perfectly, I could even load the exact approach from my real world charts in the MFD, the ILS frequency was in the TBM computer, and the graphics were insanely accurate, down to the busy road that runs parallel to final. I think there are some issues but in my opinion the rest makes up for it by far. 

Yes, some people won’t be happy regardless. It will take some time to fix those issues but they will be fixed.

Edited August 19, 2020 by Huascar

[Avioneto 1]

I agree with the OP. Microsoft improved their old Flight Simulator, but given the state of the art in technology and the huge marketing campaign and hype created, I am disappointed and see this as a missed opportunity.

The advertised "AI" is just autogen++ and looks terrible in many places. Things are simply not realistic: I have seen an apartment block instead of the main cathedral of a city, rivers hanging from the middle of a hill, and footpaths that look like floating roads. i don't know about the rest, but I was expecting Google Maps 3D / Google Earth quality. Didn't happen.

The "use any airport in the world" was not true either. My home airport at a 700K inhabitants city, with international flights, 2 runways and Boeing 747s routinely operating there is not modeled or even listed, so I cannot use it.

My biggest disappointment is the lack of voice-operated ATC. Given the state of tech, with Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa and Cortana, and standard rule-based ATC phraseology, this is relatively easy to do (indeed a single programmer was able to produce the very decent Pilot2ATC plugin).

Also, no 737, really? What to say about VR? Yes, it will come, but it's not there.

So yes, a major improvement and updated version of Flight Simulator. Revolutionary game-changer? I don't think so. Not at least for the average experienced flight simmer.

In case you are interested in more details, I left my complete impressions here.

Best, 

Avioneto

[Agrajag 286]

1 hour ago, Avioneto said:

The advertised "AI" is just autogen++ and looks terrible in many places. Things are simply not realistic: I have seen an apartment block instead of the main cathedral of a city, rivers hanging from the middle of a hill, and footpaths that look like floating roads. i don't know about the rest, but I was expecting Google Maps 3D / Google Earth quality. Didn't happen.

My biggest disappointment is the lack of voice-operated ATC. Given the state of tech, with Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa and Cortana, and standard rule-based ATC phraseology, this is relatively easy to do (indeed a single programmer was able to produce the very decent Pilot2ATC plugin).

I hear you, but these expectations are a bit .... lofty. All the issues you list in the first paragraph are there in the two other mature sims multiplied countless times. Many areas are virtually devoid of any sense of realism. In fact most of the world is that way in the competition. For where I've flown so far, 95% of it looked stunning and real. I keep sending screenshots to people that are nearly impossible to identify as computer generated. Yes, I am disappointed, but mainly in MS' decision to release a clearly unfinished product. As someone who used to have control over the pass or go status of products just like this, there is simply no way I would have given to green light to this product as is. That tells me they had no choice but to release this for reasons we do not know. All that said, it's still a great foundation that will improve, and likely dramatically. 

I'd have to spend a small fortune and put in a lot of work to even come close to emulating what's here. So did I waste my $100? Not even close. I also disagree vehemently regarding the phrase "relatively easy to do" with respect to voice control. Alexa still can't get many things right. My Tower 3D is notoriously incorrect with a very limited vocabulary. I also never saw anything that suggested this type of feature was forthcoming, so again, that's a problem with your expectations, not their product. 

To me, as long as the product continues to move forward and we have continued input from Asobo, I'm willing to see where this goes. If they dropped this and then we didn't hear a word from them for six months (which happens all the time with other products), then I'd be upset and ready to drop the hammer on this. That isn't the case here.

[Ron Attwood 3,465]

Agree 100% with bells on. 👍

[wim123 763]

i think the ppl who want it overly realsitic, are not easily pleased.

for me this is the best flying xperience ever by far.

and i have seen them almost all, except p3d.

[Avioneto 1]

15 hours ago, Agrajag said:

I hear you, but these expectations are a bit .... lofty.

Thanks for the feedback. Certainly disappointment comes from unmet expectations. However I don't think mine were too high compared to the marketing campaign and hype created.

Also, I am talking objectively: creating something revolutionary means filling existing the most important gaps that others couldn't. FS2020 moved one step forward in the right direction: scenery streaming. Aside from that I do not see any other breakthrough, but the sim is objectively offering the same or less than other major sims. Why does this factually correct sentence stir the waters so much?

VR is there in XPlane. Pilot2ATC already exists and works perfectly fine, providing an awesome experience and was programmed by a single person. Google Maps 3D / Google Earth VR are there and are impressive if what you want to do is explore the skies, and they are free!

However, FS2020 is using basically the same approach for ATC than FSX (and very possibly the same code). It also uses a map provider of poorer quality than the one most of us use every day on our phones, which also makes the "smart AI algorithms" miss major airports (even though these airports and the runways are available in detail in the "map view" of Bing Maps...).

As I said I am happy they are relaunching a flight simulator for the mass market, but the missed opportunities are there. No one was asking for the moon but for things that already exist to be included in the flight sim that promised to "have it all".

 

[Agrajag 286]

4 hours ago, Avioneto said:

I do not see any other breakthrough, but the sim is objectively offering the same or less than other major sims. Why does this factually correct sentence stir the waters so much?

VR is there in XPlane. Pilot2ATC already exists and works perfectly fine, providing an awesome experience and was programmed by a single person. Google Maps 3D / Google Earth VR are there and are impressive if what you want to do is explore the skies, and they are free!

However, FS2020 is using basically the same approach for ATC than FSX (and very possibly the same code). It also uses a map provider of poorer quality than the one most of us use every day on our phones, which also makes the "smart AI algorithms" miss major airports (even though these airports and the runways are available in detail in the "map view" of Bing Maps...).

As I said I am happy they are relaunching a flight simulator for the mass market, but the missed opportunities are there. No one was asking for the moon but for things that already exist to be included in the flight sim that promised to "have it all".

 

That's like saying aside from being wireless these cell phone things offer the same or less than other corded phones. Heck you even have to charge them continually and they can cost over $1,000. Lopping in Google Earth as if it's somehow a part of this also doesn't work. I might as well include the actual sky. Just walk outside and look around and virtually fly in your mind. VATSIM is there. PilotEdge. 

I also don't get the argument about what map provider they use. The end product is what matters. X-Plane and others map the world and the result is 98% of it is a nearly empty brown/green void. In your view they get off the hook because they use NO satellite imagery provider vs. MS using the #2 provider?

You seem to take any issue with the current sim and simply ignore the issues of the other competing products. All of them missed the ability to place a physical cockpit (one for each plane) in our living rooms. They missed the opportunity to simulate the insides of the buildings so we could fly to a location, get out and go shopping at Wal-Mart.

What the heck. The product has been out FIVE days.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Agrajag

[Avioneto 1]

21 hours ago, Agrajag said:

That's like saying aside from being wireless these cell phone things offer the same or less than other corded phones. Heck you even have to charge them continually and they can cost over $1,000. Lopping in Google Earth as if it's somehow a part of this also doesn't work. I might as well include the actual sky. Just walk outside and look around and virtually fly in your mind. VATSIM is there. PilotEdge. 

I also don't get the argument about what map provider they use. The end product is what matters. X-Plane and others map the world and the result is 98% of it is a nearly empty brown/green void. In your view they get off the hook because they use NO satellite imagery provider vs. MS using the #2 provider?

You seem to take any issue with the current sim and simply ignore the issues of the other competing products. All of them missed the ability to place a physical cockpit (one for each plane) in our living rooms. They missed the opportunity to simulate the insides of the buildings so we could fly to a location, get out and go shopping at Wal-Mart.

What the heck. The product has been out FIVE days.

Yes, the product has been out five days, and we've been hearing about it for over one year, including a lot of teasers and a massive alpha testing program.

As a flight simmer, I expected FS2020 to fill the missing gaps using already existing technology or plug-ins that are now external. No one was asking for the moon. Again, a photo-realistic 3D version of the Earth (not autogenerated fake buildings) is already available. It is free. Have you tried it, particularly on VR? Voice recognition and ATC are also available and programmed by a single person using Microsoft technology. Have you tried it? Those two are aspects that differentiate a simulator from a game.

If you don't want to acknowledge those are clearly missed opportunities and want to engage in demagogy about not offering physical cockpits too, that's up to you.

Even setting the obvious missing aspects aside, they have failed in the main marketing messages:

1. NO, you CANNOT depart from all airports on Earth, not even from major ones like Stuttgart. Full stop.

2. NO, you won't see a realistic "bird's eye" or "streetview" nice version of London like you can do on your cheap phone, but you will find sunken bridges and an autogenerated apartment of blocks instead of Buckingham palace. Not very pleasing for VFR.

Those are just facts and I think it's pretty reasonable they lead to disappointment.

If FS2020 is a better overall product than other simulators when they were released and can please a wider audience, or if it's good enough for most people, or that it will be improved is certainly true but probably another discussion.

I think on my side I have said everything I needed to say and won't engage in demagogy. You would also probably spend your time better playing the wonderful FS2020 than trying to convince others on the Internet :) Enjoy it!

 

[Agrajag 286]

You were asking Microsoft to use Google Earth. That's asking for the moon. No sim has that, but what this sim uses instead is impressing 95% of those who see it (we're talking the visuals here specifically). 

The number of people who won't buy the product because it legally followed the request of said airports to protect their safety is.... likely not enough to fill a sheet of people. 

As far as the autogen, you'll find far more of it here than you do in the default packages of the competition, and much of it dramatically better than what you find in the competition and some of it (see London Bridge) even better than the payware product from the most respect name in world scenery, all of which is something this argument just tries to gloss over as inconsequential when it's rather quite consequential. Not pleasing for VFR? You know what's not pleasing for VFR? Vast stretches of nothingness. 

I'm sorry you're disappointed, but again, while I have quite emphatically, and harshly, stated my objection to this being released when it was, I can also see past the nose on my face and to what is most likely going to follow. Something tells me the people who want Stuttgart will find they have an option fairly soon. That the autogen will continue to be improved, along with everything else graphically and it's doing all of this while being able to run WELL on systems you couldn't even begin to get close to this look with on other sims at all, let alone on those same systems. So again, I'm sorry you're disappointed and somehow MS managed to set your expectations to stratospheric levels for a v1 product. 

I'm fine with people saying exactly what the subject says, but some people have gone WAY beyond that into the surreal. You know what else exists? Mobile phones. Why doesn't it have a mobile version? You know what else exists? Board games. Why isn't there a board game version of this? You know what else exists? The ability to read brain waves to make decisions. Why isn't that here? Your argument is that, if it exists it must therefore be in this product or you're going to be disappointed (see: Google Earth again, which is not in XP or P3D). 

As far as your last paragraph? Ditto, with special emphasis on the words, "Enjoy it!" Your argument is, to my ear, like having lived in a tiny apartment for years and then responding to an ad for palatial estate for roughly just a bit more money and then complaining about the size of the indoor pool, the lack of a 5th bedroom, a third garage bay and that the live-in, free maid isn't working enough hours. 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Agrajag

[VBHB 298]

Pretty happy with the sim posted some screenshots of my flight with the A320 NEO.  Weather/winds and ILS worked.  Just controlled plane via managed speed and v/s mode and used descent calculator to work out T/D.  Decide for yourself.

https://imgur.com/a/guPwBGr

Edited August 24, 2020 by VBHB

[Jetman67 517]

I'm having a blast now we can either word not allowed and moan about the marketing hype or we can get on with and enjoy it knowing these things will eventually get fixed, for those that persist on focusing on the negatives will just find negatives rather than simply enjoying the Sim

[HiFlyer 9,360]

On 8/18/2020 at 2:46 PM, RobotRock said:

Why anyone would consider YouTubers to be the end-all-be-all for simulation reviews is beyond me.

The food fight going on here is not noticeably more informative or mature, honestly.........

[Anthracite 131]

I didn’t get “ultimate sim that does everything better” from the marketing material. All I got was “better than fsx”, “true vfr with satellite images”, “accurate live weather”, “physically based material texturing”, “advanced lighting and shadows”, “blades of grass”.

the sims had a lot of really stupid installation issues that could have easily been avoided and there’s no doubt if it was released later it would have been a better launch product but I’m not feeling like I have been misled by the marketing material at all lol

[Davearky 1]

On 8/18/2020 at 7:27 PM, teenflon5 said:

Interesting comments, some people having fewer issues than me with the game. Does anyone know what the issue is with autopilot altitude? My planes literally plummet out the sky when autopilot is turned on. If I can fix that it would be a huge improvement! 

I was having this exact same problem. I’d arm Nav on the AP but as soon as I engaged AP itself it plummets to the ground as you say. Thanks to someone responding to a post I made on here the “trick” is to engage AP first, then everything should work. It does for me at least.