Thought this was interesting:

 

Nice video.  Seems like this real life 172 pilot is happy with how the 172 performs in the game.  In general, a lot of real life GA pilots think some of the GA planes in MSFS perform quite well compared to the real life planes: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/real-world-pilots-please-state-your-feedback-about-the-flight-model/150771/110

The one thing that Asobo needs to improve are the airliners.  It's the airliners that most pilots are unhappy with, especially the real life airline pilots.  For the airliners, we will have to wait for the 3rd parties to come out with decent performing airliners that behave like the airliners do in real life (disclaimer: I am not a real life pilot, but I continue to  read the comments from real world pilots and I have asked many real life pilots on live streams as well on their opinion of the MSFS flight model).

Edited August 23, 20205 yr by abrams_tank

I see blurries in the real life video, they need to fix that....

I think they simply stretched themselves too thin with modelling 40 aircraft.

They should have done 6 to 8, and then do these to perfection. A trainer, a dual prop, an aerobat, a turboprop, a bizzjet, an airliner, an ultralight and one vintage.

48 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I think they simply stretched themselves too thin with modelling 40 aircraft.

They should have done 6 to 8, and then do these to perfection. A trainer, a dual prop, an aerobat, a turboprop, a bizzjet, an airliner, an ultralight and one vintage.

I agree with your line up. Part of the issue right now is also expectations and that sits squarely on the individual.  The people who are complaining about the Airbus are experienced simmers.  They are comparing it against years old products that are designed specifically to simulate an Airbus.  If you expect the same results out of an overall simulation platform as you do for a plane-specific title, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Period.   Not the same with the C172, however.  This is a very basic, commonly a trainer, owned by private pilots,  style of aircraft.  Much simpler to model and more prevalent in use.  Expectations are and should be higher from the base sim.  Save a couple of small bugs, FS meets the expectations.  I think for now, you'll found low and slow GA simmers are much more satisfied than the tubeliner simmers.   Those were my expectations and they were met.

Edited August 23, 20205 yr by dpcnh1
typo

I agree. I did not expet the tubeliners to be any better than the ones that were previously available in FSX as default.

And I was not wrong. They look better, but the most important part, the flight management computer that knows how to fly the aircraft, commands the autothrottle correctly, calculates TOD and all that jazz, is still so basic that one might as well fly without it. I just had to hand fly the transition to final in Barcelona because the Airbus' autopilot decided to take a nap.

2 hours ago, Farlis said:

I agree. I did not expect the tubeliners to be any better than the ones that were previously available in FSX as default.

And in fact, they included systems and options like weight and balance etc, (to be cleaned up later) that beat that default by orders of magnitude.

3 hours ago, stigt said:

I see blurries in the real life video, they need to fix that....

There was probably a few tall trees in that real life video too my may off missed 🤣😂🤣 needs to be fix too . 

2 hours ago, Farlis said:

I agree. I did not expet the tubeliners to be any better than the ones that were previously available in FSX as default.

And I was not wrong. They look better, but the most important part, the flight management computer that knows how to fly the aircraft, commands the autothrottle correctly, calculates TOD and all that jazz, is still so basic that one might as well fly without it. I just had to hand fly the transition to final in Barcelona because the Airbus' autopilot decided to take a nap.

I said this before. To me looked like the idea was to make this default Airplanes alot better . Some of us noticed the earlier than expected release. Even at the state this planes came out there are miles ahead of what we know as default Airplanes . In the last version of the default airliners the fmc was a blury thing to look at . You can now actually get to press something in it . Im sure if they want to this few airlines can be ironed out to be a more realistic renditions of the actual airplane. They just need to be fixed 

This is what can be achieved when there are actual advancements in the rendering engine instead of just pawing off this weird Ortho obsession to end users.

Even with it's initial flaws this gentleman seems to not have a great deal of issue.  His videos are quite good and I found myself quite interested even though I tend to keep to single pilot rated aircraft.

 

 

I’m very happy with the default 152 and 172. I have a lot of r/w hours in both, and though the MSFS versions are not A2A quality, neither do they have any serious flight model flaws. There have been many posts on various forums by other pilots with r/w experience in both that are generally in agreement.

I am also very pleased with the TBM. It is the best-modeled turboprop of the three currently in the sim. It hand-flies very nicely, and it has the most refined G-xxxx implementation of any of the current Garmin cockpits. It seems to fly close to book spec for takeoff, climb, cruise, descent and approach performance, at least in terms of airspeeds. The autopilot performance  is very stable, and all functions work except VNAV, which is not yet implemented.

There is a bug causing ITT over temperature if the engine is started using the POH procedure, but it not a show-stopper by any means.

I’ve flown the CJ-4 once, and did not like it at all. It is massively over-powered, and burns fuel at double the r/w rate. It also has a working thrust reverser, even though the real CJ-4 does not. Someone else speculated that it almost seems like the CJ-4 has the flight model that was supposed to to go in the Longitude.

I have not tried the Longitude itself yet, but will do so soon

I have not tried any of the airliners in the release version. I was underwhelmed by the Airbus and 747 in the beta, and both had some serious autopilot bugs, which appear to have been fixed. From what I have seen in YouTube videos, the 787 appears to be the best airliner of the three, and I will try it for myself shortly.

18 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

I’m very happy with the default 152 and 172. I have a lot of r/w hours in both, and though the MSFS versions are not A2A quality, neither do they have any serious flight model flaws. There have been many posts on various forums by other pilots with r/w experience in both that are generally in agreement.

I am also very pleased with the TBM. It is the best-modeled turboprop of the three currently in the sim. It hand-flies very nicely, and it has the most refined G-xxxx implementation of any of the current Garmin cockpits. It seems to fly close to book spec for takeoff, climb, cruise, descent and approach performance, at least in terms of airspeeds. The autopilot performance  is very stable, and all functions work except VNAV, which is not yet implemented.

There is a bug causing ITT over temperature if the engine is started using the POH procedure, but it not a show-stopper by any means.

I’ve flown the CJ-4 once, and did not like it at all. It is massively over-powered, and burns fuel at double the r/w rate. It also has a working thrust reverser, even though the real CJ-4 does not. Someone else speculated that it almost seems like the CJ-4 has the flight model that was supposed to to go in the Longitude.

I have not tried the Longitude itself yet, but will do so soon

I have not tried any of the airliners in the release version. I was underwhelmed by the Airbus and 747 in the beta, and both had some serious autopilot bugs, which appear to have been fixed. From what I have seen in YouTube videos, the 787 appears to be the best airliner of the three, and I will try it for myself shortly.

Agree....

 

2 hours ago, dpcnh1 said:

Even with it's initial flaws this gentleman seems to not have a great deal of issue.  His videos are quite good and I found myself quite interested even though I tend to keep to single pilot rated aircraft.

 

So for me, this is already pretty word not allowed functional for a first time try at a complex aircraft from a game company.

For others, its not top line PMDG on the first try, so its word not allowed and other negative pejoratives.

I wonder what would happen if PMDGs first attempt at a plane was put out on the market today?

Would the company even have survived to get better, after the community got through excoriating it? 🤔

Edited August 23, 20205 yr by HiFlyer