This is a game, not a sim.

[Farlis 2,342]

48 minutes ago, tweekz said:

But then the aircraft reacts faaaar too sensitive to inputs and ruins all the positives! It gets an arcade game trying to keep a steady flight.

Did you set your sensitivity curves correctly?

And do you have real world experience? 

The developers talked about the sensitivity and said that many aircraft they flew need very little control input to react. Something one is not used to from desktop simming.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Farlis

[OzWhitey 3,353]

38 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

I don't understand how having those things, which are on top of a simulator which not only has features and modeling we haven't even seen in other simulators, would somehow disqualify it from being a simulator.

If I ignore for a second the fact that it has some nice and accessibly gamified type features, and just completely look at only the simulation part compared to the other sims, I end up with it being a much, much better sim than P3D by default, and nearly as good as X-Plane by default. With a far better and much more polished UI.

So yes, I will agree there are some accessibility things (which I think are actually healthy for the product). But doesn't that mean that, by that logic, a sim can only be a stark, unfriendly, hard to use piece of software with no fun elements? I just don't see how having some fun stuff means the sim stuff suddenly is less deep than it actually is.

Yes, a true simulator would not have "fun elements", it would only have things that are 1. completely realistic and 2. useful for training. Prepar3d, for example, has tools for scenario development and debriefing. LM would never add badges and challenges, as it would make no sense given the design ethos.

If the question is "can you use MSFS for simulation-based training", the official answer is probably no, as its EULA likely prevents this. However, the practical answer is that there are elements to the game that would make it quite useful. The terrain is very realistic. The weather is sometimes exaggerated, but based on excellent MeteoBlue data.

It would be hard to use as a procedural trainer right now, as it doesn't have the aircraft to support that. For actual flight training - computer-based sims are not usually highly regarded for teaching basic flight, though they're good for some aspects of IFR. I actually think the MSFS Cessna 152 lessons are potentially useful for basic familiarisation.

If I was going to add two things to make it a useful GA training device, they would be 1. a high-fidelity aircraft with full system modelling and 2. VR or proper multi-screen support.

Edited August 18, 2020 by OzWhitey

[HiFlyer 9,410]

Just now, omarsmak30 said:

Honestly I find it pretty good and I am happy with it! Not sure what you are guys are after 😄 

Usually perfection.

Even after decades, the list of things people still want from our legacy sims is just as long or longer as it was when they were first created, and that never changes.

Same thing here. What some people really want is to be flying a real plane, and that's not happening on a desktop at home.

Ever.

[omarsmak30 4,069]

9 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Usually perfection.

Even after decades, the list of things people still want from our legacy sims is just as long or longer as it was when they were first created, and that never changes.

Same thing here. What some people really want is to be flying a real plane, and that's not happening on a desktop at home.

Ever.

Indeed, I guess many would be happy with the ugly P3D and spend thousands just to make it "pretty" which is at the end not even that close to MSFS 😄

[Claviateur 789]

1 hour ago, Jean-Claude said:

A game... that has a flight model ten times better than P3D, has regular free updates of navdata (absolutely necessary for gamers...), offers weather depiction like never before in any other sim (not for "hardcore" simmers obviously?...), bugs like you never found in any newly released sim to-date, amazing graphics for neophytes who can't imagine how the real ORBX world look like, a game targeted to casual simmers waiting impatiently for PMDG to release their toy planes... well truly, we must not use the same sim...! Are we unable to see the glass half full and focus - and comment - only on the half emptiness of this just released product that will evidently mature rather quickly owing to the numerous quality third party developers (planes, sceneries, airports, utilities) that will soon join the club? 

For how long are we going to have this debate about our various simulators being more than games? Yes pure entertainment!!!  If we want to seriously< and actually TRAIN on a flight simulator, there is one available on the market called ELITE, approved by FAA among others that you may find, I can vouch you won't have much fun with them if you intend to do anything else than work hard on your procedures! So for the time being, lets have fun!

 

 

I agree 100%.  This is the best MS FS version to date. So much fun and it opens the genre to many who want to enjoy the illusion of flying on this planet...

Yes bugs exist for such a complex project and the actual situation in the world does not help any company or software dev team to process work without delays and compromises...

We are lucky MSFS was still an ongoing project considering the situation.

FSX or any other entertainment sim never had training oriented flight model or systems.

Yet this one will be updated, tweaked improved etc.

We can simply disable all the assistance and it will turn into the FS we are used to. 

And while complex aircraft will come one by one to MSFS 2020, I am sure on the forums of these addons, many will still complain that the addon does not simulate this or that in that specific situation.

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Claviateur

[tweekz 2,165]

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

Did you set your sensitivity curves correctly?

And do you have real world experience? 

The developers talked about the sensitivity and said that many aircraft they flew need very little control input to react. Something one is not used to from desktop simming.

I fly GA IRL, so I kinda know what feels normal.

I lowered sensitivity now and it indeed helped (of course), but what I don't like is the exponential curve.

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, Farlis said:

The developers talked about the sensitivity and said that many aircraft they flew need very little control input to react. Something one is not used to from desktop simming.

Yes, but they are making a mistake which a lot of people make when they do that though because they are used to PC joysticks, but not used to aeroplane joysticks. You can see why if you try this simple experiment:

Get a typical computer PC joystick and move it one way so that the end of the stick travels two inches. You will find that's going to be nearly all its travel, or at least a very high percentage of it.

Now get in a real aeroplane and move a joystick in that two inches, or if you don't have an aeroplane to hand, get an umbrella or a walking stick, pretend that's an aircraft joystick instead, and move that two inches. That'll be a much smaller percentage of the range of travel of the stick and because of the principle of leverage, it will be a miniscule movement at the business end where the joystick's actuator rod connection is.

So anyone who says that a PC joystick should move in the same way as a real aircraft joystick, where unlike with a real aeroplane control, small movements have that PC stick moving all over the place, has either never flown an aeroplane, or is a pillock who has flown an aeroplane, but who wasn't paying attention to what it felt like in terms of range of travel when they moved the stick.

Conclusion: to replicate the idea of operating an aeroplane when using a PC joystick, it should not be all over the place with the same amount of movement as a real control's deflection, because it won't allow for fine control owing to the lesser range of leverage. This is common sense, and you'd think software flight sim developers would know this, but they make this mistake all the time, so then they have to put a sensitivity option in there to make up for their stupid lack of understanding of the principles of leverage.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Chock

[flyerboy 114]

This is a game with the worst camera system, key commands, joystick setup and mapping I have ever seen.  The visuals are very good but even the default planes fly bad.  The A320 FMS route distance didn't even change.

Edited August 18, 2020 by flyerboy

[bean_sprout 1,201]

The OP is correct that FS2020 is a game just like FSX, P3D Minecraft etcetera.  If it runs on a computer PC or Console it is a game.  If you sit in it and it is used for training professional pilots then it is a simulator.  It's a simple concept.  

So now that that is out of the way what is the question??

 

Regards

bs

[WestAir 2,530]

6 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yes, but they are making a mistake a lot of people make when they do that though. You can see why if you try this simple experiment:

Get a typical computer PC joystick and move it one way so that the end of the stick travels two inches. You will find that's going to be nearly all its travel, or at least a very high percentage of it.

Now get in a real aeroplane and move a joystick in that two inches, or if you don't have an aeroplane to hand, get an umbrella or a walking stick, pretend that's an aircraft joystick instead, and move that two inches. That'll be a much smaller percentage of the range of travel of the stick and because of the principle of leverage, it will be a miniscule movement at the business end where the joystick's actuator rod connection is.

So anyone who says that a PC joystick should move in the same way as a real aircraft joystick, where unlike with a real aeroplane control, small movements have that PC stick moving all over the place, has either never flown an aeroplane, or is a pillock who has flown an aeroplane, but who wasn't paying attention to what it felt like in terms of range of travel when they moved the stick.

Conclusion: to replicate the idea of operating an aeroplane when using a PC joystick, it should not be all over the place with the same amount of movement as a real control's deflection, because it won't allow for fine control owing to the lesser range of leverage. This is common sense, and you'd think software flight sim developers would know this, but they make this mistake all the time, so then they have to put a sensitivity option in there to make up for their stupid lack of understanding of the principles of leverage.

I think the biggest difference between real and sim with sticks and yokes is the resistance / stiffness. In a 172 once the propwash hits the elevator, or once you get up to speed, you need to fight that wind resistance to move the elevator. With my CH yoke the thing takes barely any pressure at all to be moved - and there's no increased resistance as I move it. The real thing not so much.

Additionally I have a feeling the actual effectiveness of the elevator (and rudder) in the GA aircraft are too significant at the START of the curve. I can porpoise the nose very, very easily with 1% movement of the yoke. In real life? Not so much.

Edited August 18, 2020 by WestAir

[bean_sprout 1,201]

 

9 minutes ago, flyerboy said:

This is a game with the worst camera system, key commands, joystick setup and mapping I have ever seen.  The visuals are very good but even the default planes fly bad.  The A320 FMS route distance didn't even change.

Just remember that you don't have to fly it.  If you don't want to invest the time to learn how to make it work to your liking  then I'm sure that you have other games or sims to play with. 

Flight simmers are a serious bunch and know what it will take to get things right.

Cheers

bs 

Edited August 18, 2020 by bean_sprout

[VFXSimmer 1,313]

My take ...

Other sims do a good job simulating "how" to fly.

MSFS does a better job at simulating "why" you fly.

Edited August 18, 2020 by VFXSimmer

[regis9 4,049]

Game or sim...it is what you (and third party developers) make of it...just like any previous version of flight simulator.

[HighBypass 2,339]

OP posted only 4 hours ago and already it's 4 pages of what has been argued about at length through the ages here on AVSIM... (..and yes, I just added to the thread... )

[mmcwill1 32]

I've bought every version of MSFS since way back in the day. Then I got my private pilots license in 1995. I remember my solo flight and the "wow factor". No desktop simulator can replicate the seat of the pants feel of actually flying. Sometimes, I even feel silly when I post about "flying" on these boards. I'm sitting at a PC, recreating the experience as best as I can. Since then, I've learned a ton about using systems one the big jets that I would never get to experience in real life. There is a "wow factor" to that and it's probably why I've spent thousands of dollars on P3d add on's and hardware upgrades. When I fly on our corporate jet and sit with our chief pilot, I'm amazed by how much I learned from P3d (and I think our chief pilot is amazed that I've had no formal training flying a plane like that!) So now, I just spent about an hour "flying" MSFS 2020 from my home airport and visiting my new house, my old house, our country club, my office, and the "wow factor" I experienced doing that is like nothing I've every experience from any previous sim or in real flight. What Microsoft and Asobo have created is simply amazing. As the third party developers kick into high gear, it is going to be an incredible time for flight simulation. I'm extremely pleased with my purchase and I can't wait to see what comes next!