I see this as both a game and sim, depending on how you use it.  However, I think its safe to say at this point that its a much better VFR sim than an IFR sim.

25 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

In terms of flight simulation, it's light years ahead of FSX on release by just the flight model alone. From a feature standpoint, the GA systems depth is plenty good enough to get started with and better than what FSX released with or what is default in P3D. X-Plane gets a slight nod here in default aircraft dynamics and its better default G1000, but it's no longer a night and day difference.

For folks saying that it's a game, I just don't get it. The weather is better than any sim. The air model is unique to just MSFS, you can't get dynamic individual 3D sampled airflow in any of the other sims. The flight model may not be as advanced in terms of available surface inputs, but it seems to me to be extremely rigorous, and way beyond what P3D provides. X-Plane bests it here, but only on the edges: planes with strange flight surfaces, very edge of the envelope characteristics (for some planes that have done the work).

Yes, ATC is stilted and not always on the ball. A wash compared with P3D in some ways, advanced in others. X-Plane's ATC is still pretty terrible. The systems depth in the airliners is pretty basic, but so is it in all the other sims for default aircraft. There are definitely bugs here and there.

But a game? I'm genuinely curious what about MSFS makes it a game compared to the other sims currently extant.

Matt, this is always a controversial topic, but for my money this falls squarely into the "game" category. It's largely down to design choices - landing challenges, badges, a simplistic Xbox-style menu. All those sorts of things.

The designers have put some serious effort into making things realistic, as per the weather noted above. But they haven't tried to make a platform for simulation-based training.

Compare it to Prepar3d (a tool for simulation-based training) and X-Plane (which the lead developer considers to be an engineering tool). Different design focus, so different end product.

There are aspects of MSFS that could be developed into a simulation tool (similar to ESP), but that's not what it's designed for at this time.

Some people are happy with a game (many here), some users want a professional or semi-professional tool for home use. There is a big overlap between "game" abd "simulator" on the Venn diagram, but they aren't identical things.

20 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Yeah, when I get it flying stable, the feeling is unbeatable!

Adjust the sensitive sliders from your controller to your personal liking/experience? Makes a huge differences when done correct...

It's day one.  Remember what FS2004 was like out of the box?  To me, I think this is an amazing starting point and it will be interesting to see what this product is like as time goes on.  This is a product made to generate money.  With no game elements, the causal user will not want to take it up.  

It’s both. I fly the DA20/40 and the C172 IRL and the default planes feel a hell of a lot better then any previous sim (xplane too). Yes it needs a lot of work and as the pay ware stuff comes out it will be even better but this is the best thing that has happened to this community in a long time. 

Just now, tweekz said:

flying experience that some of us can only dream about.

You don't have to dream about it. It's cheap (ish) to go and do a glider lesson, and to be honest, they're more fun to fly than a Cessna 172 anyway.

A Cessna isn't stressed for +4 and -2G, but most two-seater training gliders are, so if you get up over two thousand feet, you can do spins, aeros and such. You can do a week-long residential glider course for about 800 quid and be solo at the end of the week with an FAI licence. Go for it.

13 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Yeah, when I get it flying stable, the feeling is unbeatable!

What sensitivity settings are you using? I initially put +% curves on the rudder, etc. It was horribly jumpy and I couldn't figure out what was going on. Wasn't until I realised that I had to put a -% curve on that it became much more stable for me.

1 minute ago, awf said:

Adjust the sensitive sliders from your controller to your personal liking/experience? Makes a huge differences when done correct...

But they go exponential / logarithmic then, don't they? I guess it will still make things more bearable, but I think the effect of control surfaces needs some tuning down by ASOBO.

4 minutes ago, Chock said:

You don't have to dream about it. It's cheap (ish) to go and do a glider lesson, and to be honest, they're more fun to fly than a Cessna 172 anyway.

I am flying IRL (mainly DA20), but from what I hear where you fly around and under which conditions, I am far off. 🙂

Edited August 18, 20205 yr by tweekz

It is clearly a sim for me and it is far more a sim than FSX was (understandable considered when it was released) or P3D is (a bit less understandable as V5 is released in 2020 as full price without delivering quality anywhere near XP or even MSF).

And FSX was a game back then, too, but the add-ons made it into the sim we know and P3D is built upon. So once PMDG and the other developers release their planes, no one will call it a game anymore I think. In 2 or 3 years it will (hopefully) be the golden standard of flight sim against which all others will be compared with all the eye candy benefits you get form modern game engines as a bonus and not a weakness.

Just now, tweekz said:

I am flying myself IRL (mainly DA20), but from what I hear where you fly around and under which conditions, I am far off. 🙂

Well there ya go. Flying is flying. Model planes, sims, real planes, it's all the same drug.

6 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Matt, this is always a controversial topic, but for my money this falls squarely into the "game" category. It's largely down to design choices - landing challenges, badges, a simplistic Xbox-style menu. All those sorts of things.

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.

6 minutes ago, Tektolnes said:

What sensitivity settings are you using? I initially put +% curves on the rudder, etc. It was horribly jumpy and I couldn't figure out what was going on. Wasn't until I realised that I had to put a -% curve on that it became much more stable for me.

Default Honeycomb Alpha is not too bad, but I agree that the default rudder settings are way too twitchy.

.......

Edited August 18, 20205 yr by HiFlyer

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