2 hours ago, dilore said:

We need more honest reports like this.

Erm, no, we really don't.

1 minute ago, hangar said:

OMG, really? Sounds like an impossible task!

Yes...if you re-read my post you'll notice I said that it was an unfortunate thing for VFR "planning". We use towers all the time, makes for a great landmark/helper to double check.

That's actually pretty cool, I hadn't really thought of people doing that in flight sims. There are some good wind farms and the Fairfield Tower at like 1,000 ft AGL that we use around my area. Hadn't occurred to me that simmers would do that as well. Good stuff, and great point.

2 hours ago, mtr75 said:

- ATC doesn’t make any sound. It talks in the dialog box, no sound out of the speakers.

- All the boats around St. Maarten and Anguilla are underwater. Same for piers, docks, etc. 

- After 20 minutes of flying around, all the cockpit switches, levers, etc. stopped working, i.e. you could no longer actuate them with mouse clicks. Good thing you can make a no-flaps landing in the 152. 

- Runway at TNCM (St. Maarten) just looks... weird. I think it’s from the supposed elevation changes? Makes it look like the runway isn’t straight.

As far as actual flight, p-factor on the prop is way overdone. And I mean way overdone. You push in the throttle on the 152 and the plane makes an almost instantaneous 60-degree turn to the left. This is from a 100 HP engine? C’mon. Trim seems pretty good, which is not the case in other flight sims. Pretty twitchy in pitch on approach and landing. Quite a lot of porpoising in the flare.  

So far I’d say the visuals are quite good (running on ultra), performance seems quite okay (ultra on a 8700K/GTX1080 in 2K), visual modeling of the planes is excellent, flight characteristics seem ...interesting on takeoff and landing (I’m a real-world pilot). Lots of bugs, and big ones, found already. 

I’m sure the first update will bring a lot of improvements. Has a lot of potential. But the people who absolutely hammered the initial release of P3Dv5 and told the world that MSFS would be perfect (and there were a LOT of you) are looking pretty stupid right now. 

Good review but no one stated it woud be perfect upon release. Stop the hyperbole! And P3Dv5 deserved a hammering because it has been through several updates the last few years. Yeah the type of time needed for frankness from what I consider the next gen in flightimming created by Asobo and MS..

2 minutes ago, Chock said:

Erm, no, we really don't.

Yeah, who needs ATC to make noise and for cockpit switches to work, anyway?!

2 minutes ago, Lenny777 said:

Good review but no one stated it woud be perfect upon release. Stop the hyperbole! 

Sorry, but plenty of people absolutely did. And I distinctly remember telling them they'd regret it. Alas...

18 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Strawman. This is what I said:

And:

You said:

Absolutely laughable. Laughable.

No, you can not put your feet on the floor after lift-off in a 152 and not end up way off center line.

Pretending that you were not talking about the initial takeoff roll in the OP is what is laughable. No one is "pushing the throttle in" after lift-off (it's already full power at that point), nor would doing so make you turn 60 degrees immediately as you asserted in the sim. You were clearly actually talking about torque on the ground in the sim causing you to go left and are just trying to save face because you don't even know the difference between p-factor and torque.

What exactly is your real world experience? A discovery flight? Because I see nothing in your comments that says you know anything about what you are talking about.

Edited August 19, 20205 yr by bonchie

Just now, mtr75 said:

Sorry, but plenty of people absolutely did. And I distinctly remember telling them they'd regret it. Alas...

Had nothing to do with your claim.  Plenty of people loved the new fundamental change in the graphics and the excitment of moving on from older coding and graphics. That's a long way from stating it would be perfect. Again, you take claims of excitment to claims of perfection. Stop conflating.

1 hour ago, maniamcool said:

Good to see some honest reviews from people with real world experience 

It's truly an insult to aviation to call FS2020 "next gen". Simulators should go beyond eye candy, otherwise it's just another game. 

 

With your logic than you must think we been getting insulted since the early days when no new edition has been perfect. 

10 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Yeah, who needs ATC to make noise and for cockpit switches to work, anyway?!

Did I say anything remotely even like that? Nope.

There is a developer forum specifically where you can and should report any serious problems you've found. It's not hard to find, there is even a link to it in the flight simulator itself where Asobo ask you for feedback right next to the link for it.

But forget that eh? Instead you go ahead and whine about it here on another pointless ten page ill-informed, entitled, drama queen fest, instead of using the appropriate method to report glitches you think are there, which might actually then get some attention from the people in a position to address it.

Edited August 19, 20205 yr by Chock

2 hours ago, mtr75 said:

In a real 152 you can basically put your feet on the floor after liftoff.

This is news to me. Always needed plenty of rudder all the way up to cruise. Sometimes still a little at cruise, even.

1 hour ago, bonchie said:

BTW, it’s not “p-factor” that’s causing the left turning tendency on the initial takeoff roll. It’s torque. P-factor is what causes adverse yaw at high angles of attack, i.e. the climb or in a tail wheel aircraft. That’s why the plane requires even more rudder after rotation. P-factor is definitely not overdone in the climb. 

If we are gonna rant about “real pilots” and the flight model, let’s at least get our terms right. 

Right, I've flown the 152 alot and I've never experienced what the op stated. I know from other sims, if you slam the throttle the plane will veer to the left. With the 152 I ease into the throttle hold my rudder and have no problems taking off 

To anyone who is saying they have 'flown a 152' and is claiming something is wrong with the sim version, be aware that this is like saying 'I've driven a car and my car is silver, so that yellow car in that racing game is wrong'.

So if you are bug reporting, state which model of F/C150/152/A you flew, preferably with its year of manufacture and equipment; if you really 'have flown' one, this will not be hard to determine because its registration will be in your log book.

There were nearly 8,000 152s built over almost a decade of production, at two different production facilities, on two different continents, and about 24,000 150s built over two decades with a similarly widespread production. So you've got ones with US-manufactured Continental O-200s, ones with European-made Rolls Royce Continental O-200s, and both with occasionally Continental O-240s fitted. Many which are around these days don't have their original engine either, so there's that too

Then there are available mods to all of these which can alter their weight and power output, plus different airframe modifications available which alter the stall and cruise speed, beside there being six main airframe variants, of which two main variants are stressed for higher G tolerance and weigh a significantly different amount. This doesn't even get into the many more sub variants there are and little manufacturing changes which crept in over a two decade production run

Then there's two variants of Cessna 152 in the sim itself, one of which is based on a Reims F152A which would have had the Rolls Royce 240 engine when new, but might have had a replacement since production stopped in '85.

Thus your bug report to Asobo may or may not be relevant to the aeroplane(s) they used for reference.

 

 

Edited August 19, 20205 yr by Chock

5 minutes ago, Chock said:

Thus your bug report to Asobo may or may not be relevant to the aeroplane(s) they used for reference.

Perhaps that's so...but tbh from what I've seen & heard thus far it would surprise me to find out that Asobo took the flight modeling of each plane to such a minute level.

Edited August 19, 20205 yr by hangar

18 minutes ago, hangar said:

Perhaps that's so...but tbh from what I've seen & heard thus far it would surprise me to find out that Asobo took the flight modeling of each plane to such a minute level.

Maybe. The point is that it is quite subjective in many ways. Some pilots are ham-fisted, some not, some aeroplanes fly well, others of the same type are dogs which are a complete @rse-ache to trim. Everyone who has flown at clubs where there's more than one of the same type will tell you that they have their 'favourite one' which they'd prefer to get time on.

I used to try to avoid one plane at my club because it had a wooden grip on the control column which I didn't like, another type was really posh inside, but I didn't like the rudder pedal arrangement, so was happy to let other people get that one and think they were getting the better deal.

So even if Asobo's guys were not intending to go into super detail, if they flew a Reims F152A which had the wingtip mod that reduces the stall speed and improves the cruise speed, and they'd never flown any other 150/152, they might think they're all like that.

The youngest 150/152, is at least 35 years old; that's a lot of time for an aeroplane to get modded and have its quirks. Lots of people on Avsim etc, who have the new sim, weren't even born when Cessna stopped making the things.

I can remember flying one aeroplane which had a really stiff and quite hard to operate trimmer. I got used to it and I thought that's what they must be like on all of them. Then I flew another one one day, and then another, and that's when I realised the one I had been flying first was a bit cr@p, although being the first one of that type I'd flown, I still kind of liked it anyway. Planes are weird like that. You end up with your favourites for all kinds of reasons, lots of which don't even stand up to any logic. 🤣

Edited August 19, 20205 yr by Chock

3 hours ago, Sabretooth78 said:

Also, is it just me, or is there a complete lack of navigational hazards,..? 

It's absolute nonsense to suggest that MSFS does not include navigation hazards, Sabretooth.

See, here's one they included on the active runway at one of my standard test airports, EGDR: