The default aircraft make a good introduction to various aircraft, and especially for newbies can open the doors to a bigger experience (PMDG et al).  That said, the default aircraft need to do what they do perfectly, some bugs and performance problems exist right now especially with the airlines right now.  It's fine to have limited system scope in the default aircraft, but that limited scope has to work.  I hope Asobo will be able to put some resource into addressing such bugs and performance.

I'll probably be alone in saying this, but I used to get a lot of mileage out of the default 737 in FSX.  As others have said, there are some days when you don't have the energy for something more than "jump in and go".

Edited August 22, 20205 yr by flying_w

53 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Really! did not know that, thank you.

Yeah just save the route from Simbrief onto the PC and then you can load it in via MSFS.

16 minutes ago, MarkSC said:

This. Don’t listen to the snobs. The default planes are adequate for what they are. The full realism planes will be quite costly (more than the sim itself). That’s fine for those who are into the full realism experience, but the default planes are great if you understand their limitations and what MS is trying to accomplish in bringing flight to the masses. 

Right on. Couldn't agree more. And frankly, quite a lot of the snobs who bang on about anything which doesn't have the initials PMDG emblazoned on it not being any use, have never even been anywhere goddam near the cockpit of an airliner.

GA planes are okay and work well. Airliners / Jets are horrible, checklists are lacking (a simple GA plane has a longer checklist than the 787) and 70% of the switch are inoperable, but even worst than that, the very few operable ones are totally bugged (autopilot).

Even the X-Plane Default 737 was better at release. 

I don't care if default aircrafts are not study level, but basic features like autopilots should work. 

Edited August 22, 20205 yr by Aaron555

29 minutes ago, Chock said:

Right on. Couldn't agree more. And frankly, quite a lot of the snobs who bang on about anything which doesn't have the initials PMDG emblazoned on it not being any use, have never even been anywhere goddam near the cockpit of an airliner.

Plus it's a myth that PMDG has some amazing flight modeling. They have amazing systems modeling.

Leaving a comment from a pilot here:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/real-world-pilots-please-state-your-feedback-about-the-flight-model/150771/94

"ATP with 13 000 hours, rated on quite a few of the types in the sim, currently on B738’s. I have about 1000 hours instructing on C172’s which is probably the most relevant…and I must say, it really feels like flying a light aircraft all over again. Far, far better feel than my past experience of FS (all the way from the original, to P3D), but I’ve never owned Xplane, only played the demo’s.

I did not try and match the aircraft performance to the handbook (fuel burn, exact power settings vs airspeed etc). So I can’t comment on how close you could get with real manual flight planning, but off the top of my head, the numbers all seem to match up close enough with what I remember. I especially like the feel of how the aircraft bobs around, but you can still trim it out nicely. I will say that a good control setup is critical. Real aircraft often require only the slightest pressure on the controls to enact a change, so to somebody who is only getting the same artificial spring pressure at any airspeed, they will feel very twitchy at times. Make sure you’ve got accurate sensors in your controls, and good feel around the null points (especially true for pitch and yaw controllers). In summary, FS may not hit all the number exactly, and may not do everything brilliantly at the edge of the envelope, but to me it really feels like flying light aircraft again, as well as sims can do it that is.

I won’t bother to comment on the airliners - I’m not rated on Airbii, but it’s obviously not close, neither is the 787 or 747. Those are very system and automation heavy aircraft, and default aircraft in FS have always been bad in that regard. They tend to make them overpowered as well. The biggest fault for me is how badly they fly on automation, which is itself very poorly modelled in any case (lacking many, many features of the real thing which makes your life much easier in reality). I also haven’t experimented with the ‘auto co-pilot’ thing (I seem to remember reading about that somewhere) because in reality they are explicitly made for multi-crew operation. I know people enjoy flying airliners, but I do that for a living so I focus on light aircraft in the sim, plus FS simply can’t really do what takes a full crew in reality to do very plausibly (for me).

But wow…the scenery. I’ve spent many hours now flying in darkest Africa, catching up on my days flying contracts in Twin Otters and 1900’s in weird and wonderful places for the UN WFP and ICRC. I could see the dirt roads I used to have to drive on to reach the fields I flew from, and everything immediately felt familiar. What they’ve done is simply incredible. True VFR, anywhere (so far for me). Incredible lighting as well."

 

Considering who the real target audience is, I think MSFS got it right. Their default models are the best in the business.

12 minutes ago, airlinejets said:

Considering who the real target audience is, I think MSFS got it right. Their default models are the best in the business.

I think they will be once obvious faults get patched, certainly some issues with the more complicated stuff - but in terms of looks, they are great !!

 

G

And sounds. The third party developers will have to step up if they want to match the default sounds. 

Carenado, does it ring a bell ? very nice but word not allowed in systems.

Don't know if it was mentioned, but NO animated doors on the default aircraft???